I would be interested in hearing their philosophical arguments then as for why the rabbit should be eating grass or the rabbit should be in the fox’s stomach. I understand, of course, that the rabbit does eat grass and that the fox does hunt the rabbit, but I was not aware that these were persuasive moral arguments.
They are to the parties in question:
The rabbit argues that if it is eaten by the fox, then it will die—and that should not happen.
The fox argues that if it doesn’t eat rabbits, then it will die—and that should not happen.
Neither considers the death of the other to be of much conseqence: for rabbits, foxes are evil rabbit-eaters, while foxes see rabbits as mere dumb lifestock.
They are to the parties in question:
The rabbit argues that if it is eaten by the fox, then it will die—and that should not happen.
The fox argues that if it doesn’t eat rabbits, then it will die—and that should not happen.
Neither considers the death of the other to be of much conseqence: for rabbits, foxes are evil rabbit-eaters, while foxes see rabbits as mere dumb lifestock.