Consumption is Justification

In response to Jess - full post here

I agree with the main point of your essay; there is essentially no difference between sacrificing animals and slaughtering them for consumption. I find it amazing that people could be so offended by animal sacrifice, but not blink an eye at the slaughterhouses in America. I suppose the problem with animal sacrifice is largely its association with barbaric tribal practices of the past; people who practice sarcophagy, it seems, are offended when people don't use animals explicitly for consumption. Modern Western society seems to justify meat consumption at the expense of severe animal cruelty.

I do disagree, however, with the view that we cannot get rid of slaughterhouses. Society is made up of individuals. The slaughterhouses will all fail if the majority, and preferably all of humanity, agrees that vegetarianism is preferable to the consumption of meat. You did miss a key point in that whole section about animals consuming other animals: not all animals consume other animals. As omnivores, we don't actually have to consume animal flesh; actually, humans are more biologically similar to herbivores than most other omnivores. As such, slaughterhouses are not necessary, but are, rather, a luxury of sorts.

I think that if a person is against animal abuse, they should become vegetarian. If a person finds that kicking a dog is unacceptable, they should be appropriately moved to find the slaughter of the more intelligent pigs to be equally, or perhaps more, unacceptable.