Derek wrote:

> On 7 Sep 2005 12:47:44 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >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.
>
> It's clear from your response here that you do not.
>
> >BTW, both meat and vegetables
> >can theoretically exist without killing animals.
>
> I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their
> food from road kill or from animals that have died
> from natural causes, but the meat being discussed
> here is the type which is sourced from animals
> killed for their meat. The deaths of these animals
> are per se, while the deaths of animals associated
> with crop production are per accidens. If you'd
> understood these terms like you said you had, you
> would not have made this error.

It appears to me that you are operating a double
standard here. You claim that the deaths associated
with the meat industry are per-se on the grounds
that we are talking about meat that has been sourced
from animals deliberately killed for their meat but
still claim that those associated with crop production
are per-accidens, even if the vegetables have been
sprayed with chemicals *deliberately* designed to kill
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:-)
>
> You need to support your claim, and my question
> asks for that support. You cannot exclude the very
> real possibility that the drugs found using animal
> research might still have been found without it, or
> that they may have been discovered even earlier.
> The onus on you is to support your claim.

I believe the onus is on you for two reasons:

1. I was not making any claim. You made the claim that
drugs could exist without killing animals in medical
research and I challenged you on it.

2. You are asking me to prove a negative. If the medical
knowledge used to develop these drugs could have been
acquired without killing animals, then you can explain
how the knowledge could have been obtained. This is
a much easier task than explaining how it could not have
been obtained.

However, in support of my claim I shall point out that
the Dr Hadwen Trust's website admits that:
"In many cases, appropriate alternatives still need to
be developed. But other factors are involved too:"
http://www.crueltyfreeshop.com/drhadwen/faq.htm

> >> >> 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.
>
> It's crucial, because without that distinction you
> cannot compare the moral status behind these
> goods. As with everything about you, you have
> no coherent principle or reasoning behind your
> position.

Although I have admitted I have no way to classify
the moral status of goods as "right" or "wrong" I
can still compare them in relative terms according
to the actual consequences of their production.

> >What matters is the consequences
>
> No. The consequences of an action cannot judge
> whether that act was good or bad. An action can
> only be judged on the principle involved behind it.
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.

In my view a good system of ethics is one that seeks
to enhance the quality of life for all beings able to
appreciate it. You can formulate any prinicple such
as your distinction between per-se and per-accidens
but what practical purpose does that serve?

> >> >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.
>
> No, because the deaths associated with the meat
> industry are per se while the deaths associated
> with sugar are per accidens. You clearly haven't
> grasped any of this at all.

Again, if you wish to make a distinction between
meat obtained by scavenging and meat obtained by
the deliberate killing of an animal then it seems
inconsistent to make no distinction between sugar
obtained using willing labour and sugar obtained
using forced labour.

> >In
> >that case, what is the ethical objection to him eating
> >the meat?
>
> Because the death of the animal was per se and
> intentional rather than per accidens.

See above.