Jay Santos wrote:
> If you believe that something is absolutely morally wrong, then the ONLY
> coherently explicable amount of it you may do, and remain consistent
> with your belief, is zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
> believe it to be absolutely wrong.
True.
> If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to kill animals other
> than in provable self defense, then you may not morally participate in
> any activity or process that kills animals.
I can live with that: I do not believe it would be wrong to kill animals
other than in self defense. For example I think it is absolutely correct
to kill the animals I want to eat :-)
Indeed there are countless other cases in which it is acceptable to kill
animals - for example to kill them when they are going to eat the
vegetables I want to eat - or when they are damaging my property otherwise.
It's as well allright to kill them to produce leather.
As well for scientific purposes animals may be killed - I've done animal
experiments in the past ...
> If you do so participate,
> then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be absolutely wrong.
True.
> Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong, then you're going
> to have a very difficult time explaining in what way it is relatively
> wrong.
Not at all. There are two reasons for me not to kill animals:
1) I need them, because later I need their meat, leather, whatever, need
them for my experiments or need them to carry me (a horse I might want
to ride) or as guardian (watchdogs), or I want them because I like
seeing or hearing them - birds, for example. In that case it's pure
self-interest to have them alive.
2) I'm following the Rede. I'm doing harm only if necessary. As you
might have seen above I'm willing to do harm to animals if their
interests are in conflict with mine. But I'm not going to harm them if
this conflict does not exist.
> In particular, you're going to have an all but impossible task
> to explain why the amount in which you engage or indirectly participate
> is in any sense "better" than what someone else does.
Where's the problem?
|