C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.
>
> Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.

You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I called
"Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote previously about grains
fed to cattle illustrates this objection. You contend that no matter how
many deaths may be attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those
who eat meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In the
example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating meat even
though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those animals won't be eaten
by humans. The veg-n also sanctimoniously impugns the character of those
who eat the meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic with sensible
quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical scales: the veg-n's diet
causes 1000 animals to die and the omnivore's causes 1001. Is it
significantly more ethical to be responsible for one less animal death
when you're already responsible for 1000?

In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption of mere
*fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales should account for
that, but the illustration sufficiently shows the moral relativism of
vegans.

Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb

> America dropped atomic
> bombs on Japan at the end of WWII because many more soldiers would have died
> had we not. We killed people to prevent, in all probability, many times more
> deaths. How about the death penalty? Or what about euthanasia? Or stem cell
> research? Or abortion? Moral ethics aren't absolute.

You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically re-stating *my*
point with these examples. Your disagreement isn't with me, but with
veganism. Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute. Vegans don't
distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or
non-cruel treatement. They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and
that just about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of
the latter by the former. They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all*
hunting, *all* animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all*
livestock production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even
further and want an end to humans having pets.

And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
conditions for animals. They suggest replacing meat with proteins from
soy and grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these
alternatives to meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths
caused by one's diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They
likewise recommend synthetic furs and leather even though these are made
from petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of
leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for
animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops
with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse
since crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target species.
See Rick's links.

>>The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or death.
>>It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make categorical
>>statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with the facts, they
>>ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a virtue relative to
>>the actions of others. They're not more ethical because others are
>>ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to their capricious
>>standard); they fail their own ethics test when they measure themselves by
>>their own standard.
>
> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of living
> things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
their consumption and/or work.

> 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.

Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is
a widespread abuse of animals. Those images and videos are of isolated
incidents. I can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
various farms that show animals are treated very well. Tell me what you
find objectionable about the conditions in the images below (other than
a reflexive objective you may have in general to any livestock production):
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg

Note, unlike the PETA and other kook propaganda, these farms are
well-lit, uncramped, and quite clean. In the fourth pic, the pigs even
have outdoor (sunlit) access in their runs and a protective covering.

> The disagreement that you and
> others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority

I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.

> of SOME of them

ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards others who
consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor animal research,
etc.), and many also deem those who use honey as reprobates.

> and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with
> trying to minimize animal deaths?

Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans, though,
prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at all -- as though
they're causing zero harm by simply not eating them, not wearing their
hides or fur, etc.

The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually reducing harm
to animals or are they just intending to cause less harm? The end
results show us if they're ethical or not. And in the instances I
outlined above -- objecting only to the 1001st death, recommending
high-CD foods in place of larger ruminants, recommending synthetics (or
even natural fibers) instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results
aren't remarkably better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed"
consumption; indeed, they're probably much worse. Thus, one's intentions
don't make one ethical; one's effects and results do.

Veganism fails miserably in this respect. Far from being ethical, vegans
are *hypocritical* because they cause as much harm to animals as anyone
else.

> It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance
> but it's an entirely different matter to accuse them of being unethical.

Not when they continue to make their fanatical claims despite being
shown the errors, and not when they stubbornly deny that other forms of
consumption -- such as Professor Davis' hypothesized least-harm diet
that includes eating certain kinds of meat -- may cause less harm than a
"vegan" diet.