Dutch wrote:
>
> "ex-PFC Wintergreen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Dec 25, 7:17 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
>>> wrote:
>>>> DC wrote:
>>>> > NY Times
>>>>
>>>> > In his new book, “Eating Animals” (Amazon.com:
>>>> >http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran
>>>> > Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
>>>> > oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets”
>>>> > to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a
>>>> > philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
>>>> > page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat
>>>> > people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like
>>>> > himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
>>>> > including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
>>>> > finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said...
>>>>
>>>> > But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed
>>>> > vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider
>>>> > that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
>>>> > than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
>>>> > Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
>>>> > or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
>>>> > that way. The more that scientists learn about the
>>>> > complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the
>>>> > environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
>>>> > the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
>>>> > that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
>>>> > help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and
>>>> > the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill
>>>> > backdrop...
>>>>
>>>> > Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97
>>>>
>>>> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal
>>>> products.
>>>> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the
>>>> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because
>>>> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about
>>>> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then
>>>> patting oneself on the back.
>>>
>>> You still haven't got tired of talking claptrap, have you, Ball?
>>> ------->
>>>
>>> That's not claptrap, it is quite true. Of course vegans want to do
>>> what is
>>> right,
>
>
>> I'm not persuaded of that at all.
>
> I do think that is the initial intent for many at least partially, I
> mean who doesn't want to do the right thing?

More than doing the right thing, "vegans" seem to be driven by a wish
not to do the wrong thing. They view what "everybody else" does as the
wrong thing, and they decide not to do it. It starts at the very
beginning as a comparison with others.

Most people who honestly think about trying to do the right thing don't
conceive of it as a contrast with what others are doing. I don't
consciously refrain from robbing banks out of a fear that if I did rob
banks, it would make me too much like others; I refrain from robbing
banks because, irrespective of what anyone else thinks, I know that it's
wrong to rob banks. I also don't refrain from robbing banks out of a
wish to think well of myself.

As you note below, ego plays a huge role in "vegans'" formulation of
what they think right behavior is. For properly ethical people, ego
plays no part in it.


> Others begin by aiming for
> optimum health. It morphs as the experience sinks in and the ego creeps
> in. When the vegan begins her journey the focus is primarily on the
> issue of the suffering of animals. The ego is what introduces the whole
> "my diet is superior to your diet" syndrome. Once the ideas of not
> consuming animal products and eliminating suffering are linked in the
> brain and welded by the rush of ego gratification the fallacy you
> describe so well becomes embedded.
>
>
>>> but sanctimony is part of it. I've been on both sides of the issue,
>>> and the charge is valid.
>>>