vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/10/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:14 pm, George > 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?
Really.
|