...or he's been chugging Dakota rhubarb wine.
He often writes some pretty good historical articles about Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt, but he's trying to get in with the Berkeley and Cambridge "Deep Ecology" crowd on this story where he contemplates whether it was a better choice to run over a red fox, or swerve at speed...
Jenkinson asks Pepe, JJ, AA, and AI a question: "I ask, in whose eyes is a red fox expendable in a way that a human life is not?... I don't understand why manslaughter is so profoundly graver than animal slaughter.
MFT response: Because red foxes aren't humans, Clay. That's why red foxes are more expendable in a way that human life is not. And that's why I understand manslaughter as so profoundly graver than animal slaughter.
Anyone else?
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Been sharing an office with Peter Singer that guy?
Yeah, he's right in there with the Berkeley Eco-Crew involving J. Baird Callicott — ear-ring and nifty soul patch and all!
I love it when doctors of philosophy tell me that they have been annointed to speak on behalf of Mother Earth, and that it's imperative that humanity die off so animals can live. How wonderful! What a value system he's constructed! I'm certain he has all sorts of eco-terrorist grad students under his thumb there in northern Texas.
Yes. Humans should die off so that jackals can be in charge of the ethics.
JJ said: Humans should die off so that jackals can be in charge of the ethics.
Uh-oh: Too late!
Post a Comment