vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/10/2012 6:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George wrote:
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
- 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
- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
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.
So let me be absolutely clear about your worldview, George.
Have a go at it.
You deny that, in going vegan, I was making some effort to reduce the
amount of suffering and premature death of conscious creatures that
need to take place in order to produce my food.
Yes, because you really had no idea if it was going to make a difference
or not, because you hadn't counted, and you never did investigate the CD
counts for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish or any other changes you
might have made instead. You just *assumed*, on the basis of no
evidence and also knowing *nothing* about CDs at the time that you made
your switch, that not putting animal parts in your mouth would
automatically mean you weren't killing any animals. You've said
repeatedly that you knew as an adolescent before making the switch that
crop farming caused CDs. I just don't believe you. My own adolescence
is pretty far behind me, but I'm around a pretty good number of
adolescents now, and none - not a single one - have that precocious sort
of awareness of the world that one would need. They're kids, and kids
don't think that way. We've talked about this before, how some bright
people grossly and grotesquely overstate how aware they were when they
were younger. It's just bullshit.