Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:53:52 +0100
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 16:06:03 -0000 Struan Hellier
<struan@clara.net> wrote:
> For almost every moral situation you put forward and
> resolve under this framework, I will be able to
> demonstrate the opposite resolution with equal
> consistency and equal force using precisely the same
> criteria. What sort of a moral framework is that? The
> only way you will consider that I am wrong is by recourse
> to emotivism.
Struan,
In the moral "situation" mentioned below about
vegetarianism could you please demonstrate the opposite
resolution of this situation "with equal consistency and
equal force using precisely the same criteria" i.e. by
using the MOQ show why it is more moral to eat animals than
vegetables.
I look forward to your answer with interest,
Anthony.
"Is it moral, as the Hindus and Buddhists claim, to eat the
flesh of animals? Our current morality would say it's
immoral only if you're a Hindu or a Buddhist. Otherwise
its OK, since morality is nothing more than social
convention."
"An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say
it's scientifically immoral for everyone because animals
are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more Dynamic
than are grains and fruits and vegetables. But... it would
add... that this moral principle holds only where there is
an abundance of grains and fruit and vegetables. It would
be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of
famine, since they would then be killing human beings in
favor of a lower organism."
(Robert Pirsig, LILA, Black Swan, 1991, rep.1994, p.190/191)
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:58 CEST