Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 19:14:49
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption???, posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 18:06:03
> Whatever might be the flaws of the carnivoury/sexual aggression comparison in the context of guidelines for this forum,
It doesn't seem to be a problem...
At least, I haven't gotten in trouble (yet) for the compparison...
I don't see what the trouble with the comparison was...The point was nailed by Gabbi.
My point was simply that if one holds that the reason why it is morally acceptable to eat meat is because we have evolved characteristics to enable us to do that...
Well, then you would also have to similarly hold that it is *always* morally acceptable to do whatever an evolved characteristic enables us to do...If you want to say 'not always - just sometimes' then you need to be able to say when it is morally acceptable and when it is not...
And the point of this was to try and find a defensible reason for why it was okay to treat animals as a means to our ends in such disregard for the ends the animals have in mind for themselves...
>it is not an argument scholars of evolutionary science widely offer and I don't know of any evidence the argument finds much place in folklore.
Heh heh.
It was my argument.
(Couldn't ya tell)
;-)
I'm no ethicist...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:498173
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/504386.html