Saturday, February 05, 2011
'In a perfect world' is often heard around here, where I am; perhaps, where you are, that phrase is also heard. Surely, we'd be literary characters in Candide if we believed our world to be 'perfect'; even many of those who claim to believe in Intelligent Design talk about a tragic flawing that occurred at some point.
Given that we PROFESS to be ethical in regard to animals, there is something about the claim that rings false when we're SO unfair in our application of that regard, based upon any animals' vulnerability to the mortal designs of converting their bodies into meat for meat-eaters.
Sociologically, I find quite interesting - distractingly interesting, - the earnest desire to walk around the moral difficulty of affirming OUR place in this tragic scheme of things while at the saem time claiming that all humans can be vegan, safely, albeit for ethical reasons.
If there's an ethical mandate to be vegan, which we can safely do, with a little forethought, support, discipline, and that ethical mandate has to do with the 'at risk' status of nonhumans who are often killed for their muscle tissues, is there any moral mandate for us to kill those animals to feed OTHER TYPES of beings who may have different physiologies (than ours) which require certain amino acids found NATURALLY only in animal tissues?
I see NO moral obligation for humans to accept that kind of role; it seems like the worst hybris to claim it.