This isn't animal experimentation, where you an imagine some proportionate good at the other end of the suffering. This is what we feel like eating. Tell me something: Why is taste, the crudest of our sense, exempted from the ethical rules that govern our other sense? If you stop and think about it, it's crazy. Why doesn't a horny person has as strong a claim to raping an animal as a hungry one does to killing and eating it?
In his book "Eating Animals," Jonathan Safran Foer questions the ethics surrounding our dietary choices, particularly the practice of meat consumption. He draws a stark comparison between the justification for animal testing and the rationale behind eating animals, suggesting that the enjoyment of taste is often prioritized over ethical considerations. Foer argues that while we might justify animal experimentation for a perceived greater good, we fail to extend similar ethical scrutiny to our sensory indulgences. This inconsistency raises important moral questions about our relationship with animals and food.
Foer provocatively challenges the idea that our cravings for taste can justify the suffering inflicted on animals. He suggests that if we attribute moral weight to our senses, taste should not be an exception, implying that the ethical standards applied to other actions should also govern what we eat. The analogy he draws between hunger and sexual desire questions the validity of using taste as a rationale for inflicting harm, urging readers to reconsider the moral implications of their dietary habits.