User talk:Eherot

Your edit to Veganism
You added to the end of this paragraph:
 * Some utilitarian philosophers, such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, argue that the suffering of sentient animals is relevant to ethical decisions, though they do not rely on the concept of rights and believe that non-human animals only have an interest in not suffering. Others like Gary L. Francione, believe that all sentient beings have an interest in both not suffering and continuing to live. A common argument is that animals have the ability to feel pleasure so killing them is wrong, because it destroys any hope of future pleasure. He claims that it is therefore unethical to treat them as property or a means to an end (see animal rights). Although these theories draw similar conclusions, they are not wholly compatible with one another principally because farm animals would cease to exist if they were no longer utilized by humans.

The content in bold. I'm confused. How does this hypothetical "ceasing of farm animal existence" make the distinction between the Singer and Francione arguments (both ethical arguments made in support of Veganism)? It looks to me like you aren't trying to make a distinction between the two clear here, it looks to me like your addition was meant to point out a flaw in the ethical claim that "killing animals is wrong". Can you tell me what your purpose was with this addition? Madeleine 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)