C. James Strutz wrote:

[...]

Much, much better. You obviously had it in you all
along; pity you had to play a weird game for so long.

>
> Jon, et. al.,
>
> Okay, so you are not comparing the number of collateral deaths resulting
> from herbivores versus omnivores (hence not participating in the "numbers
> game"). You condemn vegans for ignoring the fact that there are collateral
> animal deaths resulting from the production of the vegetable food they eat.
> You point out that it is an ethical dilemma; ignoring it necessarily makes
> them immoral and dishonest. You are particularly disturbed with overly
> zealous vegans.

Exactly right. No omnivore in his right mind is going
to get into a death-counting ****ing contest with
"vegans". It seems eminently reasonable to me to
acknowledge that "vegans" almost certainly cause the
deaths of far fewer animals than omnivores. The
problem is, that observation is irrelevant to the moral
claims being made by "vegans", claims that stem from
their decision not to consume animal parts, and the
reasoning behind that decision. However, once one
begins to examine the "vegan" moral stance, one quickly
finds that killing fewer animals than omnivores is ALL
that is left of their position, which originally
included much, much more.

There are quite a few problems with "veganism", but the
worst ones stem from the simplistic and bad thinking
inherent in "animal rights", of which "veganism" is the
dietary expression. A "vegan" - a so-called "ethical
vegetarian" - need not be an ardent believer in "animal
rights", and even less need be well-versed in the
written dogma handed down by "ar"/"al" gurus like Tom
Regan and Peter Singer; in fact, most "vegans" probably
are not well-read on "ar" issues at all. It suffices
for them to believe that it is morally wrong for humans
to kill animals, based on some possibly inchoate notion
that the animals have some kind of "right" not to be
killed. To the extent that the "vegan" is NOT
well-versed in the "ar" literature, his belief about
the wrongness of killing animals can't very well be
said to be well-founded; to the extent he might be
well-versed, he still is faced with fact that "ar" is
far from a persuasive political/legal/ethical
philosophy, and in fact is not accepted as the
prevailing belief anywhere in the world.

Regardless of the degree to which the "vegan" is aware
of and active in the "ar" movement, the *practice* of
"veganism" is seen, upon examination, to be utterly
inadequate as a route to reach the "vegan's" presumed
goal, which is to "respect" the "right" of animals not
to be harmed by humans. "veganism" is strictly a
consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts, or
things made from or by animals". This rule is, no
matter how much some polemical "vegans" wish to deny
it, based upon a logical fallacy:

If I consume animal parts, I cause harm to animals.

I do not consume animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument embodies the fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent; see
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/denying.html
for one discussion of the problem with Denying the
Antecedent.

Once the fallacy is pointed out, then backs off his
original claim (of not causing *any* harm to animals,
by virtue of his animal-parts-free lifestyle), and
advances a much weaker, philosophically, claim of
"minimizing" the harm to animals. But this claim is
fraught with insuperable difficulties as well. To
start, "minimize" is an implicitly numerical claim, and
if you're going to make a numerical claim, you'd better
have either some airtight mathematical theorems, or
some solid empirical data; "vegans" have neither.
Theoretically, it is easy to imagine a meat-including
diet that "beats" many conceivable "vegan" diets. In
fact, there ARE still aboriginal hunter-gatherers in
the world whose diet almost certainly "beats" the
typical western "vegan's" diet, in terms of killing or
harming fewer animals. The problem is in the nature of
the "vegan's" claim: without actually measuring the
level of animal death and suffering in his own
lifestyle, let alone in all other lifestyles, he has
made a *categorical* claim: a "vegan" lifestyle
"minimizes" animal death and suffering.

This particular empirical problem with the "vegan"
claim is, I think, best illustrated without introducing
a comparison between "vegan" and non-"vegan" lifestyles
at all, focusing on diet. Even WITHIN the set of all
"vegan" diets, there are some that on average cause
more animal death and suffering than others. The
production of rice is notoriously lethal to animals,
killing rodents and birds when rice fields are flooded,
then killing amphibians and reptiles when the fields
are drained, and killing all kinds of animals when the
crop is harvested. A "vegan" diet that contains rice
clearly is not minimizing the animal death/suffering
toll, compared to a diet that is identical in all other
elements but substitutes a less-lethal grain for the
rice. But the "vegan" claim is that *any* "vegan" diet
minimizes the death/suffering toll. Thus, the claim is
falsified.

"veganism", of course, extends far beyond diet; it is
supposed to be a full "lifestyle" choice. When we
examine the other dimensions of the life and lifestyle
of any "vegan", we quickly find other areas in which
animals are killed and made to suffer. Any "vegan" who
consumes any drug approved by (in the U.S.) the FDA has
indirectly contributed to animal suffering and death,
as ALL FDA-approved drugs go through a testing phase
that involves testing on animals. Any "vegan" who has
ever had an intravenous drip in a hospital has
indirectly contributed to animal suffering and death,
as animal-using lot testing on the IV materials is done
in order to ensure that there are no infectious agents
in the materials.

Very quickly, we see that not consuming animal parts or
animal derived products has no relation whatever to
eliminating or "minimizing" animal death and suffering.
This get us, then, to the question of why "vegans"
cling to the claim at all. They aren't eliminating
animal suffering/death; they aren't minimizing it; they
aren't even necessarily reducing it, relative to what
they might do on a different "vegan" consumption
lifestyle. So...what are they accomplishing? It's
impossible to say, with respect to all "vegans".
However, the sentiments revealed by those who
participate in the debate in forums like usenet
newsgroups all seem to have a common element of
self-image. "vegans" seem to remain "vegan", despite
the obvious flaws, because of how it makes them feel
about themselves. This focus on self-image is what
leads to the accusation of sanctimony. Historically,
one is expected to do the right thing because doing the
right thing is good per se, NOT because of how it makes
you feel about yourself.

>
> I think I understand your position well. By your rigid definition that makes
> me immoral and dishonest since there is a component of me as a vegetarian
> that is sympathetic to animals. I'll remind you that is not the only, nor
> the most significant, component. You also know that I am not vegan and I am
> not zealous.

I do know that you're not "vegan". This is just
another piece of the puzzle: if you feel as you've
indicated you do about animal death and suffering, it
seems to me that you need a coherent *ethical*
explanation of why you aren't "vegan", and I've never
seen one from you. Your past explanation that you
repeat below, about needing to earn a living, is a
practical explanation, not an ethical one. Rather
obviously, if the issue were how many humans you
casually kill and injure without consequence in the
course of leading your life, an explanation that
focused on practical demands on your time would not be
acceptable. For example, say you're a medical
specialist who might be called on in emergencies to get
to a hospital as fast as you can. If you were to drive
through a crowded schoolyard as a shortcut in order to
reach the hospital faster, you could not justify the
mayhem you'd cause by pointing to the requirement that
you get to the hospital quickly. Your convenience must
yield to ethics.

The problem that the issue of collateral animal deaths
poses to "vegans" is that the deaths, for which they
clearly bear some moral responsibility, do not carry
consequences for them; but the belief that the animals
have some kind of "right" not to be casually killed for
human convenience, whether or not the animals are
consumed, is predicated on a belief that there MUST be
consequences for violating those rights. This problem
is somewhat magnified for you and anyone else who
adheres to a belief that one morally *ought* not kill
animals casually and consequence-free, but who doesn't
at least follow through on an obvious, even if
inadequate, consumption rule of excluding all animal
parts from your lifestyle. You can't coherently
explain, or at least haven't coherently explained, why
you draw the line where you draw it.


> You well know that we don't share the same viewpoints on several issues. I
> contend that it's not possible to live in today's world without animal lives
> being sacrificed for our conveniences, including food.

Then something has to yield, doesn't it? You're saying
it's not possible to be fully ethical, according to a
definition of ethical behavior that you have defined.

> I understand your
> argument that it is possible to eat without sacrificing animal lives, but I
> have a job and bills to pay and other aspects of my life that preclude me
> from doing so. I buy most of my food in grocery stores like most people
> (including you, I presume). I understand all the consequences.

I'm sorry, I really don't think you do understand the
consequences for your ethical view.

>
> In today's world, the so called "numbers game" is legitimate in a larger
> context that transcends just food. There are many things people can do to
> minimize animal deaths and suffering. I do believe that abstaining from
> consumming animal products serves that purpose to some extent.

I don't see how you can rationally maintain that
belief, given what I've elaborated above, particularly
concerning choices WITHIN the full set of possible
"vegan" lifestyles.

> It's impossible to substantiate that belief with any kind of hard data.
> It's my belief and I'll stand by it - I don't have to prove it to anyone.
> So don't ask.

It not only is impossible to substantiate the belief
with hard data, it's also impossible to support
theoretically. Your belief, Jim, is clearly seen to be
irrational. Rather than ask you to substantiate one
unsupportable part of the belief, I'll ask why you
would willingly cling to a belief that is unsupportable
in its entirety?

>
> I really don't give a flying f*** whether you condemn me as unethical or
> immoral. You don't have to live with it - I do. Although I have my issues to
> work on, I am at peace with my ethics and morality - at least most of the
> time. :^) I am a respectable person and wish to be treated as such.

I would think SELF-respect and a wish to be
intellectually honest at least with yourself would lead
you to re-examine a belief that can't be rationally
supported, but which is supposed to yield practical,
real-world results. Your consumption habits are what
they are, and even if you completely abandoned a belief
in "veganism" as an ethically based lifestyle, that
wouldn't mean you'd necessarily begin chowing down on meat.