Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 5:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On Dec 29, 11:01 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>> Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does
>>>>> not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the
>>>>> suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware
>>>>> that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously
>>>>> contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with
>>>>> my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one
>>>>> way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to
>>>>> disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no
>>>>> rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony.
>>>>> ---------->
>>>>> Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing
>>>>> animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking.
>>>>> Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse,
>>>>> conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like
>>>>> health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by
>>>>> avoiding
>>>>> that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you
>>>>> contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even
>>>>> though
>>>>> you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter"
>>>>> using
>>>>> animals *as end products*.
>>>> I'm not sure what your point is here,
>>>> ------>
>>>> I could hardly make it any clearer, *veganism*, the substitition of products
>>>> which do not contain animal parts, fulfils the principle of not *exploiting
>>>> animals as commodities* but does not elevate or deify the vegan in any way
>>>> more than the omnivore who also takes steps to reduce his impact. Being a
>>>> vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in this regard, but it
>>>> carries the risk of turning the person into an anal-retentive nit who
>>>> studies the small print on bottles of sauce in dimply-lit restaurants,
>>>> sneers secretively at people in the meat aisle, and drops unsolicited
>>>> insulting, not-very-subtle suggestions to others about how they should eat.
>>> No, it doesn't carry those risks. The issue of whether veganism is
>>> better than conscientious omnivorism
>> Proof, as if any more were needed, that this is purely about an
>> invidious, nasty, sanctimonious comparison.
>>
>
> We're talking about showing some concern for the well-being of
> animals,

No, we're not. Refraining from consuming animal parts shows nothing of
the kind. What it shows is moral confusion: thinking that following a
rule that has *nothing* to do with ethical behavior somehow indicates
abiding by a moral principle.

There is no principle behind the rule.



> tempered by some concern for one's own personal interests,

That selfish concern for your alleged "interests" is a total "get out of
jail card" for "vegans". It allows you to ignore any amount of
slaughter involved in the provision of the goods you do consume. It
completely guts any possibility of claiming to be adhering to a principle.


> yes, so I wouldn't say that the words "invidious", "nasty", and
> "sanctimonious" were appropriate.

You're wrong, of course - they're fully appropriate. It's the
comparison that's being made that is invidious, nasty and sanctimonious.

*ALL* that's left to "vegans" is this filthy comparison. There is no
principle informing your "lifestyle"; there is no "cruelty-free"
lifestyle being followed; there is no "minimization" being practiced.
There is *NOTHING* but obedience of a stupid rule that doesn't result in
"more ethical" behavior, but the lying, sanctimonious, hypocritical
"vegan" makes the claim anyway.



>> Once again, for the slow learners (among whom number all "vegans", by
>> definition): ethical behavior /never/ is determined by a comparison
>> with the behavior of others.
>
> Indeed not.

So, you agree that "vegans'" claim to be "more ethical" simply because
they follow a silly rule is a false claim.


>
>> Ethical behavior consists solely in doing
>> what is right, without regard to any others.
>
> Yep, fine.

So, you agree "vegans" are not behaving ethically based on their own
(dishonest) statements of belief about animals.


>
>> If your brother sodomizes
>> the four-year-old neighbor boy twice a week, and you "only" sodomize the
>> boy once a week, you are not "more ethical" than your brother; you are,
>> in fact, entirely unethical. *Any* amount of sodomy committed against
>> four-year-old boys makes you unethical - full stop.
>>
>
> Quite.

"vegans" are still causing animals to die, knowingly, so they aren't
ethical by their own standard.


> Obviously if you are going to try to defend buying any products
> of commercial agriculture at all you would have to claim that there is
> some kind of distinction between buying products whose production
> caused some animal suffering and deliberately sodomising a four-year-
> old child.

No, no direct tie with sodomizing needs to be made. It was an
illustration of the principle that doing less of an immoral act, but
still doing some of it, cannot be used as the basis for a claim of being
"more ethical".


>> If causing "unnecessary" animal suffering and death is wrong, then it's
>> wrong in any amount.
>
> No.

Yes, absolutely.


> It could be that there is some kind of moral requirement to make
> *some* effort to reduce your contribution to it but not every
> *possible* effort.

There is a requirement to reduce it to zero, if it has any meaning at all.


> Bit amazing that we constantly have to go over this ground year after
> year, really...

Not really - you cling to your sanctimonious self-flattery, so you keep
making the same error.


>> It simply won't do to try to equivocate on the
>> concept of necessity by appealing to one's own selfish wishes and wants
>> - that is, one cannot simply define as "necessary" some suffering, the
>> elimination of which would inconvenience you in the pursuit of purely
>> selfish goals.
>
> We did go over this. That isn't what I did.

It is precisely what you did and continue to do. You justify your
refusal to do everything possible to stop causing any animal death by
your demand for academic glory, as well as comfort.


>> If reducing the animal harm caused by your "lifestyle"
>> would adversely affect your attainment of academic glory, then your
>> attainment of academic glory will simply have to give way - that is, it
>> will if there is any compelling reason in the first place to reduce harm
>> to animals.
>
> If academic glory were the only consideration,

It and other inessential things like your comfort are, indeed, the
consideration.

You are not behaving "more ethically" than a meat eater simply by
refusing to consume animal parts - which is, of course, *all* you do.
This is demonstrated.