God and Nihilism at College

Parent Cafe
121

<p>those fields are certainly full o fpossiblities- although I admit I don’t get the connection to vegans
a friend designs high tech prosthetics ( among other things) for amputees, another friend is a civil rights attorney who works to obtain equal access for people with disabilties- both areas with very broad applications but also areas where they can really make a difference.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/07/31/build/business/75-disabilities-law.inc[/url]”>http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/07/31/build/business/75-disabilities-law.inc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

122

<p>EK4,</p>

<p>Nothing that has to do with “vegans” per se, but rather that, some vegans in keeping with their healthy and socially conscious diet (which I personally find noble, even though I do not adopt the same dietary standard) have adopted some of the principles related to Singer’s “Theory of Interests” as regards valuing, say, a particular healthy creature of a non-human species over the interests of a un-healthy or disabled human being, as ‘the-powers-that-be’ allot value, wealth, and resources within society toward all species, and not humanity in particular. </p>

<p>This would be done, in a “theory of interests” to the degree that the disabled (and logically babies and the aged-infirm) lack the interests of healthy and fully able human beings or even rats or deer [it would be a far more interesting thing to see the theory equalize suburban-hedonists, rather than the disabled, with pigs and possum; the theory would remain unacceptable to all, I’m sure]; that is, those involved in the “rights” and “interests” of animals—as are likely to be found in the ethics of many “political” vegans—are often not fully aware of the implications of attaching such a “theory of interests” to their socially conscious eating restrictions. There is a very real threat to some of the most vulnerable among us.</p>

<p>I applaud the self-discipline of any vegan, if for nothing else the ‘self-discipline’; few these days have the heart or will to deny or proscribe the sensual;)</p>

123

<p>I have followed this thread with some interest. I went to Reed in the early 80s and was one of about 30 students who would admit to being Christian on campus. No faculty did. One of the things I learned was that people were moral (or not) for a variety of reasons, not always having to do with faith. It certainly stretched and challenged my faith, but it also helped me to see the complexity of persons motives, values, and decision making processes. Was an aggressively secular school like Reed hostile to faith? Only to unexamined and careless faith.</p>

<p>And an aside, the Quaker expression of Christianity is not uniform. Like any organization open to change it has split into many different paths. Mini would likely not recognize the “Friends Churches” in Southern California as Quaker. So quoting from historical sources, even George Fox, would not be the best way to represent what theology any current day Quakers ascribe to – you’d need to explore that with the individual you’re talking to.</p>