Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
7
6
7
1
5
5
7
10
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Falacious
Not Falacious, but simply correct.
My comment isn't absurd. It's pointing to the relevant fact that man is a part of nature and the course of human discovery or adaptation is natural. That is unless you are a God, and not encumbered by the trappings of nature.
Note that I do mention that this is largely an issue of species and nature. While a mentally retarded person may not explicitly reciprocate rights, our species bestows the framework of rights onto other humans because the human species reciprocates those rights amongst ourselves. Whether the human is retarded or extremely intelligent is irrelevant. But let's flip your question on its head:
Is it morally and ethically permissible for a dog to kill retarded dog? If reciprocation is irrelevant, then all life on this planet must have a universal moral and ethical code that is above and beyond nature of which there is no evidence.
- sumwatt August 21, 2008 8:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ah. Simply correct.
It makes debating much easier when arguments are so conveniently titled. :-)
I'm afraid yours is a circular argument. "our species bestows the framework of rights onto other humans because the human species reciprocates those rights amongst ourselves." What? We give ourselves rights because we give ourselves rights? That doesn't help explain why we do it. Nor does it explain why we don't do it to other species. Your speciesist views remain unfounded. Much like racist and sexist views. Upon scrutiny, arguments do not successfully justify excluding any sentient beings from the scope of morality.
As for your question about the morality of dogs, your argument will only end up whittling down to "well they don't do it, so why should I?" This argument just doesn't hold. There are plenty of heinous acts performed by humans on other humans, but you'd never use that to justify a relative code of ethics. There is something above and beyond the laws of nature: logic and reason.
- mike
August 21, 2008 9:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.