"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:

> My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
> emotional responses and veganism is no exception.

That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but it is
not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's own
needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside world.

It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
ethics. I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
of what ethics really are. Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
mistake.

[..]

>> > I consider that all foods come with an associated
>> > moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
>> > the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
>> > animal suffering caused to produce the food.
>>
>> Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must do
>> to
>> obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that there
>> is
>> no moral cost.
>
> Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
> How about undesirable consequences?

Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
adherents naively imagine.

>> > organic vegetables
>> > hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
>> > factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
>> > much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
>> > the case.
>>
>> You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
>> animal
>> deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
>> preached
>> and practiced.
>
> That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
> reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
> statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
> right lines.

Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem? Why not
apply complex and adaptable solutions? You have realized that consuming
fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why stop
thinking there?