Except that you fail to take into account the Paradox of Vagueness. That is, killing and eating humans is wrong, yes?
Whether or not killing humans is wrong is a matter of perspective (and timing), however, cannibalism is well known to be a biologically bad idea (from a long term sustainability point of view).
Killing and eating Pigs is OK, right?
If it's a matter of survival, killing and eating anything you have to is "OK".
So, when does "killing one is right" turn into "killing the other is wrong"?
A subjective moral decision, hence a personal choice.
Not to mention, define "wrong".
(the actual paradox is stated as "One grain of sand does not make a Heap. Adding one grain of sand does not turn it into a Heap. Therefore, no amount of grains of sand will ever make a heap.").
A conclusion that only holds in the absence of a definition for "heap".
There's a line in there somewhere, and for every argument you use to divide humans and animals, I'll counter it by fuzzying the line until you make a contradictory assertion.
I doubt that. There's no more that separates "humans" and "animals" than there is separating "animals" from "other types of animals".
OTOH, I'd love to see some arguments to support your assertion that morality is not relative.
I'm afraid morality is not relative - it just doesn't "relativise" very well.
Of course it is - and does. If morality were absolute and objective, then there would be a set of universal "taboos" that every animal, human and culture held to. Clearly, there is not.
"Morality" is a construct of society, rounded off by each individual's perspective. It's pliable, open to revision and *always* relative. Heck, you should only have to see how the average westerner reacts to asians eating cat and dog meat to realise that.
So you're going to have to make an argument (e-gad, you mean I gotta do some work?!) to counter what the previous poster said, and not just default to "yeah, many years we eat meat, therefore we can eat anything and do anything we like cause we are kings."
The parent poster asserted eating meat was physiologically incompatible with humans. I was pointing out that this is absolute bunk by means of the example that humans have been doing so since the dawn of time. Continuing on the physiological/biological line of reasoning, I also pointed out that there's no *objective* reason why whales should be treated differently to any other animal.
The rest of the post is personal philosophical musings, which by definition cannot be answered objectively.
[ Parent ]