View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
Mr. Smartypants Mr. Smartypants is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)

On Feb 23, 2:36*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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
> om...
> >>>>>> 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

>
> No, I'm saying that none of the status claims "vegans"
> make for themselves is true. *I'm right. *Refraining
> from consuming animal parts does not alter the
> "vegan's" moral status one bit.-



and refusing to shoot everyone you meet doesn't either. You're still a
homocidal maniac even if you haven't killed anyone.

Right Goobs?

I'm serious.