between saving two strangers and saving my daughter, there is no question in my mind about what I would do. I would save my daughter. My daughter would be my responsibility. The strangers are not--at least, not in the same way. I think the world could not function or survive if parents did not feel insanely protective of their children, and in spite of the numerical practicality of saying that two lives are better than one, I think there are a number of reasons why in reality, this is not really correct. For one thing, our society is built on relationships, and there is a real primacy in the relationship of humans with their children. I believe this relationship is hard-wired (though I hate that term) and is the model for all other kinds of nurturing and other positive values that we have in society. In fact, I would have to believe that one of the reasons that Dr. Singer himself feels so confident in his adult life is because he probably had a mother who, like so many of us, had a murderous look in her eye if anyone tried to interfere with her little cub.

Ethics is about PEOPLE. Animal treatment is about EMOTIONS. People before animals, see? The day you try to rationalize the treatment of animals based on the ethics of people is the day you dehumanize people. Which may in fact be fine for the animal rights movement and PETA's Ingrid Newkirk who once said without irony "I don't care if animal research cured cancer and AIDS, I would still be opposed to it." but it's not an entirely ethical position. At least not in the sense that the last 3000 years of human society views the term "Ethics".

No it's more akin to simply levelling the differences between human and animals or simply counting heads. In fact it's a complete inversion of ethics. Would Mr. Singer for example save 2 two drowning men on death row versus one heart surgeon? Is the suffering of 10,000 cattle worth 50 children? That kind of simple cold calculus of the actuary and the economist is in fact a negation of everything that ethics is. Ethics is not what makes you feel good about yourself or that which causes you to act kindly. It's the evaluation of justice versus necessity. Mr. Singer however impressive his credentials and sincere his intent is pulling the suffering-free wool over our eyes.

Okay, I have to agree. Chickens have the natural tendency to want to spread their wings/fly, or any number of other behaviors. It is cruel to deny them that, and if we want to be humane we'll engineer a habitat that enables them these behaviors prior to slaughter.

This makes sense.

Humans have a natural tendency to eat meat. While Vegan/Vegetarian lifestyles may be morally appealing, all of the hardware and physiology contained in our bodies demonstrates that we are made to eat other animals...

It would be unfair to deny a tiger or a house cat it's natural tendency to eat meat... Why is it right to suggest that humans do it?

Recommending that "ethically" we switch to a meat free dietary society means that you're recommending denying people the option of exhibiting their own natural tendencies. Yeah, it might save oil, and that is a dubious claim, but there are lots of better ways to save oil. Further, why is it okay to "save oil" by denying people their natural diet, but wrong to "save oil" by making chicken cages too small?

There seems to be a logical disconnect between the value associated with denying "natural tendencies" to all of the animals that aren't human versus the value in denying humans anything.

It almost seems that since humans respond to logic, you may as well argue that they be constrained to exhibit any desired behavior. Using force to constrain behavior is bad, while using logic and regulations to constrain behavior is good? Why not: All methods of behavior constraint are bad?

Dear sycophant:

I'll bet he didn't. And I'll bet you didn't, either. But let's take you up on your snark passing as educated observation.

Did you attend Yale?

No? Then who are you to dare question the actions and motives of the President?

You're welcome.

You assert that any college other than Oxford is Clown College. So much for Princeton. A professional ethicist should be embarrassed to collect his pay from that "clown college." No?

Slight snarkiness notwithstanding, I appreciated your labors in answering some of the issues raised by others, particularly with reference to the difficult question of professionalism and hockey.

If there is any justice, both your letters will receive the coveted star in the morning.

EIther way, I applaud them. If time allowed I would attempt to take them further. As it is, being bound for bed, I simply thank you for your lucid distillation of the essence of Peter Singer and his arguments about food. It's not an easy position to attempt to live by, but nor are his arguments difficult to understand. We know them intuitively, even if we don't want to. It doesn't make every word that he writes right, but it does mean that he's tapping into a fundamental, simple truth about the basic set of moral rules we live by, one that competes with only a handful of similarly fundamental truths, and that he's an elegant spokesperson (on the whole) for his chosen perspective.

The point is not whether you eat a chicken tomorrow. A lot of chickens will be eaten tomorrow regardless of whether you do. The point is whether you (and by you I mean we, all of us) begin to wake up to the complex and quite painful ethical implications of nearly every little thing we do. It's quite a burden to bear. It's sometimes hard to justify, from certain ethical standpoints anyway, why it's worth it to attain such an understanding; what if the only effect of it is to increase the affliction of my own conscience? And like the early Neo in The Matrix, even when you're earnestly seeking after an explanation of the world you're living in, it's very tempting to hesitate -- even to refuse, at least for awhile -- before taking the red pill that strips away all the nearest, most ingrained illusions.