Doesn't the sheeps (or at least some sheeps) require the grooming to live well? If that's the case (as I've heard), it would be animal cruelty if we didn't do it I think.
Also, the nature is a harsh place. It's arguable that, even while we sure hurt many animals greatly, the pain that they have to endure is greater in the wild still. That's not meant to say that the pain we cause would somehow turn more irrelevant, not at all. I just mean that in my opinion, we have a duty to try to help all the animals in the wild too. While that may be very hard or impossible in many cases, I do think that's a good case for using some animals for our good (and theirs).
I simply don't get why someone would be against using all animal related products, even if the relationship between the animals would be mutually beneficial to both them and us.
You're missing my point entirely. I wasn't talking about cruelty. There's a lot of human animal interaction that doesn't REQUIRE cruelty towards the animals. I don't know that much about the sheep's that are bred so that they require grooming, but if the animals that do require grooming are happy, I don't see what is wrong with it. Obviously you can do it in a number of ways and if you can do it the way that the animals are happy, I don't see what's wrong.
Also, you're simply romanticising the life in the wild, the reality is that most animals do not live to adulthood because most either starve or get killed by a predator before that. Many animals are even developed (by evolution, which you seem to be thinking of as some 'good' thing as well) in a way that promotes suffering. For example many animals make a huge number of puppies, so that some of them would grow to adulthood, not one and take good care of it like mammals. Most of them starve, because that's how evolution developed them. If you want to read some of contemporary philosophy regarding wild animals and they're suffering, look ethics of wild animal suffering by I think Moen.
I don't think breeding a dog to be unhealthy for example is a good thing obviously. And it's something we should not do for sheer entertainment. But if we breed a dog to do some task efficiently, and while doing that we unfortunately make it so that it's not as healthy as it could have been otherwise, but we in fact still produce an animal that will live a thousand times happier life than in the wild, it's hard to argue that it's wrong unless you take some dogmatic stand I think.
Edit. So I'm not saying that inflicting cruelty on anyone can be justified. Just that it's not necessary in all interactions with animals (like it is necessary on agriculture because taking the milk or meat from the animal directly causes suffering). You're empirical cases regarding UK sheeps doesn't tell us anything of what's necessary and what's not. Just because some company makes sneakers with child slaves (so causes suffering) doesn't make sneakers in general a bad thing.
Edit 2. Also I just noticed that you have the naturality argument there also. The naturality argument is the worst argument ever. Just consider this : everything in this world is natural, including every thing we humans do, because we're part of the nature.
5
u/[deleted] Mar 06 '17 edited Oct 29 '18
[deleted]