spin

spin:
------------------------------
As you live in a house, wear clothes, eat processed foods, watch TV, use computers, travel by vehicle, etc., etc., etc., you are not bound to every whim of nature. You are not bound to eating flesh of animals killed for your foodlust.
------------------------------

Jeff:
------------------------------
Ooh, good point!
------------------------------

Thanks.

Jeff:
------------------------------
I sure hope that Spin never wears any leather. (boots, belts, wallets, etc.) I mean, if it's immoral to kill an animal for food, it must be even worse to kill it for fashion!
------------------------------

I don't see the connection with your previous statement or mine. However, the topic has been dealt with. See the previous thread.

Not Prince Hamlet

Hey, according to Spin, New Jersey is a strange environment! I once saw a bear along Route 287 North.

Jeff

Danya

Is that what cows are thinking while standing around chewing their cud? I didn't know they understood their place in the food chain much less were upset about it.

Bill Snedden

Depending upon the circumstances, there may be.

I certainly don't consider it immoral for sharks to attack, kill, and eat the occasional swimmer. Neither is it immoral for tigers to attack, kill, and eat the occasional hapless villager. Non-human animals are not moral agents (ooh! Sounds familiar! )

Assuming comprehension? Not at all. It's an inductive argument based upon empirical data. There have been numerous studies made of non-human animal comprehension and intellectual abilities. None have concluded that animals are capable of the level of abstract reasoning displayed by humans.

Goodness, I don't need to read Piaget to realize that. I have nieces and nephews! Ultimately, however, normal human children will be capable of such activity. Even more importantly, human children belong to a group for which this capability is an intrinsic qualifier.

Again, the differentiation I am employing is at a "macro" level. It is based on the cognitive capabilities of human vs. non-human animals. A human child or a mentally deficient adult, regardless of it's specific cognitive abilities, is still human and therefore falls within the differentiating line.

Not at all. The choice (higher-order cognitive abilities) is a necessary requirement for the development of ethical systems. It is therefore intrinsic to the subject of ethics, which is exactly the subject in which the distinction is being made.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. The only statement I saw was that about not harming sentient life. Could you perhaps reiterate or point me to where you outlined it elsewhere?

I'd agree that "I like meat" is an insufficient justification. One could as easily say, "I like stealing" in order to justify it; neither works.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Not Prince Hamlet

Danya, you obviously lack Spin's -- shall we say unique? -- insight into animal consciousness.

Jeff

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>

bonduca

For diana -

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/23/shark.attack/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/23/shark.attack/</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/07/shark.attack/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/07/shark.attack/</a>

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/australia000925.html" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/australia000925.html</a>

<a href="http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/news/2001/0706/1223145.html" target="_blank">http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/news/2001/0706/1223145.html</a>

<a href="http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGA9VR9S9XC.html" target="_blank">http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGA9VR9S9XC.html</a>

The fact that these predators are seldom afforded opportunity to eat humans does not deter them from doing so with enthusiasm when they are able to.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

Bonduca,

You rule!

Jeff

diana

I gather you live in a strange environment where there are lions, tigers, bears and sharks.

Um, yeah. Planet Earth.

Where do you live, praytell?

The fact is, dumpling, there are many creatures for whom we are dinner. Just because we might currently live in a house in Malibu does not change our position on the food "chain"--which, incidentally, is actually more of a food circle.

By your logic, I'm "dinner" to motorists and rabid dogs and possibly the occasional snake by virtue of the fact that I live in town.

d

diana

&lt;Tips hat&gt;

'Preciate it, miss.

You rock.

d

Not Prince Hamlet

Diana,

Wasn't it called a "food web" at one time, too?

Jeff