View Single Post
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default "vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions


"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote

>
> >>>>I am saying
> >>>>the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to the morality of
> >>>>the action which is, or is not, punished.

>
> >>>On top of all your other errors, that's false.

>
> >>Why? Are you saying that in a slave-holding society,
> >>slavery is moral?

>
> > It's not relevent to this discussion whether or not animal cds is moral

>
> It invalidates Joanne's claim that an action must be punished for
> it to be immoral.


That's not the point he is making, you're either dense or disingenuous,
probably both. The fact that there are sanctions and punishment for actions
that violate human rights validates our claims that we live in a society
that respects human rights, despite the fact that human rights violations
exist. Our participation in society is consistent with a belief in human
rights *because of* those sanctions. Your belief in animal rights is not
validated, in fact everything in reality, almost everything you do,
IN-validates the claim Your token actions such as abstaining from meat, are
not nearly enough to validate your claims.

> The punishment, or lack thereof, has NO relationship
> to the inherent morality of the act itself.


Nobody said it did, that's not the point. The fact that there are
punishments for human rights violations invalidates your tu quoque parallel.
Your life does not validate the principle of animal rights, but your life
DOES validate the principle of human rights.

We say that your life does not respect animal rights, and your tu quoque
response is that our lives do not respect human rights. That response is
bogus for the above reasons.

I don't know how to make this any clearer.