On 7 Mrz., 17:56, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > *wrote:
> > [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.
>
> What do you have to say, Woopert? *Is Derek right? *It is a fact -
> beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
> in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
> as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
> Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
> by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
> deaths of meat animals. *The degree of control and the degree of
> "[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
> are identical.
>
> How about it, Woopert?

Yes, I agree with you about that hypothetical statement but I suspect
that Derek will not.