"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> 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."
Something you don't achieve.
|