[graham.d]

Darwin changed his mind on the issue about "levels of species" but I think he was right in the evolutionary sense in which he intended it. I think we do, and have to, make moral judgements about those incapable of such judgements. On what basis do you think that having knowledge disqualifies us? Unfortunately it gives us power and responsibility which we may not be able to manage clearly, but this does not mean we can ignore it or simply sidestep the issue. In any case you have made a decision, whereas I have decided that I feel it is not the time to be concerned about this. I admire your positivism but would question the zeal you have in acting on your conclusions. I certainly do not object to your personal lifestyle decisions but rather whether this should, at the present time, be a universal ethic. The Jains used to wear masks to avoid inadvertently breathing in a fly but then they knew nothing of the bacteria they could not see and did not really appreciate the subtleties of sentience, but that all creatures had a soul. Are you not really advocating 21st century Jainism?

I see we are discussing this subject in two threads. Oops! I may have got confused as to any particular subject.

[glovesforfoxes (OP)]

I certainly do not object to your personal lifestyle decisions but rather whether this should, at the present time, be a universal ethic.

Why do you think it should not be a universal ethic?

I think we do, and have to, make moral judgements about those incapable of such judgements. On what basis do you think that having knowledge disqualifies us? Unfortunately it gives us power and responsibility which we may not be able to manage clearly, but this does not mean we can ignore it or simply sidestep the issue.

It doesn't disqualify us of the judgement, it is just nonsensical to. We see humans as capable of morality as good, those who act out their morality every day are good too. Judging something negatively for something it is incapable of doing, like a cat pondering the morality of hunting a mouse, is nonsensical. From an objective observer's point of view, the two acts of a human killing a mouse & a cat killing a mouse result in the same thing (dead mice), but from subjective points of view we can see that the cat would not consider the morality of what it is doing, whereas a human can, so a human can be morally blameworthy, so to speak, whereas a cat is not.

I admire your positivism but would question the zeal you have in acting on your conclusions

I dunno, can you be too zealous when it comes to true compassion?

Sure, I've given up foods & animal products, but it isn't such a great sacrifice. I am not monkish, I love life, & I have never loved making & eating food since being vegan. It's easier than it first seems [] Couple of hundred hours educating myself on different vegan matters like nutrition, philosophical positions like welfarism, new welfarism, animal rights, environmental issues, human issues, watching a bunch of different documentaries, that sort of thing.. but I'm attracted to learning about new things, so it was fun in itself.

The Jains used to wear masks to avoid inadvertently breathing in a fly but then they knew nothing of the bacteria they could not see and did not really appreciate the subtleties of sentience, but that all creatures had a soul. Are you not really advocating 21st century Jainism?

I guess you could see it that way, but I do not believe in the soul, though I think that's more a question of semantics than anything else [] Jainism has merit, but they are not vegans; though vegans are encouraging Jains to become vegan on the grounds that it causes suffering (however small, you noted yourself that they would not even inadvertently kill insects) in line with their shared beliefs with quite a bit of success, I think.