 |
 |
My own diet is primarily vegetarian plus fish, although not for "ethical" reasons. There should (somewhere) be a logical dividing line between what we should and should not kill because of its intelligence. Brain size might be a partial indicator. Cetacean brains are as large (or larger) and as complex as ours. Fish brains are smaller than bird brains. They are quite unintelligent. In any event, our cetacean friends routinely use them for food. People who swim with dolphins enjoy hearing echolocation clicks- fish, I'm sure, have a very different perception of that clicking noise. Bird brains are- well, bird brains. The guest of honor at yesterday's dinner has a particular reputation for not having much awareness of its existence. Next, we come to mammals. These vary in intelligence, although all are smarter than birds or fish. Dogs and cats provide companionship (Rudyard Kipling called the dog "the first friend," and the horse "the first servant"). This may be why the idea of eating dogs or horses is repugnant to most people. Pigs are not as likeable, but I've read that they're smarter than dogs. Mammals are definitely aware of their existence, so I could see a possible objection to eating them. However, killing other animals for food is not something people invented. In some cases, it's necessary to regulate populations. Deer, for example. If all the hunters stayed home this season, many deer would starve, or end up as roadkill. My high school biology class showed the relationship between preditor and prey relationships. Without predators, starvation regulates the prey. If there are, for example, wolves and mountain lions, they regulate the prey. However, as they deplete the prey, starvation thins their own numbers. Then the prey population increases. You get something that looks like two out of phase sine waves (population versus time). The question is where to draw the line. Some societies DID kill handicapped babies (ex/ the Spartans abandoned them to die), although they didn't eat them. This is clearly un- acceptable in a modern society. The same question comes up about abortion- any fetus is a potential human life, but when does it get to the point where it is aware, able to suffer pain, and so on? The best solution I heard was to allow abortion for any reason in the 1st trimester, and only to protect the mother's life afterwards. This wouldn't satisfy either pure Right-to-Life or Pro-Choice people, but it may be the best solution. If we recognize that an animal is a fellow intelligent creature, does the obligation not to eat it include a duty to save it? Suppose I see a deer that is starving to death. If I'm against eating deer, must I take the deer in and feed it? If a pack of wolves is bringing down a deer, must I shoot the wolves to save the deer?* (And what about the wolves' rights?) But I would advocate shooting a shark to keep it from killing a dolphin. [Here's a REAL dilemma- what if an orca is killing a dolphin?] There has to be a practical place to draw the line- we can't protect all forms of life (it would be both prohibitively expensive and futile), but there are some forms that might be "people" like us. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- *This assumes we got rid of laws that might protect wolves. It's often illegal to shoot thems, except to protect domestic animals or people.