Martha:

> That is, of course, if you say you don't care about the suffering then I
> must agree with you that you feel that way.  But I mean that I *do* care
> about it.

Yes, I fully understand your feelings and respect them. I just wanted
to point out that vegetarians cannot demand that everyone share the
same feelings.

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 have had longish discussions on these subjects in a local French
newsgroup (a few thousands of messages), which yielded
nothing... Because each of us had different axioms. Ethics cannot be
justified by instinct/evolutionary biology or anything else, because
each society introduces rules, some of which being arbitrary, and even
contradicting the instinct in some way (but frustrations are avoided
in principle by redirecting the pulsions to other directions).

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).


>BTW how come your English is so good?

Because raw food helped improve it... I mean, [log in to unmask] did.
(in fact, what you don't know is that it takes me almost twice longer
to type a message in English than in French; and my accent does not go
through).

Best wishes,

Jean-Louis