From: Kenneth Van Oost (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 26 Jan 2006 - 20:25:33 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: Kate Distin <email@example.com>
> > were vegetarians long before she was born. My children eat meat and
> > always have done, because we're omnivores. Ethically, either my husband
> > and I, or my aunt and uncle, have got something wrong. Two of us are
> > imposing a false set of values on our offspring. C'est la vie.>
> > Why is one or the other false?
> In that one of us says eating meat is morally unacceptable, and the
> other that it's morally acceptable. I'm assuming it can't be both.
<< They can ! As long you don 't take any represental framework into
account. Behind the scene of being vegetarians and being ommivores lies
a hidden world of dispositions, agreements, orders, beliefs, convictions,
moral and ethical points of view, etc.
The question is to what extent you derive your decision from that existing
framework !? In other words, do you need such a framework to come to
a sane solution/ answer !?
On what moral ground is the decision made NOT to eat meat !? And is
that ground the same as the question pops up why is it acceptable to eat it
If the ground is the same, is one decision 'better' just because it had been
in name a god, saying ' eating meat is unaccepatable ' !?
...and is any made moral decision 'better' if is has been made if the one who made it ' believes '....!?
Can 't I make a decision that isn 't inspired/ influenced by a god or
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 26 Jan 2006 - 21:13:44 GMT