Commentaires choisis en réponse à un texte de Peter Singer
« The abuse of animals won’t stop until we stop eating meat » – Peter Singer – The Guardian, 11 fév 2015
Commentaires d’Internautes anglais…
« So you do recognise that dogs, cats and horses get abused then ? So how will us not eating meat help them? »
« the likes of singer blame violence on meat eating. very childish and simple. the likes of singer also make a good living from it. as do the heads of peta and the farm sanctuary. »
« A powerful animal advocacy movement has emerged, and it has made a difference for billions of animals.
You’re conflating the increase in animal welfare science and the increase in animal rights advocacy. Either could have caused the improvements that have been seen. You claim that the improvements were caused by the increase in animal rights advocacy, but where’s your evidence for contingency, when increasing animal welfare science was also present in the same period in the same system?
I think a distinction between mutualistic vs. exploitative symbiosis with non-human animals is a more consistently maintainable and useful distinction in practice. Much like Temple Grandin and David Fraser’s account of the history of animal welfare concern in modern Western cultures and their conclusion that a modern refinement and development of pastoralist ethics has helped improve animal welfare in practice more and would help more than spreading a rather impractical and abstractly idealistic notion of animal rights.
It’s interesting that you don’t appear to have engaged with or responded to Fraser and Grandin’s sympathetic critique of your theory and their alternative ethical theory of ethical pastoralism.
The right criterion for comparing ethical approaches to animal welfare is the results. Animal rights advocates have accumulated a reputation for glossing over important details, sometimes dishonestly bending the facts to fit their agenda rather than fitting their agenda to current actual situations and accounting for diversity in practices between areas and times, such as by circulating videos from the USA or the 50s-70s before animal welfare was drastically improved in Europe as if they were still representative of current practice in Europe.
The narrative that killing animals for meat is inherently cruel or involves necessary and inevitable suffering actually in practice hands a too easy excuse to those who can’t be bothered to care enough to do it properly without any fear or pain. I have seen it done hundreds of times without any fear or pain in the process. It is very possible. Any cases where it’s done with fear and pain in the process are unnecessary and unjustifiable.
Fundamentally I don’t believe in your version of what makes life itself valuable, whether that’s human life or non-human life. I think that’s at the essence of the difference between the animal rights view and the ethical pastoralism view of what constitutes a good life for animals in our care.
‘Natural’ animal lives are not without pain and suffering either. In fact natural death usually occurs by dental decay and parasite burden increase until starvation or predation. Being cared for in a human constructed niche and then selectively killed instantaneously and painlessly or very nearly painlessly is not really necessarily worse than a fully ‘natural’ life without human intervention. »
« There is another problem with Singer’s argument in this piece: he is deliberately conflating acts of abuse (in certain abattoirs) with the idea of meat-eating as a whole, to try to make the case that meat-eating is inherently cruel. I am not sure if that shows true intellectual integrity. »
« Would you be so happy eating your bacon sandwich immediately after a visit to the abattoir? If not, why not? We have the technology and capability to kill animals humanely and quickly, and the fact that we allow criminals to get away with cutting costs by causing extreme cruelty to animals at the point of death and throughout their short lives brings shame on us all.
That’s a very odd comment. I don’t think most abattoir employees are vegetarians or vegans (unless you know otherwise) so why would any other person have a problem with witnessing animal slaughter and eating meat. Humans have been slaughtering and witnessing the slaughter of animals for food since they have existed as humans and in most places and times that has not been nearly so humane. So why do you think « OldBoy » or any of us that do eat meat, would be any different? Or is it that you think abattoir employees are « different » or that you are « special ». I’m not quite sure what you are alluding to here. »
« More people give up being vegetarian than stick with it for life. people like meat, it’s a natural part of our diet and we are animals no more or less cruel than any other of natures creatures. To expect us to be otherwise is the ultimate in speciesism. »
« In reality animals are essential to food security, especially for poor people in arid regions. »