From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 18:48:17 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> --- gts <gts_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Greg Jordan wrote:
>>
>>> I am a vegetarian, but I don't agree
>>> with PETA's more extreme positions.
>>
>> I've seen only two theoretical arguments for vegetarianism: 1) the
>> argument that humans have a moral obligation to minimize suffering
>> in the world, including the suffering of animals, and 2) the
>> argument that humans are best genetically adapted to a diet limited
>> only to plant foods. Many vegetarians embrace both arguments. I
>> object to 1) mainly on philosophical grounds and to 2) mainly on
>> scientific grounds.
>
> What I find interesting is that those who espouse 1) are also
> generally atheistic, though there are buddhists as well. The atheist
> vegetarian who argues a moral argument can't give a rationale for
> their moral argument that is not grounded in theology. Furthermore,
> if completely ignores the fact that there is far more suffering of
> animals when they overpopulate due to overgrazing and lack of
> sustainable predation than when animals are regularly slaughtered
> quickly. Starvation is a very painful way to die.
>
### The long-term rational observer could argue that a person's commitment
to the minimization of suffering in general is a predictor for future
unwillingness to inflict suffering on the observer, and moralistic
vegetarianism could be a marker for the strength of this commitment, albeit
a very imperfect one. Therefore, the observer, in the interest of limiting
the risk of others inflicting suffering on him in the future, might advance
the idea of vegetarianism, and cooperate preferentially with vegetarians.
Since cooperation from rational vegetarians could only be expected if the
observer himself shows the same commitment to minimization of suffering, the
observer might have to adapt the vegetarian behavior as a sign of
commitment.
This is directly analogous to antlers displayed by deer, and public charity
shown by the rich - costly signs of prowess or moral rectitude.
As a side note, vegetarianism would have nothing to do with the suffering of
wild animals under the conditions of ecological imbalance you describe.
And BTW, I am not a vegetarian.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 15:57:38 MDT