On Sat, 6 May 2000, Ken Stuart wrote:

> Because to single out "animals" is entirely arbitrary.
>
> I've never yet heard a good response to the question put to "ethical
> vegetarians" - "Why not be ethical towards carrots?"

Have you actually studied much of the literature on ethical
vegetarianism?  The general argument is that it is the capacity
for suffering that generates an interest in avoiding it.  To the
extent that we humans have an interest in avoiding suffering and
not being lunch, animals that are relevantly similar to us have a
relevantly similar interest.  It is that interest that generates
the presumptive moral rule against causing suffering.

It may be difficult to draw a sharp line between those creatures
that are relevantly similar to us and those that are not, but
that doesn't mean that there are no clear cases.  For example, it
is very reasonable to suppose that the capacity for suffering
depends on the existence of a nervous system of sufficient
complexity.  This already rules out carrots and other vegetation.

It is therefore not arbitrary to single out animals.  For the
record, I am not an ethical vegetarian, but I know that the case
for ethical vegetarianism is not as absurd as you are suggesting.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]