Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:38:52 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Peter:
>>Is killing an animal violence because force is used, because the animal
>>has a nervous system and therefore in you opinion suffers or because
>>another life is being ended? To me violence means somebody's rights or
>>integrity are being violated, and I do not see this being the case when
>>killing an animal for food or even when picking a peach from a tree. Is
>>the chimp violating the termites by eating them? - I think not. They
>>are there to serve the chimp and visa versa.
Stefan:
>I pick your definition and claim, that a kill violates the bodily inte-
>grity of a living being.
You see termination of life as a violation. Except for murder I do not.
>Also you are terminating possible social rela-tionships, the being might
live in.
And very likely opening up the door to new. Change is probably the only
certainty we have in this world.
>This may cause harm to the other members of the society. You are violating
them >indirectly then.
I am objecting to the word "violating" when describing the workings of the
food chain. If a crocodile eats me, is it violating me? No, it is just
having a meal by the only means it knows how. Even though I might feel very
violated in those few seconds before it has killed me off, the crocodile is
very innocent in its need to fulfill its dietary needs.
>Does that suffice?
We are getting close. :-)
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|