If eating animals is moral, then so is eating humans.

One who eats meat may refuse to practice cannibalism for a number of reasons, but morality is not among those.

---

Dear Pericles,

Some of those who claim to know about soul-transmigration acknowledge that a soul can live in vegetables, but claim that in this case it would not be a single bunch of carrots, but perhaps the whole carrot species at once, or a sub-species thereof, hence eating a single carrot, or even juicing a whole pack of them, would only feel as a needle-prick. Making a species extinct, however, would be an act of murder.

Also, I heard the claim that animals do not necessarily "contain" a soul at all given times, but souls may rather "enter" an animal for a brief period, usually a second or two, then leave.

Incidentally, the Jewish approach is that an animal-soul is elevated when eaten by man and that the best thing that could possibly happen to a [kosher] animal's soul is to be sacrificed in the temple in Jerusalem, assuring it a good human/Jewish birth next time around.

Please do not hold me on any of those claims - I have no conscious pre-human memories to either support or refute them.

'If eating animals is moral, then so is eating humans. '

Certainly the philosophy of many of the pagan tribes and indigeneous people of many lands.

runner,

"Certainly the philosophy of many of the pagan tribes and indigeneous people of many lands."

And also some of your bedfellows, the Catholics. (transubstantiation)

David

Dear Runner,

<<Certainly the philosophy of many of the pagan tribes and indigeneous people of many lands.>>

Comparing the number of men/women eaten in a year with the number of animals eaten in a day, surely you will agree with me that there is no current epidemic of cannibalism.

The same cannot be said about animal-flesh eating.

A fairly worthy article, and certainly with good intent. However, from some of the comments here it is easy to understand why some, if not many, seek the company of animals (and of nature at large) in preference to that of the most unpredictable and most untrustworthy of animals - the human animal.

All animals deserve respect, and to place human life above that of animals is an arrogance. But, such is the beast - what else could one expect from an animal that has spent so much physical and mental energy for so many centuries, even millennia, seeking to conquer and enslave (notionally as well as literally) so many of its own species for so many questionable purposes; as well as endeavouring to exploit, or else exterminate, so many other Earth species in its insatiable drive to conquer nature itself and attain unassailable dominion over all. Such grandeur, such determination, such arrogant belief in self-importance.

It may yet be possible to live in harmony with nature, but only if there were to be a paradigm shift in human motivation - however, given the momentum of global industrial development, this is a rapidly diminishing, if not entirely vain possibility. Of course, modern humanity scoffs at living in harmony with anything other than its own ego, so we can only enjoy nature for as long as it lasts - which appears not to be for too many more generations.

Any animal so intent on achieving its own downfall, if not total elimination, with such fervour and such disregard deserves nothing less than to achieve the most resounding success in this endeavour.

Saltpetre,

Now that I have had a chance to read the article, it would be difficult to argue against the notion that it is fair and balanced, containing information many would not have had before.

Your comment was excellent and my personal opinion is that I agree that the word ‘dominion’ which has been reinforced by the Christian Bible and enforced by Christianity and other religions has been and will be problematical to the long term survival of humanity and everything else.

David