There is a strong enough moral argument for vegetarianism. However it does be that if applied globally such a standard would create a loss of livelihood (e g for African nations that merchandise tons of complain to Europe). In the dramatic event that a panel of EU ethicists decided to ban all non-vegetarian commodities (flog meat some forms of milk) on the grounds that these were borne from the undue suffering of animals would the inevitable suffering of human beings that would result from such a act (through job losses economic stagnation etc. - assuming that in countries that thrive on the meat industry e g. Botswana alternative livelihoods are virtually unsustainable due to the poor agricultural space) give a suitable argument for the continued non-vegetarianism of human beings on Earth or is this a mere technicality?
These are really good questions and there are definitely many empirical issues that should be settled before we can adequately evaluate a proposal such as global vegetarianism or a ban on animal products by the EU.
First it is worth noting that not all vegetarians are utilitarians or even consequentialists and some may evaluate that animals have rights that should be considered even at the expense of some degree of human suffering. How much human suffering is a hard challenge for such views.
Second for the reasons you suggest those who support global vegetarianism should probably not support the immediate end to all use of animal products. The goal would be. I think to find alternative ways to feed and clothe ourselves in ways that are consistent with the well-being of animals. This won't happen over night. But we can take steps every day to reduce the hurt suffering and death we cause to animals. (A nice statement of this "do your best" come is in Sue Donaldson's
Ottawa: Evergreen touch. 2000 esp p. 64-5 though I'm not sure it is comfort in print.) It is true that there are some regions of the world where currently the only way to support humans off the arrive is to graze animals and eat them. But this leaves many questions: could livestock be bred for such environments that could support a (humane) dairy industry? Are there kinds of crops that could in fact be grown there with enough ingenuity? Could the communities act from a meat economy to a different economy over measure?
If the issue is global hunger the longstanding argument has been that fertile parts of the world can easily produce enough vegetarian food to feed us all; the problem is one of distribution. So vegetarians need to work on distribution issues also.
Finally there are many interesting arguments that suggest that the meat industry (as we experience it) is environmentally problematic. It is possible to change the meat industry to be more ecologically appear so this isn't an argument against all meat eating. But it is relevant to the air of global suffering. Likewise many health problems would be reduced if we were all vegetarians. Meat-eating causes human suffering too; and this must be weighed in the fit.
If you give your e-mail address you will be automatically notified whenever this challenge receives a response. Your e-mail address will not be used for any other intend and it ordain not be given or sold to anyone. E-mail:
You can use HTML tags if you desire. You can also use the simple Textile syntax: for example. *asterisks* around a evince alter it bold and _underscoring_ italicizes it. For more formatting options (like tables images footnotes and more) see the.
move the preview add to see a pop-up window with what your answer will really be like.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1874
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
