Wouldn it be more productive to protest against practices like bloodsports, which people are already aware of, than, say, the eating of animal products?
Every year, many animals die victims of bloodsports, but the number of animals killed for, say, food is hundreds of times bigger. The difference is overwhelming – clearly the eating of animals is what causes the greatest amount of suffering and death for nonhumans. Consequently, this issue needs to be addressed, if we want to change things significantly for animals. On the other hand, it is quite true that eating animals is more deep-rooted than bloodsports and other similar practices are. But precisely for this reason we must address the issue, if our aim is to eradicate the concept of animals as resources. Much of the criticism bloodsports receive is motivated by the “excessive” cruelty of the activity, not because it is considered bad in itself to use animals. On the other hand, few people give up eating meat while they support bloodsports.
Related Questions
- Wouldn it be more productive to protest against practices like bloodsports, which people are already aware of, than, say, the eating of animal products?
- Can I or my patients get MRSA by eating meat or dairy products from an infected/colonized animal?
- What is the definition of vegan does it only include eating meat or buying animal products?
