View Single Post
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On Mar 8, 7:00*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 5:47 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
> >>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
> >>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> >>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.

>
> >>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:

>
> >>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal

>
> >>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> >>>>>> * * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery

>
> >>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions

>
> >>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> >>>>>> * * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food

>
> >>>>> If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to
> >>>>> buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food.

>
> >>>> So? *There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have.

>
> >>>>> I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you
> >>>>> would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is
> >>>>> not a "legitimate goal".

>
> >>>> You are making a choice. *You must bear all moral responsibility for the
> >>>> consequences of your choice.

>
> >>>> You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause
> >>>> zero animal deaths or harm. *I'm instructing you to stop making the
> >>>> false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits
> >>>> in your mouth. *You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are
> >>>> not "minimizing" the harm you cause. *You must admit that your
> >>>> conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief
> >>>> system of "veganism" is false.

>
> >>> No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally
> >>> everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the
> >>> harm that I cause

>
> >> Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required.

>
> > That obviously does not follow.

>
> It does.


Why do you think it follows?