One of the bad things about studying philosophy is that it makes you question assumptions. I tried to think about what was the moral thing to do. If I were trying to survive in a non-modern society, killing and eating anything you can get your hands on seems to me to be ok, as it it is necessary for survival. But in a modern society where there are many options, this seems not to hold water. Can we justify eating something just because it tastes good and we've done it for a long time? We could make similar arguments about eating other things. how about eating our criminals. hey there is a solution to a bunch of problems, world hunger and exploding prison population...
Anyway, i decided to use an intelligence test to determine what i eat. I only eat dumb animals: fish, chicken (poultry), etc. Smarter animals like pigs, cows, and pretty much most mammals are out. Sometimes i eat other meat, but i feel guilty later. I hate that I have the gall to have convictions but don't have the stomach to stand by them.
Oh, well,
MadScot
"What? Haggis isn't meat, is it? They told me it was a wee doggie!"
Anyway, i decided to use an intelligence test to determine what i eat. I only eat dumb animals: fish, chicken (poultry), etc. Smarter animals like pigs, cows, and pretty much most mammals are out. Sometimes i eat other meat, but i feel guilty later. I hate that I have the gall to have convictions but don't have the stomach to stand by them.
Oh, well,
MadScot
"What? Haggis isn't meat, is it? They told me it was a wee doggie!"



Then again, think of what they have to work with. We, fortunately, have appendages that we can manipulate the world with. A fish has one real choice to investigate things.....taste it. If it gots hooks, though....it's gonna be a painful experience. But think of the first time you touched something hot without knowing what it would do....yeaow. The difference? We only make that mistake once....(or twice, or any number of times depending on the person).
Comment