Rick Reuben wrote:DrAwkward wrote: The idea of a life where all you know is run run run run and then suddenly your existence is pain and confusion and more pain and then finally nothing at all...ugh. I guess i just know that i'd hate to be a horse, even a pampered one born and raised to win money for my fat owner.
Well, sure, but if you take that approach to the extreme, we'd have to ban all farm animals, because they all work for man. Either you accept that animals serve man or you don't. If you don't, then your opposition has to be absolute- no race horses, no plow horses, no horses for cops, no horses for cowboys, no horses for other equestrian sports. If you accept that it is permissible for animals to serve man, then you have to accept horse racing and then work for a proper balance between exploitation of the animals and the animals' welfare.
100% agree.
Now you're getting into the abortion argument. Abortion supporters argue that a child born to parents ( usually, parent ) who do not want the baby and are not prepared to take care of it is better off being killed in the womb. Abortion opponents say that all life is sacred and humans should never terminate it. I guess that the 'right to life' position with regards to thoroughbred breeding would be 'make as many horses as you like and let God sort out who grows old and who breaks both ankles'. The pro-abortion side would say 'don't breed the horses- I don't accept the risk that some will die on the track'.When you said "had it not been for horse racing, she wouldn't have been born at all," all that made me think was "well, maybe it had been better had she not been born in the first place?" I dunno, it speaks to a larger existential question about quanity vs. quality of life that i debate with myself across all sorts of issues.
Yeah, that's definitely another place that question applies. Euthanasia and assisted suicide, too. And then when it comes to animals, there's the whole free-range vs. factory farm thing...the quantity vs. quality of life question is applicable all across the board.
It would take a long time to flesh out, but if we accept that animals are subservient to humans (which i do, but many people do not), then we get into what sorts of things are morally acceptable to bring an animal life into the world for, and what aren't...food, labor, entertainment, etc. and how the needs that they serve stack up against the eventual pain or killing of the animal.
I can't wait for the FDA to approve selling cloned animal tissue as food. Man, the day i can eat real bacon without having to kill a pig...too sweet. But until then, sorry porky...