On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>> > wrote
>>
>>>>>> Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
>>>>>> the default starting position.
>>
>>>>> For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
>>>>> interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my
>>>>> community,
>>>>> my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower
>>>>> level
>>>>> animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere.
>>
>>>>> The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
>>>>> interests, that is the way the world works.
>>
>>>> That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
>>
>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
>>> ethicist,
>>
>> nor has Woopert...
>>
>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
>>> yourself, as it should be.
>>
>> Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
>> of animals.
>
> That is quite obvious nonsense.

No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. You
said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
you give to humans'. You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.