How To Make A Toy Boat Out Of Styrofoam

further thought

I just found in early morning Brasig an article that made me laugh. yesterday at the pizzeria before the cinema, we discussed more about animal welfare and war, two contentious cases of hardship for the ethics and now this: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/33/33346/1.html have been able

is the main argument of yesterday contending partners that the vegetarian is not consistent, because they limit any sharp ontological move between plants and animals and, and therefore no waterproof answer to the question of where the vulnerability begins: why should we eat plants, animals but not? The answer is always the same: animals are capable of suffering, planting at is at least as relevant organs missing, most controversial, suffer or plant is represented by only a handful of marginal figures. The other problem in question is bordering on the fluid. in the transition from animal to vegetable organisms are found a number of mostly very small specimens, where even the most sensitive animal lovers compassionate difficult. the indistinct boundary areas are also in the other direction. even in the late 19 century were black as the evolutionary link between ape and man. Today, some species of monkeys, which have much similarity with the human and which are capable of an impressive volkabular to appropriate to the ethical discussion relevance, since not evident why a monkey, one can hold lecture, may be killed under the label of criminal damage.

so it is difficult to design a counter inconsistencies prepared and specific philosophy of life, not to mention all the implementation problems of their own moral standards entsprechede accepted way of life (not only in relation to animals, but also other people).
a flag under the ethics of vegetarianism as a new concept acting minimize suffering he has a common objection to vegetarianism, namely that it is natural that we all see each other eat, animals, taken seriously and it offered a solution, minimization corresponds to the suffering (as the post-modern naturalness he keeps it empty for a formula to legitimize dogmatic standpnkte).

to laugh this is for two reasons: first, it is already extremely problematic (in the implementation and the justification), people and cultures other new and better aufzudrängeln moral concepts. because animals are likely to prove resistant to picking play, we would have with their own and possibly eradicate carnivores, where no one nothing to me you will not eat.
is the second such intervention in the complex system of nature, as the article shows already extremely problematic consequences. one is therefore inclined to say: maybe there is, contrary to the postmodern is such a thing as natural and not just the problematic naturalization.

the idea is good, but the world is not ready yet. Good morning. Today