>But an omnivorous doesn't care about the necessity or not if meat (or
>fish etc.), and generally eats more than the strict minimum.

I am not convinced of this. And even if it is true it depends on how
you define "strict minimum". Strict minimum to get by and be able to
procreate or strict minimum to reach full health & life potential and
pass on the strongest genes?

>Unfortunately, there is no universal morality. In some countries,
>prisoners are tortured. I am of course outraged by these immoral acts,
>but cannot show hostility, since they honestly believe they are
>serving justice.

"Cannot" because it would lead to nowhere or because you feel it would
be wrong to try to impose you standards on others? If you cannot show
your outrage when people are being tortured then when can you? And how
do you know that they honestly believe they are serving justice? A
serial killer who is acting out his hatred to his cruel mother by
killing women I am sure believes that he is serving justice - yet he is
living in a world of fantasy.

>The only thing to do would be to explain my point of
>view, and try to convince them to adopt less "barbaric" laws.

They might laugh at you. I think it is somewhat of a romantic myth that
foreign cultures have a lot of sacred, torturous traditions -  many an
unscrupulous tyrant would like us to remain under this illusion.

Stefan:
>If it is not universal, I don't call it morality. Ethics   m u s t
>have to do something with an objective point of view. If not, it is
>purely ethical relativism. Ethical relativism leads to the following:
>Not so long ago people in the south of the U.S. believed that having
>slaves is just a normal lifestyle, nothing to worry about, no ethics
>implied there. And others with different ethical belief systems
>considered them to do wrong. If it is "allowed" to settle your own
>ethical system, everyone will set this in a way that facilitates his
>own lifestyle more or less. Also nobody can complain about other
>ethical systems since this is not allowed.
>Therefore ethical relativism will lead to nothing in the best case; in
>the worst case it leads to any unwanted behavior one can think of.

I agree. Call me a sentimental fool but I believe there are certain
things that are just plain "wrong". If somebody comes up to me and
wants to buy my daughter for white slavery, I would think that this
person is full of it. How I would react would depend on the
circumstances but I would not rule out reverting to hostility - I would
call the cops for sure - rather than patiently trying to use persuasion
to get this person to leave his wicked ways.

Jean-Louis:
>I disagree with Stefan when he says that the problem of killing has
>an objective answer. Is the life of an insect as important than the
>life of a cat? Of a 2 days-old embryo? Should we let a fetus which has
>severe mental and/or physical disabilities develop (is there a notion
>of "right to live")? Is abortion justified in case of a rape? To
>determine the value of the life of an egg, should we take into account
>the actual, or potential life, do we harm the hens when we steal their
>future "children"?

I think Stefan would say that the life of a cat is just as important in
Turkey as in Bolivia, not that a cat and an ant should be treated the
same way.

>I think that people dreaming of universal ethics have an unrealistic
>view of the world, and have too much self-esteem: generally, the
>values that are praised (liberty, equality,...) are the western ones
>(as if we were closer to perfection than "barbaric" civilizations).

I am a big believer in the concept of human rights and believe it is
one of the good things to have come out of Western civilization. I do
not believe that child labor under a certain age should be permitted
except for under certain circumstances like helping out at home, I
believe in the universal right of a women to choose when and if she
wants a baby and that all torture and capital punishment should be
abolished forever. If that means I have too much self-esteem maybe the
world could use more of it. And we of course can learn a lot from
"barbaric" civilizations as well.

I realize that naturally my opinions are very subjective yet I am
willing to argue that there are certain universal principles in this
world. As an example take a baby; no matter where in the world it is
born it has the need for a loving and attentive mother. There are
different interpretations of what loving a baby means but from the view
of the baby crying to be held only one: hold me. Most cultures of the
world have cut humans off from their instincts & natural needs, so we
with the help of our hearts & intuition as well as science, logic and
our critical minds have to re-learn what it means to be whole, human
beings again fully connected to our instinctual heritage without which
there can be no universal ethics.

Peter:
>> It seems that if the intestinal walls have a thick mucus lining with
>> the correct PH, the right balance of intestinal flora and no
>>symptoms of a "leaky gut" then no parasites will get into the body.

Jean-Louis:
>How would you then explain that wild animals (mongooses for
>instance...) get parasited?

I believe it is natural for all carnivores to have parasites and that
they have a natural immunity to the parasites that prevents them from
getting sick from them. The parasites might even serve some kind of
beneficial role for the carnivores. Anybody know?

Peter:
>> I have deleted it but in a post to Martha you talk about
>> not caring about the suffering of animals. I am not sure what you
>>were trying to say. Could you please elaborate?

Jean-Louis:
>Just a desperately simple fact: I do have some reluctances to killing,
>but not for moral reasons. Trampling an ant or eating a living
>shellfish is easy, I have no inhibitions. But the more an animal looks
>like a human, the more difficult it is to kill it. Especially "cute"
>animals like rabbits (K. Lorenz says that they look "cute" because the
>shape of their head, the relative size of their eyes, etc. make them
>look like our own babies). Every honest person will acknowledge that
>is it easier to desire the death of a snake or of a bat than of a
>little, colorful bird. But objectively, their lives do not have less
>value.

What do you mean when you say that a bat and a bird have the same
objective value?

>That's instinct, it hinders us from killing other members from
>the same species. When I have to kill an animal (a lobster, a crab...)
>to eat it, there is a conflict between the eagerness to eat and the
>fear of mutilation: looking at my crab, I can't help but thinking
>"what a terrible thing if my limbs were ripped off like that". Notice
>that I do *not* think "oh, poor crab, it is suffering so much", but,
>instead, "I wish I hadn't the same fate as that animal". That's a
>purely *egoistic* thought, opposite to genuine vegan/vegetarian
>compassion.

Interesting distinctions. But the question is if not both ways of
relating to the crab are equally neurotic & un-natural?

>That's what introspection tells me. I of course do not expect other
>persons to have the same feelings, especially if they have strong
>philosophical/religious beliefs.

No need for a disclaimer and instead thanks for an excellent post! Your
words gave me some pieces to the puzzle I have been missing for a long
time.

>I'll leave my native country in 2 weeks (06/20) and will stay in a
>hostile environment of junk food eaters and soft drink consumers until
>September 1998.

Jean-Louis, I hope that your stay in the US will be a pleasant one and
that you will be able to get on-line and visit us while you are
(t)here.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]