[lit-ideas] Re: thinking things through
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:53:55 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Sun, 18/10/09, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Comment from a reader responding to
> an article about the doings of People for the Ethical
> Treatment of Animals:
>
> If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of
> meat?
King Canni Bal, pleading provocation to the charge of murder, famously asked
the same re humans. "If we aren't supposed to hang you, why do you have such a
splendidly long neck?" replied the judge.
D
Not previously knowing that Steve Wright posted to PETA
Noting, btw, the underlying answer to these false connundrums is (a)Darwinism
(as it scuppers their IntDesign or teleological premisses) and (b) pointing out
the 'naturalistic fallacy' of moving from 'can' [eat because meat] to 'ought'
[to eat because meat]
Ought to leave it there, as this bit is longer than the post, but then does
ought imply can? Well, WO suggests
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
