wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sprang" > wrote
> >> "rick" > wrote:
> >
> >>> Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some
> >>> diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule
> >>> for simple minds?
> >>
> >> What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not
a
> >> vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something?
> >
> >He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names
when they
> >challenge your position?
> >
> >> And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a
website. And
> >> the
> >> fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is
about
> >> eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit.
> >
> >That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less
animal
> >death",
> >among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen.
>
> Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from
> one acre's worth of,say, brown rice?

No. It's known to be non-zero, however.

>
> First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre,
> then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice.
> Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there
> are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is.
> What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken
> that meat eaters eat. Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
> animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination.
>
> without those numbers, it's all fluff.

Wrong. This is NOT a counting game.

If you believe, as "vegans" all believe, that it is wrong to kill
animals except in self defense (your so-called "need" for food to
survive does not count as self defense), then if the production of your
food causes *any* animal death, you are living in violation of your
claimed beliefs.

"vegans" may NOT legitimately claim to be "more moral" than meat eaters
even if they DO cause less animal death, for two basic reasons:

1. Your claimed belief that it is wrong to kill animals
means that you must cause NO animal deaths, or at least
buy only from producers who take the same strenuous and
costly measures to try to prevent them as are taken to
try to prevent human death in industry. But we know
you don't come anywhere close to that standard.

2. Morality is NEVER established by comparison to others.
You either adhere to certain moral standards, or you
don't.

This latter point is illustrated by the following: suppose your diet
causes 50 animal deaths per week, and some meat eater against whom you
are smugly contrasting your count causes 100. So, you conclude that
you are "more moral" than she because you cause 1/2 the deaths. Now,
suppose the technologies behind both your diets change for the worse
(in terms of animal death), such that his diet now causes 300 animal
deaths per week, while yours causes 100. You now cause only 1/3 as
many deaths now as your counterpart, whereas before you caused 1/2.
Looks good, eh? But, is this an improvement, given that the number you
cause has DOUBLED compared to what you used to cause?

Or how about this old favorite? Suppose your brother sodomizes the
little boy next door with a broomstick a dozen times a week, while you
only do it to the boy two or three times a week? Are you "more moral"
than your brother for doing somewhat less, but still a non-zero amount,
of a horrific crime?

Judging one's own actions to be moral based on a comparison with what
others do is not considered valid and sound ethics in any philosophical
system.