Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 4:36 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."
>>> 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.
>>
>
> You wouldn't know how much.

I know more than enough.


>>> 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.
>>
>
> No.

Yes.


> Speaking of behaving ethically, you remember that time where you asked
> me if my history of psychosis was a product of a history of child
> abuse? Do you have any thoughts about the ethics of that at all?

As a matter of fact, I do. I believe child abuse is unethical.


>>>> 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.
>
> What they do or do not believe has no bearing on the merits of the
> argument, either.

Of course it does. If they really believed it, they'd make /some/
effort to live up to it. Of course, they do not.