thank you. i feel like i have ammo now.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't actually address a response to the question, "What about compassionate killing?", but rather points out that concessions such as promoting and consuming "humane" animal products provide a smoke-screen of victory when the real concern is the ethical/moral one.

So, provided every animal is treated humanely, what is amoral/unethical about the quick, painless, and arguably purposeful slaughtering of said animal? That will be the question to respond to.

I am not trolling.

But my favorite quote from the article: "Simultaneously, the focus of public dialogue irrevocably shifts from the questionable morality of using and killing animals, to an elaborate, endless wrangle over how the deed will be done—conditions, treatment, standards and regulation."

In other words, let's keep our beef like our abortions: safe, legal, and rare!

You ask, "What is [imm]moral/ unethical about the quick, painless, and arguably purposeful slaughtering of said
animal?"

To see better answers, you might first ask that question about yourself: What is [imm]moral/ unethical about the quick, painless, and arguably purposeful slaughtering of YOU?

Push these answers as far as they will go and you'll get answers that apply to animals.

Devil's advocate:

Yes, but I'm a special kind of animal, a human. Humans should not be killed precisely because they're rational and have the right to life and other stuff. In other words, I should not be killed because I can articulate my wish not to be.

Non-human animals are not like this, therefore they can be killed.

Jdawe-Is this really your position? I certainly hope not, insofar as it entails ZERO protection for the rights of severely retarded human beings and others who happen not to be able, for whatever reason, to "articulate" their wish not to be killed. Fetuses spring to mind as a group of beings that, on your view, we may painlessly slaughter with impunity. But I doubt you really think this.

No, clearly I don't. What I'm looking for is the articulation of an argument against "humane" animal consumption that the article in the original posting laid out.

I guess in some way, I'm not convinced that is morally wrong to slaughter an animal in a cruelty-free way for the utility of humans. Yet at the same time I think it is good to abstain.

My comment posts take a long time to get approved. Is there a way they can be automatically approved?

How about this case: someone sneaks up behind stray dogs to "painlessly" kill them. They do this for the pleasure of doing so, not for any kind of "necessity." Has this person done anything wrong?

If so, then it'd seem to be wrong to do the same to chickens, cows and pigs, since that's done merely for the pleasure of eating them.

Re: Veganalytic's last comment.

1) The pleasure from sneaking up behind stray dogs is different than the pleasure of killing farm animals for food. In the first case, the necessity is the pleasure. In the second, the necessity is for the food. They are different utilities.

2) Arguably, the animals could be eaten for nutritional value primarily, leaving the potential pleasure as secondary.

Let me rephrase 1)

The pleasure from sneaking up behind stray dogs is different than the pleasure of eating farm animals for food. In the first case, the pleasure is the sole reason, motivation, and necessity. In the second, the necessity is for the food, which may or may not result in pleasure. They are different utilities.

not to sidestep jdawe's question, but my hesitancies about veganism doesn't relate to killing, but relates to animal byproducts. Obviously different folks take different stances on this, but for those of you on here who are vegan: can you conceive of a world in which humans used animal byproducts (wool, eggs, milk, etc.) without moral compromise? if not, why? if so, what would the conditions of this world be?

Veganalytic was having trouble posting the following comment, so I am posting it on his behalf:

To quickly respond to jdawe:

Change the dog example so the pleasure isn't from killing the dog per se,
but from something else that requires even painlessly killing the dog
for. e.g., http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~norcross/Puppies.htm
">
suppose someone couldn't experience the taste of chocolate unless she got
some chemical from a dog's brain, which requires killing the dog.
Wouldn't kiling that dog be wrong, even if it were done "painlessly"? You'd
say, "Yes, because the value of experiencing the taste of chocolate ‑‑ which
is totally unnecessary ‑‑ is frivolous compared to the value of the animal's
life" and other similar things. But if that's so, then the exact same thing
can be said about animal products in general. Consider the position
statement of the ADA in their seventeen‑page review of the recent nutrition
research:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. . . Well‑planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. . . A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. . . Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.

Pleasures from killing the dog to satisfy your desire for the gustatory
pleasure of eating chocolate are in the same boat as pleasures from eating
the body parts of chickens, pigs and cows. Right? :)

To briefly respond to jbethc, this is the kind of world it'd be:

For more info on these points, come to the Wake Up Weekend and see Peaceable
Kingdom and Wegmans Cruelty. Both films give good information about the
dairy/veal and egg/chicken soup/nugget industries.

Clearly, it is wrong to kill any animal, farm animals or otherwise, for pleasure--even if the pleasure is a secondary motivation (e.g. to eating). As you rightly point out, there is no necessity in eating animals (or using their byproducts) ever. Therefore, it is always good to abstain.

However, my question is now: Is the killing of a non-human animal equivalent to the killing of a human animal? If so, how? If not, is the killing of different kinds of non-human animals equivalent? If so, how?

Finally, would it be right to call common, American lifestyle meat-eating sinful?

Thanks for the article and the responses.

About killing humans and killing animals, one important thing is to be precise: which humans and which animals are you talking about? Humans and animals come a wide variety of mental capacities, consciousness, sentience, etc. So, e.g., would it be worse to kill a permanently comotose human being (one that has no chance of recovery) over a healthy dog or cow? Probably not since the dog and cow has much more to lose.

These and many more questions are discussed in this local GR course (are there other courses somewhere?). And much has been written about them also.

About killing animals for these purposes being sinful, since I'm not sure what *in general* makes something sinful, I don't know what to say. When is an action or practice sinful?

it appears the comments feature is fixed!! :)