vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 9, 8:48*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 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
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
> >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
> >>>>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
> >>>>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
> >>>>>>>>>>> these elements:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> * * * *- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> * * * *- You are an active participant
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> * * * *- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
> >>>>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
> >>>>>>>>>>> humans
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> * * * *- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
> >>>>>>>>>>> legitimate goal.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
> >>>>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
> >>>>>>>>>>> your activity.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
> >>>>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
> >>>>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?
>
> >>>>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
> >>>>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't
> >>>>>>>> work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false.
>
> >>>>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about,
>
> >>>>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
> >>>>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
> >>>>>> one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar.
>
> >>>>> I don't believe either of those things.
>
> >>>> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
> >>>> the second. *Both are false.
>
> >>> What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living
> >>> in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some
> >>> effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that
> >>> needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been
> >>> known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I
> >>> acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as
> >>> a "reasonable effort",
>
> >> Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering
> >> about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you..
>
> > It is obviously false that I have done nothing.
>
> It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing.
You strike me as being a very irrational person.
|