On Dec 29, 11:32*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
> > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> 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...ngel,%20The%20...
> >>>> The fallacy is non sequitur: *he builds what he thinks is a compelling
> >>>> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
> >>>> meat consumption is immoral.
> >>> He does make some remarks about how to make the further
> >>> generalisation,
> >> Unpersuasive.
>
> > That is not engaging with what he said.
>
> It's enough.
>

No.

>
>
> >> *He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
> >> is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
> >> farming".
>
> >>>> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
> >>>> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
> >>> No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
> >>> criticise.
> >> Absolutely it does: *pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
> >> environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
> >> meat consumption is immoral:
>
> >> 1. *allegedly extremely energy intensive
> >> 2. *allegedly inefficient use of water
> >> 3. *alleged nutrient inefficiency
> >> 4. *soil erosion
> >> 5. *hazardous waste production
>
> > For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument
>
> The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know
> what he's talking about. *For one thing, environmental degradation
> applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable
> agriculture. *For another, it is the economic cost of environmental
> degradation that is of concern. *No one with a brain wants to avoid any
> and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want
> to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social
> benefit. *There is going to be some environmental degradation involved
> in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production.

First of all, the environmental argument is a separate one and you
still have an obligation to address the main one. Secondly, it's not
idiotic; the idea is that the externalities that you impose on other
people, including future generations, are not fully reflected in the
market price, but that you have a moral obligation to absorb those
externalities anyway. If you were absorbing all the externalities
associated with the production of your food then you would have to
take that on board when buying rice, fruit, vegetables, meat,
whatever. But his claim is that it would almost certainly involve
avoiding meat, and you've done nothing in particular to cast doubt on
that.