...half-baked in luke-warm logicStuart: "...But once you throw this argument into the realm of morality and immorality, you must then argue the basis of that morality. Then I will have to be convinced why, if morality is a human construct, that the current meating eating, animal testing, and animal exploiting nature of man is immoral. It is the accepted practice of the day. The only other position that can be argued is that morality and immorality are determined by some ecclesistical standard apart from man. Then we get to argue religion a little more."
I agree with most of what you have to say up until this point. Rights are a human construct, as, I believe, are morals. Sadly, both exist because people CHOOSE to act in ways that cause unnecessary suffering to others. The lamb (oh the symbolism) has no RIGHT not to be eaten by the lion, because lions are, by nature, carnivorous. Lions do not engage in factory farming, and they seem perfectly content to hunt their own food. (In fact, big cats in captivity seem pretty unhappy about having dead meat tossed to them as replacement to their rights to hunt.)
I have no problem with humans who similarly engage in the gathering/hunting of their own food through means other than domestication. If they wish to expend the additional energy necessary to hunt rather than gather their food, so be it. Anyways, I realize you will disagree, so I will stop here with that point.
Turning now to your comments on the sources of morality as it pertains to law. You say that it is legal to eat meat; that for this to change it would take a majority opinion in society; that since it is currently accepted, it is morally right, unless I accept some ecclesiastical/divine standard. To this, I address one question I would like you to answer: In the 16th to 19th centuries in Europe and North America, slavery was acceptable by most of society. Was it morally right? If so, did it become morally wrong only when more people felt it was wrong? If not, why not?
I believe slavery was and is always wrong, regardless of public opinion. I do not believe in a god. I believe in individual and collective spirituality independent of a divinity, and that force in me is what helps me decide what I think is right or wrong. I believe that many people close themselves off to this force (I'm sure the same way you believe that many people close themselves off from your god) because of selfishness, because of their life experiences, because of societal pressures. In some cases, such as slavery and supporting factory farming, I believe the vast majority of people can deny what is right. I further believe that people will go to great lengths to justify their actions and inactions. One must only take a look at the rhetoric surrounding the slavery issue to see this.
Stuart: "Do you folks understand that the spiritual facet of man is far more important than the rational and factual aspects? Isn't it wonderful how this issue forces the soul to introspection and forces those who will not acknowledge God to argue superficially and peripherally?"
Yes I acknowledge that spirituality is important. No I will not concede that spirituality necessitates a belief in the christian god. Often, I believe the latter actually precludes the former.
Keep on smiling, Stuart, and may the planet's collective spirit forgive you when you are recycled in the life-death process.
(You push your spirituality on me, I thought I'd give you a snarky taste of mine.)
None.
