"C. James Strutz" > wrote

> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
responsibility.

> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be
> on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

I think that is a personal decision. Under the circumstances I think it
behooves us to be aware of and honest about the impact of our lifestyles.
Vegans notoriously fail at this.

>The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude of
>morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize animal
>deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths? It's
>fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely different matter
>to accuse them of being unethical.

The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's nothing
wrong with that. The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle
or act that accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the
vegan golden rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing
the token act of abstaining from so-called "animal products". The
side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make this
very apparent.

The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly, is that
it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between consumers and
non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is inherent in veganism,
therefore veganism per se must be rejected. Those who place a high moral
value on minimizing animal suffering need to abandon the misleading notion
of abstaining from animal "products" and create new paradigm to express
their ideal.