This article, trying to get to the bottom of sheep cruelty, and respect for animals in general, pleas for retreat from extremities in agrument. But eventually it clambers out onto a shrubby extremity itself by saying "the scandal of our time is that this " - (inherited tradition of thought) - "has been deemed inadmissible even though the foundations of our society rest on it."

Of the many scandals of our time, questioning inherited traditions of thought should not rate too highly. rather, these traditions should be viewed as no more than valuable building blocks towards improvement.

If only humanity in general could divorce itself from the, almost universal, traditional belief that we are separate from the environment we depend upon for fundamental support - and accept that we are part of it.

That traditional belief has, over the course of the last ten thousand years, given us malaria, smallpox, influenza, and salinised landscapes. In the course of the last two centuries it has provided us with global warming escalation, a permanent war footing, and AIDS.

We have gone, and are still going, forth to multiply. Six billion in the world, increasing at 1.3%pa; 20 million in Australia, increasing at 0.7%pa.. In the world, in Australia, we are knowingly destroying our life-support systems in order to do it. A rabbit may be excused this procreative habit. But we are without excuse for not modifying our traditional beliefs to adjust the benefits and problems of human numbers so that they are campatible with their environments.

Yes, PETA does need to adjust the rock of its belief to the real world. So do we. May ethical priorities turn to focus on more fundamental realities.

All interesting posts, and like the first poster, don't believe that PETA is necessarily calling all like minds. Forget about the religion which justifies sacrificing this or that to the gods. It's about how we treat animals. I take my hat off to people that through their beliefs, eschew eating meat because of the despicable way we treat animals a'la factory farming. However I am inclined to the carnivore (I like to eat meat) and we raise chickens and various fowl for table. Which we do, but whilst they are alive, they free range and do all the things that they should do. I have no problem eating them, it all comes down to the way they are treated prior to death. Animals are not human, otherwise we'd all be looking over our shoulder for Animal Farm, but we seem to be the ones in control. Therefore we should treat all creatures great and small (except cockroaches) with the utmost respect. The worst cruelty mankind inflicts on animals is factory farming and neglect in my book, and I feel guilty every time i buy into it at a supermarket. Caretaking of our fauna is more than being a vegan, it is about some of the things that PETA does do well, such as bringing witness to ban bear bile in China, which is horrific, but doesn't necessarily touch us unless it's shoved in our face. I'm not an advocate for PETA, but am grateful for any organisation that bring us awareness about these things. It's not only about eating them and the market, it's about how we treat them whilst they are alive. I have no compunction about shooting a fox who's in the penthouse, but a bear being held in a shed for it's life just to get the bile out of it's body so some guy can have an erection, makes me want to cringe and apologise for being part of the human race.

There's a lot more to it than just wanting to eat meat.

Although I disagree with what PETA says, my target was not specifically this organization but the rationality that leads it to such irrational conclusions. I was using PETA as an example of a rationality that could lead in any direction because it is not grounded in the experience of human beings, as I think the biblical texts are. Instrumental reason can lead to the death camps as well as to a well run medical service because it is value free. Similarly, the logic of PETA can lead in bizarre directions, veganism not being the worst. I thought Peter Chen, in his last paragraph had a point. Do not get me wrong, I am not for irrationality. What I am against is the hegemony of the rationality that is a product of modernism. As a working scientist I use this rationality all the time, but I do not use it when I relate to the people I love as in fact none of us do. We need to acknowledge that there are different kinds of rationality (Alistair MacIntyre: Whose justice, which rationality?). Scripture is rational in its own way, if it were not, it could not have formed the robust Western culture that we see around us.

The issue of whether we kill animals for meat is an open question. Indeed, the visions of Isaiah frame the fulfilled creation as a place in which the animals are at peace with each other and with us. Whether we treat animals with complete disregard is not an open question.

I know that I am always harping on about human rights, but they are just as much mythical as the creation stories but with less warrant since they are not based on a careful analysis of the metaphysical structure of the world but rather are a stop gap forced on us by the abandonment of theology. By the way, “theology” is not in my use a pejorative.

Deuc
The ruins of modernity, see: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9310/articles/jenson.html

Peter uses fatuous academe-speak to denigrate the genuinely held beliefs of others and justifies it by using a classic "begging the question" logic.
1. Animals are not people.
2. The bible says this.
3. The bible is true.
4. Hence my arument is true.
5. Hence (by inference) cutting the bums off living sheep is OK.

Peter, I agree, as most people would, that animals are not people but to use the argument "Although it is obvious that they can suffer, it is not so obvious that they understand what death is or what their life is for." causes me to almost retch with laughter. Now, I appreciate that you have convinced yourself that you know what your life is for and what death is but meanwhile there are many of us that are still working on this one and some of us love our animal brothers who share this earth with us. Yes, I eat meat. Yes, I am a hypocrite but I am wondering,
Would you eat your dog? if not then why not?
Do you support the slaughter of whales? how about orang-utans?
Would you serve up pig to a Jew or Muslim? Why not?

Peter finishes up with an inevitiable snipe at modernism and our so-called secular society (e.g. "... especially now since the ruins of modernism lay all around us")
Where exactly are these ruins Peter and what have you to say about the crumbling edifice of your superstition and theology?

Priscillian – we as humans understand the concept of life and death. It is doubtful if animals do. I think this is the point that Peter was making. The “meaning of life” is a different concept altogether.

Your first sentence deplores the denunciation of the personal views of others – your last sentence does that exact thing. Very poor show. I can also assure you that if hungry enough, you would eat your dog, cat, horse, guinea-pig, whale or orang-utan with gusto.

Extending the same rights to animals that we expect as humans is ridiculous. Animals only have what rights humans choose to give them. Obviously the needless suffering of animals and the pointless destruction of same are terrible activities that diminish us as humans as much as they harm animals. Animals however have no twangs of conscience when they inflict pain and suffering on each other. We are either the same as, or different from, animals. If we’re the same than our obligation to them is much less than if we are different.