Quote:
Originally Posted by WhateverDude
I think his point from the getgo was that if people are okay with killing and eating animals for selfish reasons why aren't they okay with raping an animal for selfish reasons? Is it really any less morally vacant to **** a sheep than it is to kill and eat it? I'd say both acts are atrocious and that was my argument against him. If I didn't feel that eating meat was wrong then I'd actually agree with him too, it's a pretty solid point.
|
Killing doesn't have to be immoral. Animals can be given full and healthy lives, and slaughtered in a manner that is almost completely without pain. This actually brings an example to mind; there are nomads in north western China (I believe the Xinjiang region) that give their herds long and natural lives, and then slaughter them by puncturing a blood vessel in a way that causes them to simply fall asleep and die without pain. So the morality of killing is up for debate, because it varies in each case and is always open to variables and interpretations. In fact, there are even people who choose to let animals die naturally before they eat them.
While killing can be handled in a variety of ways that allow the animal to have a life free from unnatural pain, having sex with an animal can not be accomplished without causing unnatural pain to them. There are ways to kill and eat animals without even really disturbing their natural cycle, while sex will always be exploitative of their limited intelligence.
But I can see that nobody else seems very keen to kick this argument off again, and the reason why seems readily apparent as we are just going in circles (and the topic has already been discussed in another thread), so consider this my parting shot. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Linear Mode
