"Ron" > wrote
> "Rubystars" > wrote:

> > <snip>
> > > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
when
> > > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> > > obligation to protect them.
> >
> > It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
> >
> > >If you've been following my conversation
> > > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> > > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> > > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
> >
> > I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
animals
> > for no good reason.
>
> This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
> more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
> condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
>
> The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
> acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
> to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
> would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
> argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
> the behaviour.

That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos against
using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
universal.

> My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
> very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
> if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
> animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
> requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?

Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert it,
see www.grandin.com