Robert G. Ingersoll

Weellll! It's ironic that many PETA members would consider you an immoral person for supporting the exploitation of cows and chickens, cooping/penning them up and forcing them to produce unnatural amounts of dairy and eggs, respectively.

I support animal anti-cruelty laws. I'm glad the use of rabbits to test women's cosmetics has been outlawed. I would like to think that the laws are enforced that require the most humane, pain-free methods to be used to do in the animals whose flesh I eventually eat - but, that probably isn't the way it is.

It's immoral of me, but I personally don't lift a finger to do anything either to help the daily average of 3,000 third world children who die of malnutrition and dysentary. Uh, do you? if not, your focusing firstly on my and other's "immoral" chomping on animal flesh really doesn't make a lot of sense. On balance, you seem to be essentially on my level, morally speaking.
:boohoo:

LordSnooty

That's the beauty of morality, it's entirely subjective.
Well, I do (I give money to the appropriate charities - when I have any money), so (facetious mode on) I guess I'm more moral than you are.

Seriously though, you seem confused. I don't 'focus firstly on other's meat eating'. I don't really care if someone chooses to eat meat, it makes no difference to the big picture. I value humans above animals. I have to judge whether someone is moral (by my own standards) primarily by how they treat other people.

I think you're just appealing to the old, tired stereotypes of vegetarians/vegans being weird anarchists who care more about animals than people, and it's a stereotype I hold little regard for.

Paul

Dominus Paradoxum

Well, I hate to quote this guy, but as Peter Kreeft says:

"If you don't think that there's any real difference between animals and people, then [to be consistent] you'd better stop eating animals or start eating people."

I believe that, as modern science has shown, the difference betweeen humans and so-called 'lower species' is one of degree, not of kind. Even if humans were compounded of some extra ingredient of 'soul-stuff', I don't see why that would make us any more worthy from a moral standpoint . The same could be said about our "higher intellegence". Wouldn't that very arguement justify those with high i.q's in eating people with mental handicapps? When you come right down to it, there's no single characteristic that we posses that would morally single humans out as being "special". And if we are justified in killing animals for food, then what are we to say against a hannibal-lecter type who wants to extend the reasoning to create a soylent-green scenario?

Robert G. Ingersoll

Agreed.


Paul [/B][i][/QUOTE] Well, I do (I give money to the appropriate charities - when I have any money), so (facetious mode on) I guess I'm more moral than you are. Paul [/B][/QUOTE]

I facetiously agree.


Paul [/B][/QUOTE]Seriously though, you seem confused. I don't 'focus firstly on other's meat eating'. I don't really care if someone chooses to eat meat, it makes no difference to the big picture. I value humans above animals. I have to judge whether someone is moral (by my own standards) primarily by how they treat other people.[/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed. I personally take a libertarian approach to morality, i.e, force and fraud, e.g., murder, stealing, etc. must be dealt with in order to have a society that most would want to live in - hense the 'rule of law', even with it's many imperfections.

Paul [/B][/QUOTE]I think you're just appealing to the old, tired stereotypes of vegetarians/vegans being weird anarchists who care more about animals than people, and it's a stereotype I hold little regard for.[/B][/QUOTE]

Uh, no. It's PETA I have a hard-on for, because most of them DO fit this stereotype, sad to say.


That doesn't even make sense. Substitute the word 'chickens' for 'animals' and the word 'spiders' for 'people' in the above sentence. The sense of the statement remains the same, but now it's obvious how ridiculous this claim is.

[/B][/QUOTE] I believe that, as modern science has shown, the difference betweeen humans and so-called 'lower species' is one of degree, not of kind. Even if humans were compounded of some extra ingredient of 'soul-stuff', I don't see why that would make us any more worthy from a moral standpoint . The same could be said about our "higher intellegence". Wouldn't that very arguement justify those with high i.q's in eating people with mental handicapps? When you come right down to it, there's no single characteristic that we posses that would morally single humans out as being "special". And if we are justified in killing animals for food, then what are we to say against a hannibal-lecter type who wants to extend the reasoning to create a soylent-green scenario? [/B][/QUOTE]

Uh, we have a law against murder. Probably have one against 'abuse of corpses' if not one prohibiting cannibalism.

It's all subjective. If you prefer the taste of human flesh, lobby to get the laws changed. Or protest the law by eating human flesh in public and making a test case of it. Me, I just prefer pork.