"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> 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
m...
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.

I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?