Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!calma!smithson
From: smithson@calma.UUCP (Brian Smithson)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Vegetarians
Message-ID: <122@calma.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Jan-86 13:48:04 EST
Article-I.D.: calma.122
Posted: Wed Jan  8 13:48:04 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jan-86 04:50:07 EST
References: <75900002@hpfclg.UUCP  <325@uwai.UUCP  <326@uwai.UUCP <328@uwai.UUCP> <173@hadron.UUCP> <260@ll-xn.ARPA>
Reply-To: smithson@calma.UUCP (Brian Smithson)
Organization: GE/Calma Co., R&D Systems Engineering, Milpitas, CA
Lines: 49

In article <260@ll-xn.ARPA> olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) writes:
>In article <173@hadron.UUCP>, jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes:
>> In article <411@mordred.purdue.UUCP> avr@purdue.UUCP writes:
>> >                                      ... What about the vast number
>> >of carnivorous animals out there ? Are they all amoral, too, or do
>> >these ethical considerations apply to humans only ?
>> 
>> What???  So far, on this planet, most ethical systems have been
>> considered strictly for human beings: animals are intrinsically
>> amoral insofar as they are incapable of abstractions.  (Except
>> maybe cats and dolphins and various pongoids and ... [;-)])
>
>So you admit that there is an ethically important dichotomy between
>animals and people.  When dealing with other people, I am limited by
>ethical strictures against murder.  Given the dichotomy mentioned above,
>the same strictures needn't be applied when dealing with animals.
>Without such restrictions, it is my right as a carnivore to kill and eat
>any other animal that I can catch (or have someone catch for me).
>
>It's up to the vegetarians to show that what we carnivores are doing is
>wrong: we're just doin' what comes naturally.

Interesting.  I suppose that if I were to consider YOU to be amoral insofar
as I thought that you were incapable of abstractions, then I could feel quite
free to kill and eat you.  BTW, I hope that you're not a member of the
Moral Majority or something... :-)

Seriosly, I think that the point was that since we as people claim to be
capable of such abstractions, we have the ability of considering the
needless killing of people and/or animals to be amoral.  I don't think
that the morality of killing has anything to do with whether the victim is
considered to be "moral" or not.

It's up to you to determine your own moral distinctions, however -- I have no
plans to convince you of mine -- but I would take issue with your claims that
it is your "right" and that it "comes naturally".  "Rights" in this context
seem to me to be simply a justification for actions, in contrast to rights
in the context of life, liberty, and all that stuff.  And having been
a vegetarian for about five years, what "comes naturally" to me is to not
kill animals for food.

Oh well, what I really wanted to know is, what the hell is this doing in
net.misc!?
-- 

		-Brian Smithson
		 Calma Company 
		 ucbvax!calma!smithson
		 calma!smithson@ucbvax.ARPA