Derek wrote:

> On 11 Sep 2005 04:21:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 10 Sep 2005 10:23:05 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> You're confusing "accident" with "per accidens", believing
> >> that, just because the crops are intentionally sprayed with
> >> chemicals to kill animals (non-accidentally), the deaths
> >> cannot therefore be per accidens, and this is where you're
> >> going wrong. Look further up this page where I initially
> >> explained the terms "per se" and "per accidens".
>
> No comment? And you say you aren't trying to waste my
> time, after my having to explain it again only for you to
> ignore again?

I did not ignore it. I just didn't see the need to respond
paragraph by paragraph. I have no dispute with the above
paragraph and no comment to make on it.

> >> "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."

Based upon the defintion you have given me, I have shown that the
deaths associated with meat production are per accidens because
the killing of an animal is not always absolutely necessary for
the meat's existence.

> >> Where farmed meat is concerned, the deaths of animals
> >> is a property that is always necessary for that object's
> >> existence; you cannot source farmed meat without killing
> >> the animals.
> >
> >Pedant point:
>
> There's nothing pedant about it.
>
> >You can. Just wait for the animal to die of
> >natural causes.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >> Those deaths are per se: a property that is
> >> always absolutely necessary for THAT meat's existence.
> >>
> >> Where crops are concerned, the deaths of animals (CD's)
> >> are not necessary for that object's existence; you can
> >> source veg without killing animals. The deaths that are
> >> caused by crop producers are per accidens: a property
> >> that isn't necessary for the vegetables we eat to exist.
> >
> >OK. I understand the disctinction. I still dispute its significance.
>
> You don't understand the distinction, and therefore
> you cannot dispute it; you merely don't see it, that's
> all, but then that's your failing rather than mine.

The distinction does not actually exist in the way that you define
your terms. Even you defined your terms more carefully, such that
the distinction did exist, it would mean f*** all!

> >> >> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Drugs can exist and be found without killing animals.
> >
> >I'm not disputing that.
>
> Then why did you challenge me to support the claim
> that "drugs could exist without killing animals in medical
> research" by writing,
> "You made the claim that drugs could exist without
> killing animals in medical research and I challenged
> you on it."

You made the claim that the deaths associated with medicinal
drugs were always per accidens because the drugs could exist
without the animal experiments. I disputed that this was
true for those drugs that were discovered as a result of
medical knowledge resulting from animal experiments. I never
claimed there would be no drugs without animal experiments.

> You did dispute that they can, and now that I've given
> you two examples showing they can, you're now trying
> to claim that you're not disputing that they can by writing,
> "I'm not disputing that."
>
> You're just wasting our time, going round in circles
> contradicting yourself.

No contradictions. I asked "How can you be so sure that the
drugs discovered, partly as a result of animal research could
have existed without?" I did not ask you to show that at least
one drug had been developed without animal research.
>
> >> [Two examples of drugs developed without animal
> >> research are penicillin and the smallpox vaccine.
> >>
> >> The smallpox vaccine was developed by a scientist
> >> who noticed that everyone in a particular village had
> >> contracted smallpox except one person: the milkmaid.
> >> It appeared that the milkmaid had been exposed to
> >> cowpox through her daily contact with cows, and her
> >> body developed antigens against the cowpox and
> >> those antigens were effective against the smallpox.
> >> Cowpox is closely related to smallpox, but much
> >> milder. The scientist began exposing healthy people
> >> to cowpox (without testing his theory on animals) and
> >> found that those people became immune to smallpox.
> >>
> >> Penicillin was discovered accidentally by a scientist
> >> who noticed that germs would not grow on certain
> >> areas of certain petri dishes in his lab. Upon testing
> >> these areas, he found that those areas contained
> >> penicillin.
> >>
> >> Just because a drug or treatment was developed using
> >> animal research doesn't mean it couldn't have been
> >> developed *without* animal research.]
> >
> >True but neither does it mean that the drug could have
> >been developed without animal research.
>
> If course it does, you stupid idiot,

How does the fact that a drug is developed *using*
animal research does not *prove* that the same drug
could have been developed *without* using animal research?
That is what you've just claimed, as you would know if you
had taken the trouble to read what I actually wrote.

> and further down this
> page you even admit that they can by writing, "The fact
> that drugs have been discovered without animal research
> shows that any deaths associated with those particular
> drugs are per-accidens."

What part of the phrase "those particular drugs" do you
not understand?

> What the **** is the matter with you, you imbecile?

Nothing. What is the matter with you?

> >> http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/vivisec.htm
> >>
> >> Those are just two examples where drugs can and do
> >> exist without killing animals. Ancient drugs and remedies
> >> found in rainforest areas are other examples where the
> >> deaths of animals weren't necessary. So, the deaths
> >> currently associated with drug production are not
> >> necessary for the existence of drugs, and are therefore
> >> per accidens.
> >
> >The fact that drugs have been discovered without animal
> >research shows that any deaths associated with those
> >particular drugs are per-accidens.
>
> No, it shows that the deaths associated with drug
> discovery and production are per accidens - period.

Only if the fact that food can exist without animal deaths
show that the deaths associated with the production of food
are per accidens - period! To make a distinction between
meat and vegetables while refusing to make a distinction
between animal research derived knowledge and other knowledge
is selective to the point of intellectual dishonesty.

> >It does not show that
> >the deaths associated with modern drugs, developed using
> >animal experiments, are per accidens.
>
> Wrong. You've already conceded the fact that drugs
> can and are found without animal research, and are
> thus per accidens by writing,
> "The fact that drugs have been discovered without
> animal research shows that any deaths associated
> with those particular drugs are per-accidens."
>
> You're all over the place.

See above.

> >> >> >> >> 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"
> >>
> >> Exactly: because you haven't grasped the distinction
> >> between per se and per accidens, even though you
> >> thought you did.
> >
> >IMHO the distinction between per se and per accidens does not
> >enable one to classify the moral status of goods as
> >"right" or "wrong", even when understood correctly.
>
> Being that you admittedly don't understand the terms

I understand the terms as you defined them.

> or see their relevance, your opinion on them is irrelevant.

My opinion of them is that they are irrelevant from the ethical
point of view.

> >> >I can still compare them in relative terms according
> >> >to the actual consequences of their production.
> >>
> >> Then according to you, the moral status of farmed
> >> meat is good if the consequences of its production
> >> can be shown to be good. Conversely, the moral
> >> status of veg must be bad if the consequences of its
> >> production is bad.
> >
> >Correct.
>
> Then you have no argument against the meat eater
> for what he eats, because according to him the
> consequence of its production is good.

Non-sequiter. I can argue that the consequences of
its production are not good.

> And you
> have no defence against him either, because he can
> show you that the consequences of veg production
> is bad.

Non-sequiter. I can argue that the consequences of
their production are preferable to the consequences
of the production of alternative forms of nutrition.

> As we can see, you have no guiding principle
> behind your diet, and you have no argument against
> the meat eater for his. You're simply wasting your
> time and theirs.

This is false as you would expect from a conclusion
derived from a couple of non-sequiters.
>
> >> >> >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?
> >>
> >> Since when was it required that a philosophical
> >> concept must have a practical purpose?
> >
> >Philosophical concepts do not necessarily need to
> >serve a practical purpose
>
> Then why try to dismiss Aristotle's philosophical
> concept by asking what practical purpose it can
> serve if you're now saying that "Philosophical
> concepts do not necessarily need to serve a
> practical purpose", time-waster?

If you had read my full quote then you would already
know the answer to that question.
>
> >but ethics
>
> You don't understand ethics.

You hypocrite! If I don't respond to every paragraph
you write you accuse me of timewasting but when you
see a paragraph that is more convinient to ignore then
you snip it. Allow me to reinstate it.

Ethics is supposed to be a practical branch of philosophy,
not merely a way of justifying one's dietary prejudices.

> >> >> >> >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.
> >>
> >> No, it isn't inconsistent at all. A valid moral distinction
> >> can be made between scavenged and farmed meat.
> >
> >Agreed.
>
> Thank you.

You're welcome.

> >> Scavenged meat can be sourced from animals that
> >> haven't been killed by us in order to get it, while
> >> farmed meat cannot exist without our first killing the
> >> animal to get it. Get it?
> >
> >Yes. Buying meat from the butcher gives farmers a commercial
> >incentive to keep killing animals. Scavenging meat does not.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >> You're in a mess. Sort yourself out by trying to
> >> retain some of what I've explained.
> >
> >I understand the disctinction between per se and
> >per essence.
>
> No, you still don't.
>
> >but until you can show that the ethics,
> >you have built upon the distinction have a more
> >noble purpose than justifying your dietary prejudices
> >I shall continue to treat it as worthless.
>
> Then your ignorance over these terms has made
> you arrogant about them as well.

Since you clearly have no way of explaining how the
ethics you have decided to adopt can lead to a better
society, I suppose it is only natural that you should
choose to make a snide remark instead.