On Dec 29, 5:55*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> 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.
>

Oh yeah. Why is it unethical?

Where I'm trying to go with this is, I'm not a victim of child abuse
and hopefully neither are you, so you or I wouldn't have any real
understanding of what's involved in trying to recover from that, so if
you deliberately taunt someone on usenet asking them whether they have
a history of child abuse, when for all you know they might, that might
be seen as being a bit unethical, hard to reconcile with being a
decent person. You boldly claimed to be a decent person in a different
thread. And of course that isn't the only example that could be given
of behaviour of yours which we all know about which is hard to
reconcile with being a decent person.

> >>>> 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.

The only problem with this statement is that it very obviously is
complete nonsense to anyone with any kind of functioning brain. Just a
slight problem.