As the smiley indicates, it’s a dig, a tease. Do you really think that I believe some living thing (X) is better than some other living thing (Y)? And if I did, that saying so would actually help my cause?
[Carrol]
> When _any_ widespread behavior is singled out, implicitly or
> explicitly,
> as a sign of superior or inferior character, _there_ you see the
> obnoxiousness of moralism.
And then John:
> When vegetarians claim eating meat is deliberate cruelty it follows
> that those who eat meat are deliberately being cruel.
> Don't you imagine some people will get defensive when you suggest
> they are being deliberately cruel?
> Any moral argument for vegetarianism makes the claim of the moral
> superiority of vegetarians. That is what moral arguments do, posit
> one moral position as superior to another.
> Again, how would you imagine most people will react when you claim
> to be morally superior to them?
> The vegetarians who proclaim loudly and publicly that they are
> vegetarians are doing so for what reason exactly?
I don't claim that your eating meat is deliberately cruel. Nor do any vegetarians I know. The power of your argument above seems to rest on the idea that amoral arguments can be made for choosing one or other action in human affairs. Despite Carrol's protestations, IMHO this is a quibbling over words. Don't call it morality (Carrol) if that makes you feel better. It is the superiority of the arguments that matter. We could loop on these perceptions forever: Chris believes that this "how would ... people react when you claim to be morally superior" reaction itself is a guilty response. Me, I think such speculation may be interesting, but isn't very productive, though it is perfectly fine, in my book, to employ them against our enemies (again, I am assuming -- big assumption -- there is an "us" here with a definable common enemy).
You cannot confuse public proclamations of individuals about their choices with the content of the arguments offered by everyone who make similar choices (or does not). For instance, my wife who occasionally eats seafood, or Chris Doss here, make arguments about the suffering of animals, and in my wife's case the additional argument that such suffering can be alleviated by the adoption of vegetarianism.
> Such judgments violate solidarity -- and at
> least the impression I get is that PETA is not interested in
> solidarity
> with anyone who doesn't accept its moral conception of animal rights.
PETA activism, as I see it, is intentionally over the top, in a climate where each and every vegetarian is lumped together and responded to with ridicule. But regarding solidarity, I have asked this before: what is the basis of solidarity, if not some form of agreement on conceptions and goals? If PETA or western leftists are unwilling to examine their own conceptions, then is solidarity possible? There is chance of piecemeal solidarity, I guess.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself ;-) PeTA => http://peta.org/ Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/