That's not a good answer. If the "level of intelligence" is all that stops me from eating the next moron I run into, I'll be one fat motherfucker and there's be one hell of a lot fewer cabbies cruising Queen Street six months from now.
Rhetoric! Very amusing, but rhetorical. Perhaps "intelligent enough to speak" is the defining point, below which the lack of ability to plead for one's rights makes it a lot easier to eat them without emotional distress. Though that does intuit an uncertain future for tasty newborns - I like mine with teriyaki sauce.
Sure, and 120 years ago, abolitionists would have had a hard time finding non-slave cotton. This doesn't address the moral question.
Luckily, I don't need to address the moral question - you only asked why you kept eating bacon despite immorality. If the majority of options at every restaurant were tasty-looking vegetarian options and all your friends only served vegetarian dishes, I suspect bacon and the like may not be consumed as frequently.
Read her post. She explicitly said (and I thought I made it clear) that she was referring to those of us rich enough to make a choice. I (and I think she) agree that "human need" does, in fact, modify morality. If there is actually any such thing as an absolute morality, it is to preserve the species (ie, one's offspring and relatives). Again, Sidra explicitly acknowledged that.
I confess that I committed a sin of Internet dicussion in not reading the original material. I assumed from the tone that I knew all I needed to know, and it wouldn't be too helpful to my understanding of the world.
It's interesting that "wealth" determines whether something is wrong or right. I guess it's similar to "it's okay to steal food to live if you really have no other options". I'm not of a firm opinion here, but from re-reading what you're saying, I think I can agree that "self-perpetuation" has an "absolute" level of important, at which point the rest of it is just choices that I have trouble defending with moral justification (ah well, I guess babies are off the menu). If a knife was at my throat and I had to say for certain, then eating other creatures isn't morally wrong. I don't think having alternatives alters this.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Not Good Enough
Date: 2007-01-24 02:28 am (UTC)Rhetoric! Very amusing, but rhetorical. Perhaps "intelligent enough to speak" is the defining point, below which the lack of ability to plead for one's rights makes it a lot easier to eat them without emotional distress. Though that does intuit an uncertain future for tasty newborns - I like mine with teriyaki sauce.
Sure, and 120 years ago, abolitionists would have had a hard time finding non-slave cotton. This doesn't address the moral question.
Luckily, I don't need to address the moral question - you only asked why you kept eating bacon despite immorality. If the majority of options at every restaurant were tasty-looking vegetarian options and all your friends only served vegetarian dishes, I suspect bacon and the like may not be consumed as frequently.
Read her post. She explicitly said (and I thought I made it clear) that she was referring to those of us rich enough to make a choice. I (and I think she) agree that "human need" does, in fact, modify morality. If there is actually any such thing as an absolute morality, it is to preserve the species (ie, one's offspring and relatives). Again, Sidra explicitly acknowledged that.
I confess that I committed a sin of Internet dicussion in not reading the original material. I assumed from the tone that I knew all I needed to know, and it wouldn't be too helpful to my understanding of the world.
It's interesting that "wealth" determines whether something is wrong or right. I guess it's similar to "it's okay to steal food to live if you really have no other options". I'm not of a firm opinion here, but from re-reading what you're saying, I think I can agree that "self-perpetuation" has an "absolute" level of important, at which point the rest of it is just choices that I have trouble defending with moral justification (ah well, I guess babies are off the menu). If a knife was at my throat and I had to say for certain, then eating other creatures isn't morally wrong. I don't think having alternatives alters this.