> But it remains a fact that our ecosystem is tied to the transfer of energy
> between plants and animals that requires the deaths (often ugly and horribly
> painful) of legions of animals since the beginning of it. This has nothing
> to do with mankind.yes, ecosystems are physically nothing more than transfers of energy. but i'm not sure why you use the terms 'ugly' and 'horribly' - surely this has everything to do with mankind, since these are subjective human responses to natural events.
> Nature does not recognize or consider sentient animal
> suffering in the greater schema of evolution. Only survival and transfer of
> genetic material counts in nature.
again i agree - but why does this entail this entail your conclusion. why should this embarrass animal rights activists? surely our argument is that if one believes that it is morally wrong to cause suffering in humans then it is also wrong to cause it in animals, especially when it is only for the trivial desire to please the human palate? moral concern for human well-being is (for most people) based on our capacity to suffer. if we recognise that some animals are capable of suffering (and surely few people would deny this), then we should attempt to avoid causing them harm.
> This is embarrassing to animal rights activists. I know that it doesnÆt excuse
> mankindÆs treatment of animals, but it certainly is reflected in nature. Most
> people who have objected to this have said that mankind must be ôbetterö
> than nature. I donÆt know if that is possible.
mankind isnt 'better' than nature. we are part of it. but this is not to deny that we are autonomous. unlike the natural events you describe, where one animal causes pain in another, we are capable of choosing whether or not to cause suffering. animals (with the possible exception of some of the higher mammals) do not have any conception of suffering, and only react to pain. thus morality does not apply to them, and it is pointless to describe nature as a 'murderer,
dan'
