Hi again Stefan,

You wrote:
>Your logic does not take into account, that animals and humans have
>considerably different mental abilities.
>Assuming that a cat has no understanding of what time and future
>mean (this assumption may be wrong!) it will not be disturbed in its
>life-plan if killed. But a human will be.

But a human infant would not be, right?

>(snip cat fear vs. human fear)

Okay, maybe 'important' would have been a better choice of words in my
'b' than 'sacred:'

>>b)  Human life is not more 'sacred' than animal life.

because 'sacred' has religious meanings that I didn't really intend.
In this case, I think your points are really refuting 'b' rather than
invalidating the syllogism.

>There are more reasons, that would allow killing an animal but
>forbidding to kill a human being.

I look forward to seeing what they are.
Am I to assume you are pretty much in agreement with Mr. Singer?  We
can talk some more about it after I have read the book.

>See Peter Singer: Practical ethics (got the title now),
>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1979.

Thanks for this.

Cheers & Prosit,
Martha