tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post570242664327222367..comments2023-08-11T12:04:42.077+02:00Comments on The Church of Rationality: Let Them Eat Cows!LemmusLemmushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-33906707340635976362008-05-16T05:17:00.000+02:002008-05-16T05:17:00.000+02:00Premise 2 is wrong. Animals that are raised for me...Premise 2 is wrong. Animals that are raised for meat in factory farms have such a miserable existence that it would be better for them not to exist.John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-12387384984433856812008-04-29T21:50:00.000+02:002008-04-29T21:50:00.000+02:00"It's not easy to come up with a more horrible dea..."It's not easy to come up with a more horrible death than that."<BR/><BR/>Yes, I hadn't though about it like that. Yuck. OTOH, if the fish species <BR/>tends to be prey, it's likely that it'll be eaten alive, which is not much of an improvement.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it could be ethical to eat fish that are eaten by other creatures, and not those at the top of the food chain - although it seems a bit paradoxical.<BR/><BR/>PS: Glad you liked the "In the future" post - thank you for the link!Political Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763391741375972410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-61640336292198109072008-04-27T14:59:00.000+02:002008-04-27T14:59:00.000+02:00As for the fish, when they're caught, they suffoca...As for the fish, when they're caught, they suffocate. It's not easy to come up with a more horrible death than that. That's why I practically stopped eating fish a few years ago.<BR/><BR/>You'd also want to take into account that eating them shortens their lives.LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-13678863319909938152008-04-26T23:02:00.000+02:002008-04-26T23:02:00.000+02:00Roger Scruton has a go at a similar argument in "E...Roger Scruton has a go at a similar argument in "Eating our friends", which is a response to some of Peter Singer's thoughts.<BR/><BR/>However, he follows your line of thought in that merely living (in the sense of existence vs. non-existence) <BR/>is hardly evidence of positive utility - some fates can be worse than death. He solves this by arguing that only a "good" existence can justify raising food for consumption.<BR/><BR/>Re: fish. Although the fish are not <BR/>not alive "because they are meant to be eaten", all fish are mortal. So they will all eventually die, and the question is: is dying in the wild better/kinder/less cruel than however they die when they are caught?Political Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763391741375972410noreply@blogger.com