On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>"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 ...
>>>>>> 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?

Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?