Posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:55:40
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:26:38
> > I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues.
>
> But this thread was supposed to be an ethical discussion!
>I'm confused about one bit of your argument. On one hand you argue that getting the nutrients you don't get from meat by taking supplements is more moral.
On the other hand you express a distrust of getting anything useful from supplements.
So you do seem to at least acknowledge that there are nutrients that humans need that aren't (in a practical manner) available in a veg diet.
So, an ethical question. Is it moral to deny that source of needed nutrients to children?
> And if killing people to eat them is wrong, then why do you think killing animals to eat them is acceptable?
Does everything have to be either/or? Does eating people *always* have to be wrong? Should the Donners have just starved because of morality? Who defines morality?
>
> I don't know what to say.
> You don't mind that animals suffer.
> There isn't anything I can say in response to someone who truely doesn't mind.
> But if you think animals have interests
> That they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain
> Then I do not see how you can not think that it is wrong to condone a practice that denies them their most fundamental interests. That causes them so much pain. I don't understand how you can believe that it is morally justified.Again - whose morality? The logical problem in your argument that I see is the assumption of the suffering of the animals is being used to say that eating meat if bad.
Are you worried (morally) about their pain? Or are you (as it looks to me) projecting the human desire for 'life liberty and happiness' onto animals? Does the same concern go for the killing of all living things (like cockatoos in Australia that are considered pests) or does it only go for those raised in captivity? Or only those eaten?
The western world is fairly humane in meat harvesting. Are we 'more moral' than, say, the Chinese who believe that more suffering makes the meat taste better?
My belief is that there is nothing, no action at all, that is 'moral' or 'immoral.' All is situational. And that we are merely discussing which shade of grey this is.
Mel, the happy carnivore
poster:AuntieMel
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465909.html