View Single Post
  #71 (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, 11:12 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,


Laughably little.


> but I am not able to do
> everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal
> goals


So your inherent selfishness and wish for ease, comfort and glory
override your obligation to behave ethically. But then, that was always
obvious.


>> 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.


Absolutely it does. It proves they don't believe their own nonsense.
It proves this is purely about self exaltation.