bonduca

Then it is commendable of you to eat them.

spin

Danya, thanks for the translation.

----------------------------------

frostymama: The only reason you can be comfortable about your place is that there is no-one above you. You would think differently if that were not the case.

Bill:
----------------------------------
My differention is based on comprehension of morality and ethics.
----------------------------------

Naturally, this is a different matter from participating in a contract. It now comes down to assuming comprehension, which unfortunately I have seen here cannot be assumed.

Bill:
----------------------------------
Oh, so eating plants is immoral under your ethic as well? How have you managed to live?
----------------------------------

If there are alternatives functional I'm interested.

Bill declares in big letters that he is not using contract theory, who seemed previously bent on inextricably talking about two separate issues. Then...

Bill:
----------------------------------
My differentiation has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to enter into contracts. It has to do with having the neurological capacity to reason abstractly and develop & comprehend ethical systems.
----------------------------------

A child, if you read Piaget, is not capable of abstract thought for many years.

Bill:
----------------------------------
Any distinction made on intrinsic nature cannot, by definition, be arbitrary.
----------------------------------

This is nitpicking, Bill. It is an arbitrary choice of a particular intrinsic distinction.

Bill:
----------------------------------
please explain how your differentiation of sentient vs. non-sentient is any less "arbitrary" (by your usage) than mine of morally cognizant vs. non-morally cognizant.
----------------------------------

It is a rule of thumb only. The guiding principle for me is the morality I have attempted to outline elsewhere.

Bill:
----------------------------------
one of your main objections against those with whom you disagree is that their differentiations are "arbitrary" and thus reduce to "I like meat, so I'm going to keep on eating it." If your own differentiation is no less "arbitrary", I see no reason why the same reduction would not be equally applicable to you.
----------------------------------

Sorry, I don't remember calling the "I like meat" "morality" arbitrary (you may be right). I seem to remember using the word several times on other issues (as in this reponse a few comments back).

"I like meat" doesn't seem to me to be based on anything I can recognize as moral in any sense of the term I understand, but merely on palate.

I have offered a morality behind my stance.

spin

Alonzo Fyfe,

As I do not accept your first premise, your elementary logic cannot follow.

-------------------
Premise 1: If it is wrong to eat meat, then we are under an obligation to prevent carnivores from eating meat.

Premise 2: It is absurd to hold that we are under an obligation to prevent carnivores from eating meat.
-------------------

"wrong is your term"

The all-inclusiveness of the first part of premise 1 is not apt.

I'm not playing intellectual games for your diversion. OK?

Not Prince Hamlet

Heh. That being the case, we should have hunting animals kill our cows and chickens for us. According to Spin, it's not immoral when they do it.

And of course, once the animals are already dead, it'd be a tragedy for them to die in vain! We must therefore consume them, so that they didn't die for nothing.

Jeff

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

diana

No one above us in the food chain?

Oh please.

Lions and tigers and bears (Oh my!).

And sharks. And...shall I go on?

d

Not Prince Hamlet

Diana,

Yes, but obviously, it's morally right for them to kill us, though still wrong for us to kill them. (?)

Go figure.

Jeff

spin

JL:
------------------
Also, what makes you so sure our livestock would prefer a life in the wild to one on a farm where they are well fed, warm and dry?
------------------

I didn't say anything of this sort. There is a big problem to be resolved, as these animals have been bread as a food crop -- a bit like the animals in "Matrix" being bread as a power supply.

JL:
------------------
Don't project our human goals and desires on these animals.
------------------

I haven't

JL:
------------------
Covered in filth?
------------------

I didn't say this.

JL:
------------------
By the way, your dismissal of meat eating because it is not essential rests upon the presupposition that it is immoral...
------------------

Correct.

JL:
------------------
...when in fact is exactly that notion which is being attacked by asserting what we are doing is perfectly natural, is part of our heritage.
------------------

I have characterized this particular argument as "we can't help what we are", which can justify every sort of monstrous act we want it to.

JL:
------------------
Participation in the food chain is not immoral.
------------------

When you are at the top end, it's very difficult to talk of participating in a chain.

JL:
------------------
It does not brutalize us.
------------------

I think it stops you from being responsible for your own life.

JL:
------------------
It isn't evil. The animals don't wail in anguish at their unavoidable fate. They are not moral, let alone capable of understanding morality.
------------------

No, they aren't, but you are trying to be. I think you should try harder.

JL:
------------------
We are simply getting involved in a natural process that plays out every second of every minute of every day.
------------------

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.

Not Prince Hamlet

Ooh, good point! 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!

Jeff

spin

Diana:
------------------
No one above us in the food chain?
Oh please.

Lions and tigers and bears (Oh my!).

And sharks. And...shall I go on?
------------------

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

People hunt all of these and often this has been for amusement.

The only sharks most people have ever seen live in big cities (or perhaps schools).

Not Prince Hamlet

And of course wool is right out, too. Those poor, mistreated sheep...