On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:
That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
None of us are. We could all do more.
Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
none of us actually are.
Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.
Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
best we can, in reality we aren't.
That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.
[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.
An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]
I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.