Comm Arts II: In Animal Liberation Peter Singer quotes a pork producer as he explains his pigs’ response to having their tails cut off. They hate it! The pigs just hate it! And I suppose we could probably do without tail-docking if we gave them more room, because they don’t get so crazy and mean when they have more space. With enough room they’re actually quite nice animals. But we can’t afford it. These buildings cost a lot. (121)
I sense that this farmer would prefer to treat his pigs humanely, if only he could “afford it.” Well, if you’re not rich I’m sure you know what it’s like not to be able to afford something. But does economic necessity justify inhumane treatment? Is there really any such thing as economic necessity? I can’t afford a Jaguar, but that doesn’t make it okay for me to use unethical means to obtain one. It just means I do without.
In the same way, if the only way to profitably raise pigs these days is to torture them, shouldn’t that mean we should simply do without factory-farmed pork? Isn’t the farmer really saying “We can’t afford to raise pigs ethically, so we do it unethically”? And isn’t that the same as my saying, “I can’t afford to own a Jaguar ethically, so I’ve obtained one unethically”?
Friday, February 27
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
If farmers could "afford" to have more room for the pigs so that their tails do not get cut off then why cant or wont they just have less pigs. I understand that there is a demand for pork however giving pigs more room to be pigs is for the best. If the pigs had more room they would not nibble on eachothers tails and turn into cannibals. Torturing a pig just so the people can have meet is insane. If you give the animal more room then the farmer will not have to make inhumane sacrafices.
Since farmers are able to afford to have these big buildings and what not, how would it hurt them to have fewer pigs in each of the buildings? There are complications when the tails of the pigs arent cut off properly, and that is just inhumane to do to them. If the farmers have to go to that extreme just so that the pigs dont bite each others tails they should rethink how many pigs they have. ITs insane that people would go to that extreme just that we could have pork.
well as a failing capitalist i would say its excesive. however, i have learned that economic necessity isn't a form of basic needs. An example of this would be the american standard of living most foriegn countries would find excesive. my point being that i would asume most student would find their situation below par and yet this far superior to any other country. so i propose question: What should we compromise our luxaries or humanity. and i would remind you we all are here to improve our live corect?
I really do not think that it is right for the farmers to cut the pig's tails. I also do not think that it is right to have the pigs stuck together on a small place. No matter how much money people need it is not necessary to hurt animals. Even when we do not have money or everything we need we still have enough space to move around we are free to do whatever we want so it is so unfair that they do that to the animals. It is like what they do to the chickens..... they debeak them that is just going to far. People can survive off other things they do not need to eat meet.
I agree that if a farmer wants to be ethical it should have less pigs with more room,so they are less agressive and possibly the meat might taste better because of the attention to the needs of the pigs.which in turn would produce less profit but the people would feel better.art is fun..
ok, no, having financial hardship does not mean you still do something because its "neccesary". I believe that all of these pork farmers have plenty of money to expand but choose not to because they are addicted to the plenty of green they see. This green clealy had blinded them from the red that is spilt after tail-docking. If there are companies not suffering from economic hardship it has to be the factory farmers.
Well, we could find a better way to do it and I do agree with Singer in this case. I think that the pigs should at least get more room. If there is no way to stop factory farming from happening at least make it an ethical practice. The price should have nothing to do with it though, if we don't have the money for it then we shouldn't do it at all.
I agree with that. If farmers can not afford to raise pigs ethically they shouldn't do it at all. It is wrong to torture animals such as pigs just to obtain profits and luxuries for yourself. It is very selfish. Howeer, from another view point the farmer probably has a family and responsibilities to take care of financially and maybe if he decreased how many pigs he farmed he would not be able to provide for his family? I am not justifying his actions to any point it is in anyone's eye's wrong but you have to take into consideration the different situations these farmers are in. But definately, decreasing pig amount or building more space for the pigs is the best idea.
Of course famers most likely want to humanely take care of their pigs. We all know that its hard to afford the best sometimes but we cant deal with things unethically just because its not affordable. Why can't it simply be as easy as putting fewer pigs in the buildings like the statement made before? They are making things too complicated and it's causing unnecessary sacrifices.
tourchering the pig is wrong. Cuting off their tails is wrong and cruel to animals. But hmans don't see that they just see bacon. But in genreal they are wrong and insane people that need to grow up and stop giving pain like little kids.
the thing is who is to say that pigs even need their tails? its not that i dont agree that they need more room, but really who thinks about a pigs stupid tail? they dont need them.
Post a Comment