Quote:
Quote by: kubedawg  Let me also ask you a serious question. |
From that, I guess that means all your other questions were not serious, right -- or why even bother to seperate the two comparatively? That is whay I mean by "red herring" -- often said to obfuscate.
Quote:
|
If we removed all the acts of violence, this includes suffering, from these animals, would you agree to the killing of animals for human benefit? For us to eat?
|
Your question seems premised on an oxymoran. How can you remove violence from killing? You mean like letting them die of old age and then eating them?
No, killing or using another animal for human benefit is exploitation and within exploitation there is suffering. When one does not own one`s life to do with it what they wish, to satisfy their natural urges, to have their natural urges not frustrated, the environment for suffering is created. Can you show us any real life setting where from "captive birth to killing" for exploitaton does not result in suffering? Where is the Utopia you are alluding to in your "if" game scenario? It doesn`t exist and is improbable to exist because the business of depriving a being of their ownership by themselves for the benefit of another causes suffering. Suffering is inherant with depriving another of their nature and leading that to exploitation. If it weren`t, then a case for slavery could still be made. After all, I guess there were a few kind slavemasters.
Quote:
|
If all recreational hunting were banned, would you still agree to the killing of animals for our benefit?
|
You mean like in a survival situation where a tribe still lives in the Amazon or Arctic Circle? Are you playing on the anomalies of the world?