by James » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:43 pm
Why do the people who enslave pigs not see the pigs as being the intelligible holders of rights? Why do they feel that they do not have to take pigs' interests, desires, wants, sufferings, etc. seriously? What would it take for them to be able to see meaning in animal suffering? To try to reduce the obscurity of that last question: why do they see human suffering as meaningful, but animal suffering as meaningless, or as having meaning only in some very attenuated sense? Do they feel pity for the animals they exploit, or see being exploited? If not, why not? Have they become desensitized to animal suffering through their exposure to it on a daily basis? Or, if they feel pity, what prevents them from acting on it? Do they have no choice? Can they not get another job? Do they react to other animals, e.g. "pets," with sensitivity and pity? Do they notice an inconsistency here, and if so, how do they rationalize to themselves their inconsistent behavior?
Also, are the welfare regulations adhered to? (We know that they are routinely broken but you could still ask them about this) Do the slaughterhouse workers know what the welfare regulations are? Do they feel that there is any point adhering to any regulations re: the animal welfare, given that the animals have been raised in horrendous conditions and are to be killed and "disassembled" anyway? Have their jobs affected their moral perception of animals? Do they believe that animals should be treated better? Or do they think that we treat animals fairly, or at any rate that our use of them does not, per se, raise a moral issue?
