(May 21, 2013 at 8:20 am)littleendian Wrote: The biological argument hasn't been discussed here, yet, thanks for raising it, although I think it's not going to resolve the issue.
Doesn't it really come down to one thing? That being whether or not we consider it moral (or right, or just, or whichever word fits) to kill an animal for food. Or perhaps the question is whether we place non-human animals on the same "moral plane" as humans. I've followed the discussion with interest, but I think every other point flows from that one. Am I incorrect to simplify it to this degree?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
