Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Another small question.
Message-ID: <3533@alice.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Apr-85 11:50:39 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3533
Posted: Sat Apr  6 11:50:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 04:11:44 EST
References: <1521@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.flame:9129 net.religion:6544 net.philosophy:1606

Ken Arndt asks about the morality of cutting half the head off a
live monkey, exposing the brain, pouring boiling oil on the brain,
and then eating it.

He wants to know why it couldn't be a human child instead.

Good question, Ken.  Once you've answered that one, how about these:

	Suppose the monkey were anesthetized first, so it
	felt no pain and no fear?  Would that change matters?

	Suppose the monkey were killed by more conventional
	means, say, like the means used to kill cattle.  Would
	that change the situation?

	What if some other animal were substituted for the
	monkey?  Most people (myself included) have no qualms
	about eating the flesh of dead animals and birds.