Posted on 03/20/2012 3:36:14 PM PDT by SMGFan
Ethically speaking, vegetables get all the glory. In recent years, vegetarians — and to an even greater degree vegans, their hard-core inner circle — have dominated the discussion about the ethics of eating. From the philosopher Peter Singer, whose 1975 volume “Animal Liberation” galvanized an international movement, to the novelist Jonathan Safran Foer, who wrote the 2009 best seller “Eating Animals,” those who forswear meat have made the case that what we eat is a crucial ethical decision. To be just, they say, we must put down our cheeseburgers and join their ranks.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yWn9-SOjfiU/TE2UDQMC7jI/AAAAAAAAEVo/f19XKUo78AQ/s1600/fedora%2B15.jpg
That wouldn’t be a LEATHER handbag Ariel Kaminer is carrying would it?!
Right, my fault, no need to start a row.
I would rue the day I did that.
We do have wolves, bears and cougars; all of which are protected by law and all of which will eat you.
Glad we got that straightened out, have some more
meat?
Ariel Kaminer
NYTimes ‘Ethicist’ Columnist Chooses Infanticide Advocate to Comment on Dog Dilemma
By Clay Waters | January 10, 2012
“A Dog’s Right To Life?”, Ariel Kaminer’s “Ethicist” column in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, approvingly cited controversial Princeton University bio-ethics philosopher and animal rights “ethicist” Peter Singer, who has been protested by advocates for the disabled for radical statements. In an excerpt of his 1993 book Practical Ethics, Singer concluded: “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”
Kaminer addressed the dilemma of a veterinarian with an elderly client with an 8-year-old dog. She wanted the dog to be euthanized if she died before the dog did.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/category/people/ariel-kaminer#ixzz1phrLEudT
Yesterday I had boneless ribs and some fancy-schmancy chicken for lunch (no starch) today...chicken fried steak.
Tonight, I think in honor of this thread I’ll have a nice ribeye...black and red.
I’m just performing post-partum abortions on animal to keep it safe, legal and rare.
Or medium rare
Because Tofu tastes like Dog Shit...
Because if you don’t eat meat, you turn into a P&^%#.
Because, Shut the hell up, That’s why.
Because I want pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?
I don’t know about you, but I’d hesitate to eat a donkey!
This was fun. Here’s my answer:
The fact that this challenge comes with the modifier, “at least when human survival is not at stake” indicates an important assumption on the part of the ethicist. It assumes a distinction between the decision to eat meat for survival and eating meat as a “dietary preference”. This may be done on the basis that “other animals” eat only for survival and therefore we should do so as well.
As we explore the comparison between humans and “other animals”, it would only be fair to point out that we are the only species that considers this to be a matter of choice. The natural world acts on instinct; prey is hunted for survival. As this is the natural order of things, I suppose the ethicist would consider this to be “good”. Even so, the wolf will always take the life of a rabbit when the opportunity is presented. The wolf knows no mercy and in fact would be detrimental to himself if he did. To show mercy would be to deny his nature.
To even ponder this question is an indication that we do not share the nature of the wolf. That we allow our selves the luxury of contemplating mercy demonstrates a strength and superiority over the animal world. Mercy is an attribute of the strong; the wolf does not have the luxury of affording mercy to the rabbit as both are engaged in a struggle for survival.
Is there a virtue in imposing upon ourselves that standard of “only for survival”? Do we restrict ourselves to the nature of the wolf while at the same time making it perfectly clear that we are above the wolf by virtue of the fact that we are “choosing”.
As a civilized people, are we obligated to show mercy? If is the opinion of one man that we ought to impose mercy, a strictly human attribute, on the natural world then we must consider another strictly human concept, freedom. If you choose mercy, and you find virtue in that, then your conscience is clear.
But are we virtuous to impose mercy on our fellow free men? Can it be considered mercy if choice is removed? If mercy is an attribute of the strong, then mercy can not be given by those who are powerless to choose otherwise. If the ethicist values mercy and freedom as virtues he must acknowledge that freedom is a prerequisite for mercy.
The ability to harvest meat as easily as we harvest crops demonstrates once again our superiority over “other animals”. The ability of one man to harvest meat for the nutritional benefit of a thousand others demonstrates our superiority. To impose upon ourselves a restriction that nature would not oppose upon itself is not a demonstration of our superiority, it is a demonstration of our arrogance.
To believe that a self imposed “survival only” standard brings us closer to nature is akin to believing buying organic at Whole Foods brings us closer to our African brothers and sisters who have been denied access to DDT to protect their crops.
Then I heard a voice telling me, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
Acts 11:7
More than 8 to 10 species of apes do. Lots of them have big fangs. Lots of bats do too.
And besides that you can have meat eaters living on non-meat diets. It is possible.
That’s not an endorsement of veal as it is a metaphor of heavenly celebration when one of us comes back to God.
I’d/also toss the Panda bear in there too.
Humans are carnivores.
To liberals stopping a beating heart has never been an ethics issue.
Whats this really about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
