>I think this is a no-brainer.
>
>
>
Me too!
>P1. Suffering should be minimized. I think this
>premise is accepted by just about everyone.
>
>
>
The existence of life on this planet depends on things eating each
other. That's just the way the ecosystem works. If killing =
suffering, then the existence of life on this planet requires lots and
lots of suffering. --That's what I call a "no brainer"!
>P2. Killing animals causes them to suffer (I think
>things like "how do we know they suffer?" is silly.
>That's like asking "how do I know there are other
>minds?" Obviously, I don't KNOW it, but as long as
>people continue to act like they have minds, and as
>long as animals continue to act like they suffer, I
>will assume as a matter of practice that they do.)
>
>
>
Humans are incredibly adept at anthropomorphizing animals: we love to
impose human feelings and emotions on animals, and especially pets. We
have no idea whether or not they have human-like feelings, but we like
to assume they do. --And every act that animals carry out that you can
point to to show that they "suffer" can be applied to many nonanimal
species too. For instance, plants can move away for cold and dark;
paramecium try to escape a unicellular organism trying to eat it. There
is no compelling evidence that supports the claim "we know animals
suffer and plants do not."
>C. Therefore, killing of animals should be minimized.
>
>
No, the killing of animals is an absolutely necessary element of any functioning ecosystem.
Miles