On Dec 29, 11:12*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> 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.
>

Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated?

"Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for
institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm."

And Engel's premise 6:

"Even a minimally decent person would take steps to help
reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the
world, if she could do so with very little effort."

Well, do those principles require you to boycott rice? Well, I don't
know. My level of rice consumption is small and I am fairly skeptical
that it's the world's biggest tragedy. With phrases such as "very
little effort" or "every reasonable effort", the cost of acquiring
information has to be factored in. Given the time constraints I am not
able to determine the optimal strategy for reducing my contribution to
unnecessary suffering and environmental degradation in the minutest
detail. I have put some effort into it, but I am not able to do
everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal
goals and also my ability to make the world better in other ways. We
are not talking about principles which require you to make
*substantial* sacrifices, especially when your ability to improve the
world in other ways is at stake.

Or maybe I haven't done a good job, maybe I am a moral hypocrite. If
your goal in life is to demonstrate that Rupert is a moral hypocrite
then that must be joyful. But the issue *should* be whether these are
good moral principles. I don't see any particular reason why they're
not.

> 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.) *

No. The behaviour of vegans has nothing to do with the merits of the
argument. The reasons most vegans don't do it is probably because the
issue hasn't occurred to them. They probably feel like they're doing
enough already, which may or may not be the case but this has no
bearing on the merits of the decision to go vegan in the first place.
When these issues were discussed in this newsgroup I did make some
effort to become more informed about such issues and modify my diet
accordingly but got bogged down in other projects, as you probably
would. Since as far as DeGrazia and Mylan Engel Jr. are concerned, we
are only talking about behavioural modifications that involve
"reasonable effort" or "little effort", I think it's probably fair to
say that I've met their standards. But that's neither here nor there
anyway, the issue should be whether there is a moral obligation to go
at least as far as what would be required by those principles I stated
above on any reasonable interpretation. You've offered no particularly
good reason to think that there isn't.

I *do* have to acknowledge moral hypocrisy as far as reducing my
contribution to climate change goes, for the moment at least. If you
can plausibly claim to be totally free of moral hypocrisy, that's
awesome. I'm not really that interested in discussing this issue here.
If I am a moral hypocrite then that's for me to worry about. We are
talking about the merits of the principles under discusion.

Demonstrating that someone is a moral hypocrite does not undermine
their moral argument; that is the tu quoque fallacy.

> *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.

In most cases, the decision to go vegan will result in a significant
reduction in your contribution to animal suffering and environmental
degradation. More may be required, yes.