Skanky Carpetmuncher's dilemma
Skanky Carpetmunchers believes it is wrong to kill
animals except in self defense:
Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
She doesn't believe it's "a little bit" wrong, or that
it's wrong "some of the time". She believes that in
ALL cases except self defense, it is wrong to kill
animals. That is a statement of absolute belief.
Skanky Carpetmuncher acknowledges that animals are
killed in the course of producing the vegetable and
fruit crops she eats. As with so much she says or
acknowledges, the acknowledgment is implicit. However,
it is unmistakable.
Skanky Carpetmuncher tries frantically NOT to
acknowledge that she is morally complicit in the deaths
of the animals who are killed in the course of
producing the foods she eats, but it doesn't work. She
knows she WOULD be complicit in the deaths of animals
if she ate meat, even though she wouldn't kill them
herself. But the SAME mechanism that makes meat eaters
morally responsible for the deaths of the animals they
eat serves to make Skanky Carpetmuncher morally
responsible for the deaths of the animals she doesn't
eat - the ones left to rot in the fields and around the
grain elevators. The mechanism has two three parts:
- knowledge that the deaths occur
- voluntary participation in a chain of market transactions
with the killers
- no "necessity" for the animals to be killed (not self
defense)
The first two are key: Skanky Carpetmuncher knows that
animals are killed in the course of producing the foods
she eats, and she participates in the market process
leading to the deaths as a matter of free choice; there
is no coercion.
Skanky Carpetmuncher believes, absolutely, that the
deaths are wrong, yet she justifies "feeling good about
herself" based solely on not eating meat. She is an
accomplice in what she MUST view as animal murder, but
she still is "content" with merely not eating meat.
Tough spot to be in.
|