This past reading was a wake up call however. You never really stop to think about the torture that the cow had to endure before ending up on your plate next to a fry and drink. The only thing we really care about it is how delicious this cow it. After reading this section however, it would make me think about these things when picking out an entree.
Out of the three options that Kohak/Singer describe, I would have to chose the second one... that there is no compromise. Animals are just as important to our entire ecosystem as we are. Not only are they an important role in helping it, they are also not the ones destroying it -- we are. Who is putting dangerous chemicals in the air, hurting the humans AND the animals? We are. Who is spilling oil in someone else's home? We are. The animals are just trying to survive the best they can with what are already limiting them to. Does that give us a right to just push them aside and continue to destroy, not only their homes, but themselves. On top of everything we are doing to hurt the animals, does it really seem right that we kill them as well?
I realize that we also need to survive, but obviously we are completely capable of surviving without the meat from a baby calf. I truly believe animals have emotions and feel them as strongly as we do. What if you were a mom and had to sit and watch your baby get slaughtered just so someone could eat?
Referring to animals as slaves is the best picture I can think of -- when i was driving on the highway I saw a truck that smelled horrible, and when I passed it little baby piglets were piled all on each other, in their own feces, and at that point in time I realized they were going to be slaughtered. This is the exact image of slaves most people picture -- them being placed in small places with tons of them and not clean at all. If we abolish slavery because it is wrong, how is that any different than abolishing "animal slavery." Just because they don't communicate like we do, or walk on 2 feet?
No comments:
Post a Comment