I didn't like the argument presented in Q A 7 probably because it does not follow even if the first two premises are true. Instead of stating:
I. Humans are omnivorous by nature
II. Omnivores can digest meat
III. Therefore, it is morally permissible for humans to eat meat.
The argument should follow as:
I. Humans are omnivorous by nature
II. Omnivores can digest meat
III. Therefore, humans can digest meat by nature.
... or something of the like; any other interpretations?
Also, by being able to digest meat, what does it prove? That we should eat meat and its alright to crave it? That's fine because biologically it may be true, but we also may have evolved morally and are waiting for our bodies to catch up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
1 comment:
I think you articulate it excellently--merely the ability doesn't suggest moral action in one direction or the other. The argument that we are omnivorous is better suited as reason for moral debate at all--as the ability to eat both (with provisional economic circumstances) makes meat eating a choice rather than a need, and a moral choice at that.
Post a Comment