tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230355680661017989.post4270144046000054159..comments2018-11-10T08:52:13.906-08:00Comments on On the Road to Liberation: Francione on "Unnecessary Suffering": Not Necessarily So!David Sztybel, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01791831843665208484noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230355680661017989.post-58944709441563735332014-08-13T11:13:51.555-07:002014-08-13T11:13:51.555-07:00Thank you for your thoughts here. Yes, he means &q...Thank you for your thoughts here. Yes, he means "unnecessary suffering" in a moral sense. My point is people can use the phrase in a moral sense that does not agree with animal rights.David Sztybel, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01791831843665208484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230355680661017989.post-54571779995612380362014-08-13T01:58:46.229-07:002014-08-13T01:58:46.229-07:00That's very interesting... Although I will nee...That's very interesting... Although I will need to re-read this a couple of times to completely grasp it! I thought Francione's concept of necessity was simply based on morality, i.e. every pain we inflict to animals for food is unnecessary in the sense that we do not *need* meat (of course we can see meat-eating as a necessity per se, but we don't need to pursue this end because we can live and be healthy without eating animals). I now see that there are more implications around the concept of necessity. It will be interesting to read more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com