Rupert wrote:
> 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,

No, it can't. Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within*
the set of vegetable food products. If potatoes provide comparable
nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental
degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side
effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no
rice, and to eat potatoes instead. But no "vegan" has ever made that
analysis, and none of them ever will.

The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of
vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had
any credibility to start.) *Some* "vegan" diets are higher in many
undesirable side effects than *some* meat-including diets, so the fact
of abstaining from meat /per se/ achieves nothing.