On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:
>On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George > wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > wrote:
>>>>> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>>>>>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>>>>> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>>>>> Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>>>>> __________________________________________________ ____
>>>>> Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>>>>> production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>>>>> vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>>>>> accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>>>>> kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>>>>> employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>>>>> meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>>>>> animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>>>>> vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>>>>> this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>>>>> between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>>>>> servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>>>>> farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>>>>> to his own method. From Wiki;
>>>>>
>>>>> [Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>>>>> employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>>>>> relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>>>>> Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>>>>>
>>>>> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>>>>> master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>>>>>
>>>>> The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>>>>> dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>>>>> This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>>>>> given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>>>>> causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>>>>> employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>>>>> relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>>>>> contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>>> under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>>>>> a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>>>>> other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>>>>> is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>>>>> which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>>>>> prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>>>>> control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>>>>> vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>>>>> production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>>>>> agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>>>>> they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>>>>> consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>>>>> the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>>>>> during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>>>>> collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>>>>> head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>>>>> many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>>>>> __________________________________________________ ___
>>>>
>>>> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
>>>> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,
>>>
>>> Vegetables generally have that history.
>>
>> No, I don't believe that.
>>
>>>> and there's
>>>> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
>>>> for the deaths that may occur,
>>>
>>> Absolutely wrong, Derek.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
>> rule of English law that dictates,
>>
>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>> under the contract...."
>
>As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
>*legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility.

No, it addresses both. If you can remember, I also brought
another piece from the European Journal of Social Psychology
on how to assign vicarious responsibility.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
causing of the damage]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.

>It also
>looks at an incident in isolation, but the relationship of food
>consumers buying produce whose production they *know* causes animals to
>suffer and die is ongoing.

I know that animals occasionally die in crop production, just
like I know some people occasionally die from police brutality.
I continue to pay the food producer and the police as independent
contractors and, as such, not being in a "superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and able to control that person's
causing of the damage" I am not morally or legally responsible
for what they do.

>>> This idea of shared or vicarious moral
>>> responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
>>> established beyond rational dispute.
>>
>> Yes, and it goes directly against your view.
>
>No, it doesn't.

I'm afraid it does. You cannot foist vicarious moral responsibility
on those who are "not in a superior relationship to the person who
caused the damage and is able to control that person's causing of
the damage."

>>> However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
>>> counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
>>> "lifestyle" is "cruelty free."
>>
>> And it is on his part.
>
>It is not. He is in a voluntary, unnecessary, ongoing relationship with
>killers.

And that relationship is that of an employer and his subcontractor
as described above. There's no cruelty on his part, and so he can
reasonably say that his lifestyle is cruelty-free.

>> The cruelty is not his and doesn't come from him.
>
><yawn> Same as meat eaters.

Meat eaters demand animals be killed in order to eat them.
The farmers they employ are subject to their command as
to the manner in which they shall do their work when
producing meat.

>He doesn't commit the so-called cruelty,

Exactly. Unlike the meat eater, the farmers he employs are
not subject to his command as to the manner in which
they shall do their work when producing his vegetables. His
subcontractor kills animals against his will while producing
his vegetables.

>> Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
>> fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
>> sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
>> criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
>> because you wear a leather watch strap, for example?
>
>What's the relationship between dog fighting and consumption of cattle
>products?

Getting dogs to fight to their death and getting farm animals to
live and die in horrendous circumstances involve abject cruelty
on the part of the person who finds enjoyment from the result of
either practice, it can be argued.