"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> 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.

"Feeling what is right" *is* the act of weighing one's own interests against
the interests of the outside world. There is no separate process.

>> It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
>> ethics.
>
> It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.

That's strange, when a sentence begins with, "My belief is that ethics
are..." that indicates a definition of ethics is to follow.

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

Your comments lead me to that conclusion. You have admitted that you are
basing your idea of ethics on "feelings" and aesthetic considerations
instead of using a rational process, did that tendency come first, or did
"veganism" exacorbate it?

>> Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
>> mistake.

"Veganism" will deplete your ability to think rationally.

>> [..]
>>
>> >> > 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.

Who is advocating "nothing"?

> Complex and adaptable solutions
> are better still.

Veganism is not complex or adaptable, it is binary and rigid. "Do not
consume animal products." The only flexibility within it is a crass one of
convenience, not principle, ""Do not consume animal products, unless it's
too much trouble to do otherwise.."

>> 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.

If you understand and believe that then you should not call yourself a
vegan.

> I just choose to avoid them.