Daniel T. wrote:
> 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.
>
> My wife asks, "Honey, which of these blouses are more black?"
> "Neither of them are black."
> "Yes, I know that but I have to wear black tonight and these are all
I
> have. So which is more black?"
>
> In other words, despite the fact that one may consider something
> absolutely morally wrong, there are degrees.

No moral issue in your amusing wife story.

>
> > 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.
>
> If you also believe that it is absolutely wrong to end your own life,

> then you are forced to pick the lesser of evils. After all, you
pretty
> much cannot sustain yourself without killing some animals, so you
kill
> as few as you can.

It seems the thinking person ought to reconsider his belief that it is
absolutely wrong to kill animals except in provable self defense.