Derek wrote:

> On 6 Sep 2005 07:01:11 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan
> >> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you
> >> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with
> >> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture.
> >>
> >> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still
> >> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing
> >> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that
> >> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get
> >> you to where you want to be.
> >>
> >> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
> >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
> >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
> >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence.
> >> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the
> >> deaths associated with medical research are not classified
> >> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without
> >> killing animals;
> >
> >Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand
>
> What I wrote above is crucial to the point in hand
> if only you knew the difference between per se and
> per accidens.

I understand the difference. BTW, both meat and vegetables
can theoretically exist without killing animals.
>
> >but
> >how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly
> >as a result of animal research would have been discovered
> >without?
>
> Rather, how can you be so sure that they wouldn't?

"Avoiding questions by asking questions of your own is
a dodge", or so I have been reliably informed:-)

> >> the properties they carry are "per accidens"
> >> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods,
> >> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now
> >> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in
> >> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy
> >> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens".
> >> What would be the ethical choice between the two?
> >
> >What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that
> >needed to be done.
>
> You haven't persuaded me that the harm done was
> needed, and nor have you answered the question
> put to you. Avoiding questions by asking questions
> of your own is a dodge.

The distinction between harm done per se and harm done
per accidens is not so important. What matters is
the consequences of production in the real world, not
an idealized approximation of it. As a general rule,
vegan foods are more ethical, in my way of thinking
but there is an overlap.

> >If you consumed plantation sugar
> >in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for
> >supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical,
> >"in essence" nature of the sugar?
>
> Neither.

So, if our historical consumer of plantation sugar
was not responsible for supporting the slave trade
then it follows that the modern day omnivore is not
responsible for supporting the meat industry. In
that case, what is the ethical objection to him eating
the meat?