>Sure. I wanted to say that many omnivorous do not even think about
>that notion of "strict minimum", eat animal food like fruits and do
>not worry more about eating too much meat than too much fruits.

This is obvious as they are in the safe hands of their instincts & of
Mother Nature.

>"Cannot" because I don't have the right to impose the morality that I
>was taught in my western environment to others that have had a
>different education and sense of morality.

Of course you do. In fact it is your instinctual, moral duty. I am not
suggesting that you throw out all discretion and become a zealous,
cultural missionary only that you stand up to the true injustices of
the world.

>Your example of a serial killer is not adequate, since it is a single
>individual acting against the law (or morality) of his own country. I
>was talking about persons being tortured in countries in which the
>circumstances would "justify" the torture, according to the morality
>of that civilization.

It seems to me that you have bought into a lot of the political
propaganda that is being used by various oppressive regimes to justify
their inhuman ways. As an example Muslim fundamentalism has little to
do with the teachings of the Koran. Admittedly, my example above could
have been better yet often the madness of one person will determine the
course and fate of a country. Idi Amin, Stalin, Hussein & Hitler, who
were (are) all extremely emotionally imbalanced & mentally unstable,
come to mind.

Peter:
>> 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.

Jean-Louis:
> And even if we knew more about our instinct, humans (and chimps,
>etc...) are social beings, and some rules contradict our instinct. Two
>extreme examples: 1] Buddhist monks consider immoral to kill, even for
>self defense. If they were to defend themselves, they should harm the
>aggressor the less possible and forgive him afterwards.2] In some
>civilizations, there are ritual sacrifices (for instance, young women
>being burnt, etc.). It may be cruel, but helps solving inner
>conflicts. Rules form a coherent system. If you suppress one of these
>rules, things do not work as well, in the sense that in practice,
>instinct would be even more baffled and/or there would be more asocial
>persons.

I concede with all of the above. There are many cultural traditions
that I do not approve of but which I would agree should be allowed to
continue. These are often not easy judgment calls. Was it "good" to
prohibit cannibalism among certain tribes on New Guinea? I do not have
the answer. The main point I was trying to address was the
institutionalized torture and oppression going on under the false
disguise and pretense of tradition and religion. Millions of young
women being mutilated for life by being forced to undergo circumcision
in many African, Muslim countries is male chauvinism at its cruelest
and has no foundation in any religious scripture. Genocide, children
being abused sexually and working under slave like conditions,
executions and torture of anybody who criticizes the political regime
etc. are not part of the cultural traditions of these cultures either
but are for most part expressions of perversion usually brought on by
the devastation of colonialism.

>Sure, you would say: their civilization is "barbaric", suppress all
>these rules and replace them by (y)our conceptions of human
>rights. But until now, America is hardly an example of success. How
>many serial killers, rapists, murders with automatic gunfire, not to
>speak of all the depressive persons, etc.? Is the global percentage of
>"cruelty" higher in modern or in "barbaric" civilizations?

You watch too many American movies.:-) Most murders & other acts of
violence in the US occur among friends and family. There is no
comparison between this and what is going on in the truly oppressive
regimes of the world. This is not to say that the economic violence &
racial injustice in the US does not deserve strong condemnation.

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

Jean-Louis:
>That if we adopt the vegetarian conception that life is so sacred that
>you don't have the right to suppress it, there are no objective
>arguments to say that the life of a bat is less valuable.

The fact that you seem to give each ideology equal respect is admirable
I guess. However, it will never remain one of my virtues especially not
in the case of ethical vegetarianism but let us not go there. ;-)

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

Jean-Louis:
>Don't know. J.-P. Changeux, a famous French biologist, talks in the
>book "Matiere a pensee" about our ability to imagine another
>individual as another self, as the biological foundation for our sense
>of morality.

In the case of torture and suffering I agree. On the other hand anybody
obsessedly trying to imagine what it is like being killed & eaten
should have their head looked into as it has nothing to do with empathy
but rather a state of displaced hysteria from which I admittedly suffer
myself. My guess is that there is a very high percentage of ethical
vegans who have been sexually molested or otherwise severely physically
abused as children.

>Whether some "neurotic" phenomenon plays a role or not is
>not clear.

Maybe not to you but to me it is as clear as the fly on your nose. :-)

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]