Netyaroze on 02 December 2011
| ArnoldRimmer said: I don't see the problem. With the exception of endangered scecies, I see no relevant moral difference between eating one animal or any other. Eating cats or dogs for example only seems cruel in those parts of the world where those animals are popular as pets, causing people to have closer emotional relationships to these species than others. But from a purely rational point of view, there is hardly any moral difference in killing chicken or horses. In fact, one might even argue that eating horses is morally better: Because to get the same amount of meat as from killing one single horse, you'd have to kill dozens or even hundreds of chicken, so eating horses might result in less animal pain. |
Chickens have a very small and primitive Brain. A horse brain is more complex then a chicken brain therefor the suffering is way more developed in a horse. Humans suffer the most because they realize the full extent of suffering and have way more ways to suffer then just pain. Insects/jellyfish never suffer because they react but dont realize what suffering even is. A suffering chicken is in way less agony then a horse just the neural activities in the brain will show that. So you cant make this equation 100 chicken suffering > Horse suffering. We have no way of measuring agony we only know that the more complex the brain the more complex the process of suffering is.
