View Single Post
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
ex-PFC Wintergreen[_2_] ex-PFC Wintergreen[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

Rupert wrote:
> 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.


It is.


>
>>
>>>> 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


It's another slender reed that won't support the bloated weight of what
he wants to believe.