> Hi Todd,
>
>>I think the point that person made was that whether you eat a carrot or a
>>cow, you must kill what you eat.  You cannot sustain your own life
>> without
>>killing other organisms.  I don't think that's controversial.  But I take
>>it that your point is that you find killing carrots less morally
>>problematic than killing cows.  Can you explain what you find morally
>>problematic about killing cows?
>
> I realize that in order to eat something must be killed. I think there is
> a big
> difference between killing a plant and killing an animal. I don't believe
> there is
> any pain and suffering involved in the killing of a plant.

Sorry to take so long resuming this discussion.  I asked what was morally
problematic because I wanted to be as clear as possible as to what your
position is; I wasn't baiting you.  From what you wrote, I take it to be
this: killing cows and other sentient creatures is morally problematic
because it causes pain and suffering to those creatures.  Is that a fair
statement of your view?

I notice you mention pain and suffering, but not death.  Was that
intentional?  Also, do you regard pain and suffering as different from
each other, or just variations?

Again, I'm not baiting you.  I think it's important to be clear about
these things.  For example, I would make a distinction between pain and
suffering.  A person competing in a marathon may experience considerable
pain, but it's not clear that "suffering" describes that condition. 
Suffering seems to involve extended pain and the despair that it causes. 
For this reason, I'm a bit more skeptical of attributing suffering to
livestock.  Indeed, the slaughter of animals may be instantaneous,
involving little or no pain at all.  Your moral scruples may be more
relevant to the practice of how cattle are raised and slaughtered than to
the bare fact that they are killed for food.  Does that sound right to
you?

Todd Moody