One of the main arguments that I make is that although…
““One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans. A follow-up question that I often get is: “What about vivisection? Surely that use of animals is not merely for our pleasure, is it?” Vivisection, Part One: The “Necessity” of Vivisection | Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
The argument claims most animal suffering is justified by human pleasure, exposing a moral inconsistency termed “moral schizophrenia”.
In simple terms: We harm animals for pleasure, contradicting moral claims.
Key Takeaway
Align actions with ethical beliefs about animal welfare.
Themes
ethics
animal rights
morality
human behavior
Mood
critical
concerned
Type
ethical
activist
When to use this quote
- debating animal rights
- policy advocacy
- personal dietary choices
Key Concepts
moral inconsistency
animal exploitation
ethical justification
Questions to Reflect On
- What justifications do you accept for animal use?
- How can society reconcile pleasure with ethical treatment?
A Different Perspective
The claim may overlook nuanced contexts where animal use is debated.