Valmorian

</strong>

Ethical codes change as time goes on, and depending upon who you ask.

</strong>

So give us an OBJECTIVE reason why it isn't right. I SUBJECTIVELY agree with you that it is unethical, but I would never claim that it is objectively wrong.

</strong>

Possibly. Not likely, of course, but countries have re-instated death penalties before. Of course, maybe you don't think the death penalty is unethical... or is it? Not everyone agrees.. hmmm sounds subjective to me.

Nah, it's not legal because it's not useful now, and for generations people have been brought up with the cultural mores to abhor it. Depending upon where you grow up, your ethical code could be quite different.

Pomp

shamon,

I’m asking you what YOU think? Do YOU accept my principle?

No. I do not hold that it is always immoral to kill unnecessarily.

DRFseven

Are you a grown-up? I'm pointing out that you refuse to give any reason as to why it's objectively wrong, rather, you simply decide it is. That would make you an arbitor, right?

Pomp

Ginseng,

I'm going to have to agree with Maverick (he of the modly might) on this one. We don't need to turn yet another vegetarian thread into an objective/subjective debate. This isn't even an objective/subjective issue. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that ethics are objective, please present an argument that demonstrates that your interpretation of ethics is the objectively correct one.

John Page

You guys might enjoy reading <a href="http://www.jacksonville.com/bookreviews/reviews/HermanMelv240.html" target="_blank">this book about Whale Hunting meat eaters</a>.

There was no other food around and they drew lots to kill and eat each other. I think they were Christians too.

Cheers!

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

daemon

Ginseng: I have responded to your previous post <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000129" target="_blank">here</a>.

[Edeted becoz I kan spel]

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

droolian

From what I’ve read here the huge distinction, in many people’s opinion, seems to be between animal and human. Basic moral principles can apply to animals. For another to suffer because I like the way they taste would be wrong. Suffering for my pleasure would be more guilt than I could stand. This, to me, is absolute truth animal or not. The animals we eat have five senses and have nervous systems very much like ours.

For me to say, “I need meat because I like the taste and can put my desire ahead of the fact that the animals are held against their will, are put in distress, and are killed,” would be more a selfish whimsy than a need. It would also seem dismissive and show what may be construed as an underdeveloped or desensitized sense of empathy on my part.

That humans can think abstractly is not a just reason to exploit animals. Level of intelligence has nothing to do with suffering and fear.

David Gould

I value humans more than I do animals. Thus, a humans desire to eat meat may outweigh an animals desire to avoid death.

For a vegetarian to convince me to be a vegetarian they would have to demonstrate that animals are more similar to humans than I think.

The list you provided of differing charachteristics does not help your point, imo. It merely demonstrates that humans differe from animals in numerous ways.

droolian

It’s great to discuss all this with you guys btw.
In what way would animals have to be more like a human to convince you? The differences rather than the similarities are usually given as a reason to eat meat.

The point made by the Steve Sapontzis quote above is that none of the differences is a morally justifiable reason to eat meat.

tronvillain

droolian:
Except that he doesn't make that point. What does he say to someone who thinks they are? Presumably an unsupported assertion like "That reasoning doesn't make sense."