On Dec 29, 10:05*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> 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.
> --------------->
>
> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
> necessarily linked.

No such claim was made. The claim was that

(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, and Ball has
done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is ****ing
OBVIOUS)
(2) it could be at least *argued* that typical people in Western
societies have a moral obligation to do *about* that much by way of
reducing their contribution to animal suffering. It does not logically
follow from my contention that some nonhuman animals have some rights,
no. But it's a plausible enough position and you and Ball have done
nothing to show that wherever it is you choose to draw the line is any
better. You could plausibly claim that your position would have more
popular appeal at the moment, but that is argumentum ad verecundam. I
have not offered *reasons* for thinking that my position is better but
that is a symmetrical situation.


> The main problem with veganism is that adherents tend to
> see abstension from animal products as both necessary and sufficient steps
> when such is clearly not the case. (See the vegan in an SUV (or like some
> celebrities with private jets) vs the omnivore on a bike) A glaring
> illustration of this issue plays out as a vegan examines a condiment in a
> restaurant to ensure it does not contain even a milligram of animal cells,
> (the horror!) all the while a 1% reduction in his caloric consumption would
> do far more to reduce his impact on animals.
>

Fine. I agree with all that.

> The elephant in the room is the notion that man ought not to view animals as
> commodities, everything serves that master. Working from that perspective
> the desire to avoid animal products makes perfect sense. If we're talking
> about attempting to count and compare the number of animals that are harmed
> or killed and assign some acceptable moral level, then we're kidding
> ourselves, we're not actaully doing that, nor can we.
>

Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is
a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans
inflict less suffering on nonhumans. Reducing one's own personal
contribution as best one can short of dropping out of technological
civilisation altogether is a reasonable strategy with respect to the
goal of reducing one's personal responsibility for an aspect of the
world one dislikes. Ball has done nothing to show that this is morally
bankrupt.

It is one position regarding how humans should relate to nonhumans. It
is not especially widely held one at the moment but I don't believe
that anyone else has shown that theirs is more coherent or better
justified. Narveson's position, which involves saying that he wouldn't
call the police if he saw someone torching a stray dog, certainly *is*
more coherent. He's definitely being consistent. But most of us don't
like that one, so we need to find some rational ground for choosing
between the other available positions. I do not say that I have done
that yet. I say that Ball's endlessly-repeated tirade over all these
years is indefensible nonsense. Which is of course obvious.

> Nobody can say fairly that a vegan lifestyle is not likely to have a pretty
> low level of associated animal deaths, but this is not the type of
> reasonable argument being made.

It is the one being made by me, and Ball said that he was talking
about all vegans.

I think he needs to get more specific. He's casting the net a bit too
broad. If he wants to criticise Tom Regan or Gary Francione that's
great, I'm sure there's plenty to criticise; he should probably have a
look at what they wrote. Or if he wants to criticise my stance that's
great, but again he should make sure his remarks are actually
applicable to the stance being taken.

If he's going to try to argue that all vegans are morally bankrupt I
don't think he's going to get there. Based on my experience with
vegans they are not especially morally criticisable people, indeed a
lot less so than Ball based on my experience of him, but in many cases
you might want to say there are problems with the intellectual
foundations of the position that they take. I certanily grant that. It
is not clear to me that Ball avoids this problem either.

But of course none of this alters the obvious fact that Ball was
obviously talking complete nonsense as always, which was of course my
point. He has declined to answer my case for this contention.