So Dawins has an uneasy conscience about eating meat. Maybe my spoof in an earlier post, on another thread, about the slaughter of turkeys at thanksgiving and Christmas making the holocaust pale into significance was not as much of a straw-man as some people said it was. Dawkins' and Singer's arguments require one to believe that there is, ontologically and morally, no difference between taking the life of a fellow sentient creature and taking the life of another human being. Therefore canabalism, and killing a human being to satisfy whatever physical, territorial, surval or supremacy need, is actually no more abhorrent than sitting down to a turkey dinner. At the most, it is wrong because protectiveness towards and empathy with members of our own species is somehow wired into us, and therefore it seems unfitting to fly in the face of that. But there are no moral categories left whereby we can condemn such behaviour, any more than there are any moral categories whereby we can condemn wild animals for killing members of their own species in defense of their territory, or over who gets the female they both want!