>
> The difference between a pig and a carrot is in part due to the fact that
> we judge the pig more like us and therefore more deserving of moral
> consideration as a sort of quasi-human.
When a pig thrashes around in pain, and I react against it, I'm not
thinking "oh, this is horrible because the pig is LIKE ME," I'm
thinking "oh, this is horrible because the pig is suffering."
> As for a way of
> eating without
> killing anything... that presumably depends on treating the individual
> organism as the entity the life of which must not be taken. Again, that
> presumes a human/individualistic basis for moral judgments that may be
> difficult to generalize to, say, social insects.
>
I agree that respectful ways of treating mammals may not be
appropriate for other beings, including insects. But pigs, cows and
chickens (the most highly exploited animals in our system) THEMSELVES
strive for their individual well-being, so recognizing and responding
to that is appropriate and is not at all some human-centered bias.
> I agree that with a human population of 5.6 billion or so our species can
> no longer afford to eat much meat, but that is quite apart from arguing that
> killing animals for food is immoral per se.
Agreed, but that was not the point. The point was that concern for
plants or the land is not a sound basis at this point for criticizing
vegetarianism or veganism, since those diets harm the land less than
meat-eating.
>
> As for hunting never having played an essential dietary role, consider
> arctic and sub-arctic peoples. Agriculture at such high latitudes is
> impossible without very large inputs of fossil fuel energy that are
> ultimately more ecologically destructive than hunting. Before you
> dismiss Inuit/Eskimo and sub-Arctic Indian hunters as concerned only with
> trophies, consider what they have to say. For example, read Richard K.
> Nelson's _Make Prayers to the Raven_.
>
To clarify my suggestions: I believe that NON-indigenous north
american hunters are all trophy hunters. There are indigenous
peoples who must hunt to subsist, such as Inuits, so they are not AT
THE PRESENT trophy hunters. But, if we consider Jim Mason's
suggestion, it is possible that they only got into the ecological
niche they presently occupy (which requires hunting) because of male
trophy hunting. That is, long ago men started hunting large mammals
for status, not for nutrition. Then they gradually followed the
herds northward until it became necessary, in their new locale, to
hunt for subsistence. In this sense hunting and meat-eating may be
at root male womb envy.
Brian Luke
University of Dayton
