 |
 |
Another polemic to consider alongside that developed by Paul. This is interesting especially viewed in the light of the Dawkins model of biology. Why is it so unhealthy (to the extend of mass slaughter) to have something "wiped out" when according to the Dawkins philosophy we should be allowing animals to evolve into more healthier, stronger organisms by being exposed to foot and mouth virus. Also why are foot and mouth antibodies unacceptable when livestock are fed antibiotics, etc. to protect against disease caused by mass farming methods? Rob > ---------- > From: Paul Treanor[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Reply To: Paul Treanor > Sent: 22 March 2001 11:12 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Ethics of foot-and-mouth > > Foot-and-mouth disease has now arrived here in the > Netherlands, almost certainly from Britain. > > Some ethical issues associated with the outbreak have been > in the international media. It seems a failure of this list, > reflecting a general failure of academic approaches, to > raise more fundamental issues. Instead there is general > acquiescence in the taboo, created by government, media and society. > > It is not at all clear that there is any moral obligation to > help control the outbreak. It is not at all clear, that it > is a bad thing for the planet: it may be a bad thing for the > European farmers lobbies, but that is not an moral standard. > However, ethics is what academics define as ethics, and so > far, the academy disdains to question the official line. > > > -- > Paul Treanor > > http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/ >