“There is no happy ending for even the most humanely raised animal. And there is no good reason to breed, confine and kill animals for food unless we believe that economic benefit justifies killing. More and more people do not. We call ourselves vegetarians.”

wrote Patti Breitman. Thank you, Patti, indeed, there is no good reason to breed, confine, and kill animals for food.

“You argue that we must treasure a ‘cultural and historical bond’ between us and those we eat. But that bond is based on exploitation and abuse.”

“If domesticated animals ‘exist only because of the uses we have found for them,’ let me ask you: Would you have recommended 150 years ago that we preserve and treasure the bond between whites and their black slaves — and develop a more humane slave trade?”

wrote Vadim Liberman. Thank you, Vadim. True, our exploitation of animals is immoral and should be abolished regardless of historical or cultural significance. Ethics trump history and culture. Period.

In fact, the Times editorial is NOT about ethics regarding human-animal interaction. Nope, the editorial is a crude and illogical justification for the human tendency to exploit and abuse.

I wrote a deeper analysis and deconstruction of the Times editorial here:
http://www.elainevigneault.com/deconstructing-meat-propaganda.html

And I sent a letter to the Times, too. Their email address is: letters@nytimes.com

“This has often seemed as if it were the logical conclusion of some radical animal-rights activists: better for animals not to exist at all if there is a chance that they would suffer.”

I wrote a post about statements like this here:

http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg/2008/04/an-interest-in-being-born.html

Interests prior to conception – that doesn’t even make any sense. Peter Singer also responds to this by substituting a young boy for an animal currently suffering in animal agriculture and asks, “Is it really moral to bring this boy into the world just so he has the chance to exist?”

The NYTimes writer also wrote:

“It will be a barren world if the herds and flocks disappear in favor of meat grown in a laboratory tank.”

This is absurd, vegans believe that we owe direct duties to those animals currently in existence, which would result (in a “vegan-world”) in the prevalence of large flocks of animals because those animals currently being exploited would be allowed to exist independent of our intervention – this would be respectful treatment and vegans believe we ought to treat all sentient beings with respect. Land limitations and over-population might necessitate some controlled reproduction; however, many animals would be able to reproduce naturally. Ergo, our world would not be barren; in fact, those “herds and flocks” would be existing far more peacefully in these idealic settings the Times writer imagines, which ought to make this writer appreciate life and nature even more.

Alex’s last blog post..An animal Bill of Rights?