On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, ravi wrote:
> i think it is OK for you (i.e., others) to eat fish or any other meat,
> as long as you either hunt it or at least ensure it was procured with
> the least cruelty. w.r.t the particular reason you mention fish (that it
> is subject to lesser cruelty than pigs or cows or chicken), yes, i think
> it is better/ok to eat fish (singer differs). [for myself, i set a
> higher bar, but that is because i am fortunate to never have eaten meat,
> at least knowingly, ever in my life]
>
> --ravi
This moral stand is interesting to me because I don't really get it. If inflicting harm on living things is wrong (e.g., beheading a chicken and eating it is cruel), where do you draw the line? Why is eating broccoli okay? Why are the white blood cells in your body engulfing foreign viruses okay? I'm not being facetious, I just don't get the argument: all life involves stuff eating stuff; it's even less avoidable than participating in a capitalist economy!
Miles