Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
But why, Sparrow, is killing animals any more "morally acceptable" than killing vegetables? If you take the stance that killing living creatures is morally unacceptable, a carrot is just as "alive" as a cow.
|
That's a reasonable question.
One approach is to point out that meat is just vegetable matter once removed - so there is a lot of plant killing in a steak.
Eating the plants, rather than the meat, reduces the overall amount of killing.
But, that's not my position - it's suffering I object to rather than killing. If you could end a life, with absolutely no stress or pain to the victim (or anyone/anything else), then I'm not sure I would have much of an objection to that.
.
Also, I don't think plants have a nervous system capable of experiencing suffering, as I don't see any evolutionary advantage in them aquiring it and am not aware of any evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately though, to live is to cause suffering (albeit unintentional) - the philosopher Peter Singer suggested a taxonomy of suffering that positions creatures on a scale (based on the sophistication of their nervous systems) that would be a guide in minimising suffering. But, I agree, it is a tricky problem.