View Single Post
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

On Dec 27, 7:50*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
> really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
> * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about
> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>
> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.


What's the fallacy in this argument?

http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...20( 2000).pdf

>*And in any
> case, it isn't the consumption of the products /per se/ that causes any
> putative moral harm.
>
> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
>
> * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> * * I don't consume any animal products;
>
> * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
>


False. Not all vegans believe that. I was aware of the collateral
deaths argument during adolescence but became vegan as a young adult
anyway. Gary Francione is undoubtedly aware of the collateral deaths
argument. It is quite likely that Mylan Engel Jr. is too.

> This is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. *


Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah....

> In fact, consuming
> animal products is not the only way one might cause animals to suffer
> and die. *Virtually every normal human activity in which "vegans" engage
> has some deleterious impact on animals - an impact "vegans" ignore.
>


That is correct. Participating in a technological civilisation in any
meaningful way will inevitably lead to you buying products and
services whose production or provision involved the infliction of some
suffering and premature death on sentient nonhuman animals. Gary
Francione certainly acknowledges that point, for one. I don't know of
anyone who denies it.

However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products. I have linked to one article which attempts to argue
this case to which you have not yet responded. In any event you have
shown no very good reason why it should not be the case. A lot of
people, when contemplating the factual information about how animal
products are generally produced in modern societies, together with the
small burden involved in avoiding them, would just take it to be
obvious.

> The next step in their thinking, once the fallacy is pointed out to
> them, is to fall back to a claim of "minimizing" the suffering and death
> they cause animals. *This position, too, is rubbish. *They do not
> minimize the harm, for several reasons:
>
> * * 1. *they have never measured


We all face time constraints. People who make the decision to go vegan
become acquainted with some factual information about how nonhuman
animals are treated, and decide that they want to do something about
it, even if they don't necessarily have the time to find out
absolutely everything they can about the issue. So they go vegan, as a
reasonable rule of thumb based on what they have found out so far,
with the proviso that they hope to find out more later.

> * * 2. *even *within* a "vegan" lifestyle, some products they consume
> * * * * cause more harm than others; there can be no claim to be
> * * * * "minimizing" if one includes some higher-harm goods when there
> * * * * are lower-harm substitutes available
>


If the differential is so high that it looks like culpable negligence,
sure, but you haven't demonstrated that that holds in every case.

> So, they don't cause zero harm, and they aren't minimizing the harm they
> cause. *


They're adopting a reasonable rule of thumb for minimisation (within
reasonable constraints about how much you sacrifice) based on the
information they've had time to acquire so far.

> What's the next false claim? *"I'm doing the best I can." *This
> is disposed of by the same means by which the claim of minimization was
> vitiated. *They could be doing something more, by definition: *if they
> aren't minimizing, then they are *not* doing the best they can.
>


But they are doing an adequate job of fulfilling their obligations
towards nonhuman animals, as some might take them to be, based on the
constraints they face and the information that they have encountered
so far. And the claim might also be made that reasonably well-informed
people who continue to consume animal products are *not* doing such an
adequate job. You've done nothing to cast doubt on this claim.

> So, what's left? *Only this: *"I'm doing better than you." *Not only is
> that claim not proved,


You've acknowledged elsewhere that it's not the subject of a
reasonable doubt.

> it is the very epitome of sanctimony and moral
> bankruptcy. *


Nonsense. I have decided to volunteer some time and effort serving
coffee and sandwiches to homeless people. (This is not an example of
fulfilling a moral obligation, of course.) But the change in behaviour
was motivated that it would help to achieve some goals I wanted to
achieve, as was going vegan. If it is morally worthy to invest time
and effort into doing what you reasonably believe will achieve certain
goals, then these changes in behaviour are moral improvements; if
there's no moral value in it, then fine, at least it doesn't hurt
anyone. But you haven't *demonstrated* that there's no moral value in
it in the case of veganism. And if you had it would hardly
substantiate a claim of moral bankruptcy.

Vegans, contrary to all your inane babbling, are not motivated by a
desire to prove themselves "better" than other people, they are
motivated by a desire to do something to reduce their contribution to
animal suffering. You obviously want to see it the former way because
you find the decision somehow threatening.

> Ethical behavior *never* consists in doing less of some
> morally wrong thing than someone else. *


Please comment on the example of applying a blowtorch to a dog which I
provided in a different threat. Do you agree that you are ethically
required to refrain from such behaviour? Then you can have moral
obligations towards nonhuman animals even if you are not morally
required to stop buying all the products of commercial agriculture. So
the question remains *how extensive* your obligations towards nonhuman
animals are. You have done nothing to specify where you draw the line
or why the place where you draw it is better than the place where
vegans draw it. This makes a complete nonsense of your argument below,
which you have been repeating ad nauseam for the last God knows how
many years.

> If sodomizing young children is
> wrong, one cannot claim to be "more ethical" because one "only"
> sodomizes children once a week, versus someone else who does it daily.
> The *only* way to claim to be ethical when it comes to sodomy committed
> against children is *never* to engage in it.
>


Quite.

> If causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong, the only way validly to
> be able to claim to be ethical on that issue is not to engage in *any*
> of it. *


So what's your conclusion? That there's no obligation to make *any
effort at all* to reduce your contribution to unnecessary harm to
animals?

If there's an obligation to make *some* effort, the question is *how
much*. You haven't said anything to show that the conclusions vegans
draw about that are mistaken.

Think that over carefully. It's important.

> Refraining from consuming animal products simply doesn't meet
> the requirement. *All it does is give the "vegan" an utterly false sense
> of self-satisfaction. *


It gives them a justified sense of satisfaction in having genuinely
reduced their contribution to the demand for processes which cause
unnecessary suffering. And when large numbers of people do it there is
an actual reduction in unnecessary suffering, which is of course the
whole point.


> In short, it is the vilest sort of sanctimony and
> hypocrisy.
>


You couldn't be being a little bit overblown here, could you?

> I hope this helps some people to eliminate confusion over this issue.


Any hope you have that you have produced an argument that any sane
person could take seriously is utterly empty.