"Rupert" > wrote
>I read the rest of the essay. The position he defends is different
> from mine in that he ascribes moral status to non-sentient living
> beings. Nevertheless on the whole it struck me as closer to my
> position than to yours. Note the remark on p. 34 that "if this is
> accepted, we have a prima facie moral duty to be vegetarians". Do you
> think it's offensive and presumptuous for him to say such a thing?

I noticed that, yes, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that one necessarily
causes less harm by consuming a vegetarian diet. It many be "generally" true
that plants cause less harm than meat, but since it isn't categorically true
the actual dictum ought to be, "we have a prima facie duty to consume the
food that causes the least harm in a particular instance." Once you go there
though, as you know, a pandora's box opens up. Why only apply the rule to
diet, what about other consumer activities? And then where do you draw the
line, if you can draw a line when faced with a prima facie duty, between
causing harm and living a happy productive life?