"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 3:58*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> 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.
Why do you think that?
|