This conversation has raised some issues that I've never been able to fully get out of.
1. Why is it less immoral (or not immoral at all) to kill an animal than a human for food?
And in response to the usual answers I hear:
2. If it's because "they're not human" then why is that a good justification? Why draw the line at humans?
3. If it's because "they're less intelligent" then why is that a good justification?
I'm not a vegetarian at all, but I don't think I've heard an argument for animal killing and eating that doesn't seem arbitrary, hypocritical, and doesn't reek of special pleading.
1. Why is it less immoral (or not immoral at all) to kill an animal than a human for food?
And in response to the usual answers I hear:
2. If it's because "they're not human" then why is that a good justification? Why draw the line at humans?
3. If it's because "they're less intelligent" then why is that a good justification?
I'm not a vegetarian at all, but I don't think I've heard an argument for animal killing and eating that doesn't seem arbitrary, hypocritical, and doesn't reek of special pleading.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
