Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
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. |
Sparrow, I was totally in agreement with you until you made the above statment (bolding is mine).
I am against the outright killing. What gives me the right to say "Hmm, a chicken would be good to eat, I think I'll go kill it."? It doesn't matter to
me whether it suffers or not. Because I am a superior being to the chicken, it is my responsibility to protect its right to live. I don't think it gives me the right to decide how and when anyone else should die (whether it is a chicken, a deer, or a human). That is up to nature.
All life is valuable to me.
As have been all of my posts, this, too is just my opinion.