jim wrote..
>When I say "philosophically coherent," I mean relating to nature in a
>manner which looks at death realistically and acknowledges our
>responsibility for the deaths we cause. Of course, we can, with the
>"fossil fuel vegetarians," look the other way from death, and try to cover
>our eyes, as Porter did initially; or we can take responsibility for
>"pulling the trigger," so to speak, with the hunters, meat eaters, and
>other "Yahoos". . . .
Jim, I hate to pick one paragraph out of your whole e-mail, but I just
couldn't not comment on this. Why the referrence to vegetarians this way?
I'm a vegetarian. I use fossil fuels. But so do meat eaters. What's the
point? In addition, there are many vegetarians which, through their
non-harming philiosophies, also come to stop harming in any way *possible*
(including ceasing fossil fuel use whenever possible). Do I consider myself
morally unique? Only in the sense that we're all morally unique. Do I
consider myself holier than thou (generally speaking)? Well, if I did, it
wouldn't be because I choose to not hunt animals. And why should I share in
the "responsibility" of pulling the trigger? That's absurd.
Bryan H.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|