Dutch wrote:

> "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,

I do try to be rational most of the time. I am simply introducing the
theory that most people develop their moral conclusions first and the
justifying arguments second, more than they would care to admit or are
even
consciously aware

> 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 don't think that follows.

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

Having thought this over a bit more I now agree with you. AIUI the
guiding principle behind veganism is that animals deserve the same
rights we claim for ourselves. In that case following the rule of
veganism is not the same as following the guiding principle behind
that rule.

> >> 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 am planning a name change soon. I am considering something
even more oxymoronic like carno-vegan. If you avoid animal
products for aesthetic reasons rather than moral ones, are you
not still a vegan? In my case the point is moot anyway. Eating
fish disqualifies me from calling myself a vegan.

> > I just choose to avoid them.