On 9 Feb 2006 10:22:40 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>*WHY*

Because of "aras" who insist that:

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration . . . humans deliberately killing animals
for food is an immoral thing to do." - Goo

>does killing animals require mitigation, ****wit?

Because of "aras" who insist that:

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans . . . the evil of
killing it . . . DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo

>Answer the
>question, ****wit.

Because of "aras" who insist that:

"having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does not
mitigate the wrong in any way. . . "giving them life" does NOT mitigate
the wrongness of their deaths" - Goo

>You believe it *does* require mitigation,

Because of "aras" who insist that:

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than
ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives"" - Goo

>does killing animals require mitigation, ****wit? and we
>want to know why.

Because of "aras" who insist that:

"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other words -
if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense.
There's your answer." - Goo

>Answer.

Because of "aras" who insist that:

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the
animal in existing at all" - Goo