[kobayashi]

Any individual view on the religious merits of kosher slaughter isn’t necessary in determining its humaneness. The facts stand on their own. There is of course a separate discussion to be had on the value of ritual slaughter to an individual or group’s religious expression, but I think that needn’t be considered in order to determine that animal killing according to kosher laws is not an inhumane method of killing an animal, and it’s rules of slaughter were among the first and most enduring form of an animal welfare.

Also tangential to this entire conversation is the merit/morality of animal consumption whatsoever, and whether it can be morally defended in the modern context, but I think that’s also best left for another day.

[harperlee]

Ok, but the fact that kosher rights were “first to the party” does not inform us about whether they are the optimum solution; at most, to the fact that their position, given that we have globally approached it over the years, might be partially good.

And, as you touch upon, religious rites do not (solely) search for the solution that is most humane for the animal; they also take into consideration the religious value of the experience for third parties. But that means that, all else being equal, secular slaughtering processes, as they do not seek ritual values, should be more free to converge to the most humane solution.

[Thorrez]

The optimum solution might very well cost a billion dollars. A search for optimum while criticizing everything else seems like it's letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

> secular slaughtering processes, as they do not seek ritual values, should be more free to converge to the most humane solution.

Ok, but is there any reason it would converge to a humane solution at all? How strong is the market pressure in that direction? Jewish people are willing to pay a price premium to get a specific type of slaughter. Are secular people willing to pay a similarly-large price premium to get humane slaughter?

[harperlee]

That’s a good point. I would be more inclined to argue that people, individually, would not pay the premium of ethical slaughter. But on the other hand there is a growing tendency to consider the impact of eating animals, to the point that McDonalds is adding vegetable burgers to their menus (as shared here yesterday).

[alisonkisk]

Secular processes have pressures too, such as the pressure to optimize costs, or maximize safety to humans.

[philtar]

"I want to kill you, but I want to do it nicely." - Humans to cows.

[harperlee]

Pithy, but most people would agree torture prior to death is morally wrong.

[alisonkisk]

Most people would agree (in principle, not in observed behavior) that torture and murder are both wrong, as is torture before the few minutes before death.

[harperlee]

Please try to read posts charitatively, it adds up to better conversations. We all have limited time.

The point was that most people see torture plus murder worse than a quick murder, and that should be clearly analogous to your ironic cite, that I read as pointing out the supposed hypocrisy of making a slauthering “ethical”. Different ways to kill, be it human or animal, even if we agree they are unethical, are not unethical in the same degree.