From: Kenneth Van Oost (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 26 Jan 2006 - 20:43:50 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: Kate Distin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > <<In that one of us says eating meat is morally unacceptable, and the
> > that it's morally acceptable. I'm assuming it can't be both.>>
> I assume you'd be prepared to say that killing the guys with the "wrong"
> morals/god is morally unacceptable. (So would I, needless to say.) So
> you're not a hardline relativist/subjectivist about morals. In other
> words you do believe that there is some sort of criterion against which
> we can judge morality, even if that's not an absolute criterion like
> "God's will".
> In which case, judged against whichever criterion you have chosen, you
> will either agree or disagree with eating meat. Even if you say that
> eating meat is a morally neutral action, this contradicts the vegetarian
<< That is because the vegetarian outweights his conviction to what he be-
lieves ! His moral decision implicates a hidden framework where against he
can put his arguments, where he can find arguments NOT to eat it.
This believe stands in contrast with the one that the guy has who eats meat,
there is none. His decision to eat meat isn 't a moral one, just a
byproduct of being an animal.
The question is NOT that either we agree or disagree with eating meat, the
question is wether there is a moral ground even to suggest that it isn 't !
> That's really all I meant. I am open to the idea that it is me who's
> wrong about vegetarianism. I just don't see how we can both be right.
<< You are ! Again, without the background of why you shouldn 't be
eating meat there is no problem. The discussion begins where morality;
thus a believe in something better/ higer, more transcendental steps in.
All human I suppose...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 26 Jan 2006 - 21:11:06 GMT