View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Doug Jones
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:49:03 +0000, Derek >
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:28:49 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>>
>>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>>>when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;

>><snip>

> <restore>
>(Critic)
>Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>still die for their food during crop production.
>
>This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>implemented.
>
>(Rejoinder)
>Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
>aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
>and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
>intentionally for food. Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
>farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves, and they
>also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing our
>oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
>the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
>those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
>eat those meats.
>
>A harsh critic of veganism even declared;
>
> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
> the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
> in general if everyone were vegetarian."
> Jonathan Ball 4th May 03
>
> And
>
> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> feed for the animals you eat."
> Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03
> <end restore>
>
>>>So, even while animals die during the course of crop
>>>production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
>>>should be rejected because some part of the problem would
>>>still exist after it was implemented is specious.
>>>

>>
>>Congratulations. You've just committed the fallacy of "shifting the
>>goal posts"

>
>No, I haven't.
>
>>I'm particularly struck by your wonderful embrace of the idea that
>>"accidental" deaths don't count in your moral calculus.

>
>Your mental block is probably due to the fact that I haven't
>even mentioned "accidental" deaths, let alone state that they
>don't count in my moral calculus. And you accuse me of
>shifting the goal posts?
>
>>As long as we can say "oops!" or "didn't mean to!" it's perfectly all
>>right to kill animals. cool.

>
>No, I haven't implied that at all.
>
> <restore>
>A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
>provided below.
>
>The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
>of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
>Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
>would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
>Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
>a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
>imagine.
>
>Examples:
> (critic)
>This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
>able to get through!
>(Rejoinder)
>Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
>would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
>(critic)
>These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
>People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
>(Rejoinder)
>It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
>by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
>enough to make the policy worthwhile?
>(Critic)
>Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
>wrecks.
>(Rejoinder)
>It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
>isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
>seat belts worthwhile?
>
>It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
>any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
>work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
>be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
>a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
>catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
>heuristic).
>The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
> <end restore>


Which still doesn't address your shifting goalposts. The core claim
that has been made by most vegan proponents is:

Their diet involves *no* (not fewer) animal deaths

Now, you are shifting the goal post by claiming that it involves
"fewer" deaths, again, without demonstrating that it does.

When it has been pointed out that agriculture does involve animal
deaths, you shift your goalposts to saying that they're "incidental"
and "accidental".

Saying that the argument poses a "false dilemma" just shows that one
of the core claims made by vegan proponents is false. Thank you.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----