[asciimo]

You presuppose that torture is always willful. In the context of human-scale meat production, it seems unavoidable. Yet we accept this, as it is necessary for consumer demands. The employees of factory farm facilities may very well suffer "emotional depravity;" not as a prerequisite for their duties, but as a result.

The nature of torture aside, taking the life of a sentient being is the ultimate violation of its rights. I don't see how any act less than killing can be considered morally worse than killing.

[epochwolf]

Animals are not sentient. Higher animals have some form of emotion and a great capacity to suffer but as far as we can tell today, they do not have self-aware and self-reasoning intelligence.

[nimble]

Sentience doesn't mean what you think it does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

[epochwolf]

Okay, I used the wrong word. My point remains unchanged. Animals, in their various are not capable of enough intelligence or self-reasoning to be considered thinking beings requiring equal protection with people. It is not morally wrong for a human to hunt animals, farm animals, use animals for labor, or keep animals as pets.

This does not make it right for a human to deliberately cause harm to an animal for pleasure or entertainment. I also would consider trophy hunting to be immoral if one leaves the body to rot.

[nimble]

I agree with you. My point was: you used the wrong word. :)

[contextual]

Psychology Today: A Universal Declaration on Animal Sentience http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201306/u...

[nimble]

> The nature of torture aside, taking the life of a sentient being is the ultimate violation of its rights. I don't see how any act less than killing can be considered morally worse than killing.

Why?