Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
> rick etter wrote:

[snip]
>
> >>AIUI Karen's moral code is not ruled by the utilitarian principle, you
> >>appear to be invoking. It reads more like a set of rules.
>
> You are correct my moral code is not primarily utilitarian,
> although I use utilitarian calculations in some areas of
> decision-making. It is not simply a set of rules, however.

OK.

> > Thou shalt
> >>not
> >>eat meat from animals, which were killed by man seems to be part of
> >>her
> >>moral code.
>
> Yes, just as "Thou shalt not eat meat from humans killed by man" is
> a part of my moral code, and for similar reasons -- it is the
> injustice of the killing, not the meat-eating per se which is the
> issue.

Sure.

> If I were stranded in a cabin with another person who died
> of natural causes, I would have no ethical objections to
> cannibalism in and of itself (there would be no injustice toward
> the dead person). Of course, with humans, one has to consider
> the remaining relatives, and I would have an aesthetic revulsion
> toward eating a human -- but those are other issues.
>
> Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
> >>pesticides doesn't.
>
> Not in and of itslf. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies
> for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but,
> again, that is another issue from AR.

Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will
lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act?

> > =======================
> > That's the simple rule for simple minds that vegans follow. That's the
> > hypocrisy. Choosing to abhor only the death and suffering of animals that
> > she doesn't have any effect on,
>
> Er.. has it occurred to you, Rick, that I don't have a direct effect
> because I choose to act in such a way as to avoid it? It doesn't
> happen by accident. And, certainly, I abhor all unjust death and
> all suffering.
>
> and claiming that that choice 'makes a
> > difference'.
>
> I believe it does, for reasons I have given.
>
> >>Personally
> >>I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which
> >>causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not,
>
> Probably because you don't view animals and agriculture the way I
> do.

I view animals as sentient beings with the capacity to experience
a range of emotions, whose lives are important to them, any in many
cases to their friends as well. I see agriculture as a way of growing
food to keep us alive with. How do you view animals and agriculture?

[snip]
>
> >>as long as the consequences of the action are known in advance, so
> >>enjoy
> >>your steaks from grass reared cattle. I'm sure my diet includes worse
> >>items.
> >>Purely out of curiousity are you opposed to AW or just AR?
>
> > =================
> > just AR as it is preached on usenet. Besides, animals have no rights.

I strongly believe that animals have the right to be treated compassionately.
Would you disagree with this?

[snip]