View Single Post
  #29 (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 9, 5:14*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > *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.

>
> No.


Really? So presumably your claim is that you strike me as being quite
a rational person when you assert that I have done nothing directed
towards reducing the amount of suffering required to produce my food?