Dutch wrote:

> "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.

In theory that is true. In practice I think most people sort of 'feel'
what is right and then develop their ethics to reach the desired
conclusions.

> It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
> ethics.

It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.

> I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
> of what ethics really are.

I doubt that.

> 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.

Agreed.

> >> > 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?

A simple rule is better than nothing. Complex and adaptable solutions
are better still.

> You have realized that consuming
> fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why stop
> thinking there?

Carefully chosen meats can also form part of a healthy, ehtical
lifestyle
but are not necessary for such. I just choose to avoid them.