6 ms·
Ok, but the fact that kosher rights were “first to the party” does not inform us about whether they are the optimum solution; at most, to the fact that their po
by harperlee 6y ago
Ok, but the fact that kosher rights were “first to the party” does not inform us about whether they are the optimum solution; at most, to the fact that their position, given that we have globally approached it over the years, might be partially good.
And, as you touch upon, religious rites do not (solely) search for the solution that is most humane for the animal; they also take into consideration the religious value of the experience for third parties. But that means that, all else being equal, secular slaughtering processes, as they do not seek ritual values, should be more free to converge to the most humane solution.
- philtar 6y ago"I want to kill you, but I want to do it nicely." - Humans to cows.
- harperlee 6y agoPithy, but most people would agree torture prior to death is morally wrong.
- alisonkisk 6y agoMost people would agree (in principle, not in observed behavior) that torture and murder are both wrong, as is torture before the few minutes before death.
- harperlee 6y agoPlease try to read posts charitatively, it adds up to better conversations. We all have limited time. The point was that most people see torture plus murder worse than a quick murder, and that should be clearly analogous to your ironic cite, that I read as pointing out the supposed hypocrisy of making a slauthering “ethical”. Different ways to kill, be it human or animal, even if we agree they are unethical, are not unethical in the same degree.
- alisonkisk 6y agoSecular processes have pressures too, such as the pressure to optimize costs, or maximize safety to humans.
- Thorrez 6y agoThe optimum solution might very well cost a billion dollars. A search for optimum while criticizing everything else seems like it's letting the perfect get in the way of the good. > secular slaughtering processes, as they do not seek ritual values, should be more free to converge to the most humane solution. Ok, but is there any reason it would converge to a humane solution at all? How strong is the market pressure in that direction? Jewish people are willing to pay a price premium to get a specific type of slaughter. Are secular people willing to pay a similarly-large price premium to get humane slaughter?
- harperlee 6y agoThat’s a good point. I would be more inclined to argue that people, individually, would not pay the premium of ethical slaughter. But on the other hand there is a growing tendency to consider the impact of eating animals, to the point that McDonalds is adding vegetable burgers to their menus (as shared here yesterday).