Posted by alexandra_k on March 4, 2005, at 16:51:07
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2005, at 9:19:49
> It doesn't matter where it falls in his essay. He argues that necessity does not exist as a refutation of all that he goes on to examine. But necessity does not equal zero. Thus, we have moved decidedly away from an issue of black and white, of absolutes.
His argument is not that eating meat is always wrong. If that was his argument then if it was the case that some people need to eat meat in order to stay alive then that would indicate problems with his argument. Problems with the conclusion. But that is not his argument.
His argument is that we should consider equal interests equally. Whether we need to eat meat or not doesn't have any relevance to whether we should consider equal interests equally.
> The manner in which he expressed himself, above, makes clear than he knew that to be the case.I really don't know what you mean here.
I don't think it has been established that all of us (or even some of us) need to eat meat in order to remain healthy. Thus my following points still standEven if we need to eat meat (and I am not saying that we do)
1) We do not need to eat as much as we do
2) We do not need to keep animals in such appalling conditions as we do
3) We do not need to run as many experiments on them as we doAnimals have interests that are comparable to the interests of a human infant. To treat animals one way and human infants another SOLELY IN VIRTUE OF THEIR SPECIES is speciest. It is discriminating against animals on irrelevant grounds.
All I know is that I shall try my best to be healhy without meat.
I believe we owe them at least that much.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/466586.html