I have been following the story of Bill and Lou, the oxen at Green Mountain College through the James McWilliams blog. Today he has posted an opinion piece from the Rutland Herald written by a philosophy prof at GMC and I find it the most disturbing thing I have read to date: http://james-mcwilliams.com/
Here is a quote: "In addition to the inaccuracies and inflammatory rhetoric of their “end justifies the means” approach, vegan abolitionists suppose, wrongly, that there’s a single right way (theirs) to reason about this vexing ethical matter, that they (and not the teamsters who have worked with Bill and Lou for a decade) are obviously the best-positioned proxies to speak for the oxen’s interests"
The problem is that there is
only one way to reason about this "vexing" issue if you are in fact speaking in the best interests of Bill and Lou (and only Bill and Lou, not all the other animals in the world). It reminds me of one of those pseudo-philosophical questions: Someone holds a gun to your head and says, "You must choose. Either you die or a small boy in Colombia will die."
I am just so sick of the intellectual mumbo-jumbo that surrounds not only this issue but all meat eating discussions. If you want to eat meat, accept and admit that you are killing animals to satisfy your urges. You do not need to eat the meat, the animal does not die nobly for your cause, the animal does not give a shiitake that you are "honouring" its flesh, and just because it had a less crappy life than some other crated pig or caged chicken does not elevate you, and all the other crepe ad nauseum.
I guess it makes me a lot sadder to see people tie themselves in knots to justify killing animals than to see people just eat meat.