Wednesday, March 24


Randy Cohen, the "Ethicist" for the New York Times Magazine, has weighed in on the fur issue, and not surprisingly, finds that "there is no justification for harming animals to make something as frivolous as a fur coat." It's also, unfortunately, not surprising that he's able to see that, but dismisses the suffering of food animals. "A case can be made for some exploitation of animals -- as food or in important medical research -- when there is no meaningful alternative, and when their suffering is minimized." Yeah, but there are plenty of meaningful alternatives to eating animal products - and their suffering is rarely, if ever, "minimized." Admittedly, he only says "a case can be made" for it, and I guess I'd respond that "a case can be made" against it, too. But it's funny how the ethics of causing pain and suffering to animals for something as frivolous as a particular habitual food taste escapes even our deepest media thinkers. (Via Fund for Animals)

No comments: