On Fri, 5 May 2000 20:15:23 -0400, Rick Strong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Nice post Julie!  It's great when some of us apply irony and humor to the
>debate.  A very good queston:  if any lines are to be drawn,  where do we
>draw them.  I have no answers but I appreciate the questions.  I am
>interested in medical ethics and there is some resonance as to line drawing
>on food sources.  Thoughts??

"In the historical development of ethics, three principal standards of conduct
have been proposed as the highest good: happiness or pleasure; duty, virtue, or
obligation; and perfection, the fullest harmonious development of human
potential. Three distinct authorities invoked for good conduct include the will
of a deity, the pattern of nature, or the rule of reason. When the will of a
deity is the authority, obedience to divine commandments is the accepted
standard of conduct. If the pattern of nature is the authority, conformity to
the qualities attributed to human nature is the standard. When reason rules,
behavior is expected to result from rational thought." - from The Encarta® 99
Desk Encyclopedia Copyright © & ? 1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.

The actions of PETA are not the will of a deity, nor the pattern of nature (cf
www.beyondveg.com for reams of evidence on why humans are not naturally
vegetarians, unlike other apes), not the rule of reason.

Therefore they do not fall into the classification of "ethics".

Note that the ideas of PETA did not exist prior to the existence of teddy bears
and zoos...


--
Cheers,

Ken
[log in to unmask]