"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
.net...
> 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.

It's still better than doing nothing.

> 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.

It's a personal endeavor and doesn't necessarly have to prevail anywhere
except in ourselves. Other people should respect that as long as it doesn't
infringe on them.

> 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.

You're right, it can't be proven one way or the other. But the sense that
the vegan diet/lifestyle "beats" the omnivore diet in terms of minimizing
animal deaths is reasonable, even without hard proof. Nobody is trying to
prove anything beyond doubt, the "sense" that they're making a difference is
good enough for many vegans. My opinion.

> 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.

I read something recently acknowledging collateral wildlife deaths resulting
from rice production. The interesting thing is that the "wetland" created
provides habitat for many species of wildlife. I wonder how many lives are
also
created as a result of rice production.

> "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.

I think most vegans know this, at least ones who invest some thought in it.

> 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.

I agree that not consuming animal parts won't eliminate animal death and
suffering, but disagree that it won't 'minimize' to some degree.

> 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 don't see anything wrong with wanting to be vegan for self-image purposes
as long as it's not pretentious and is based on some reasonable principle
(health, environment, "minimize" animal death and suffering, etc.). However,
I see some vegans who obviously are trying to cast themselves in a
pretentious light for other people. Almost as if they display "VEGAN" on
their chests (I have seen T-shirts like this).

> > 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.

I am vegetarian mostly because I think it's healthier for me. I also think
it makes a difference for environmental reasons. If I could assign
percentages to my rationale, health would get something like 60% and
environmental concerns would get something like 30%. That leaves the
remaining 10% for so-called "ethical" reasons. Given that, I believe that
being vegetarian also makes a difference in reducing animal suffering and
deaths, though not as much as "vegan". Another factor is that I am so far
unwilling to give up cheese products!

> 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.

See above. Maybe it's not completely coherent, but it's where I'm at with
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.

Well, "ethical" isn't something that I define. It's either ethical or it's
not. I'm saying that fully ethical (eliminating ALL animal death and
suffering) isn't practical. I would have to sacrifice myself to be fully
ethical on that basis - and there probably are even animal casualties
involved with that! So we have to draw our lines somewhere. Mine is drawn
where it's at knowing that it could be more ethical, but also less ethical.
I'm okay with that for now.

> > 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.

Maybe not completely. Keep in mind the 10% factor, so I'm not THAT
concerned whether it's totally rational or not.

> > 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.

Hopefully, I've clarified my position on this. I'm not particularly
interested in eliminating or even minimizing animal suffering and deaths,
but I'm satisfied to think that I am doing something to reduce it.

> > 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 don't believe that I do cling to anything of the kind. I only hope to make
a difference.

> > 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.

Oh, I have no intention to begin chowing down on meat. I have no issues with
my vegetarian choices, either ethically or practically. I've been going in
this direction for some 20 or 25 years, and I sense there are more changes
to come. I don't know what they are but I am happy with where things are at
for now.