"Ron" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>> I wrote,
>>
>> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw [denying the
>> antecedent] most frequently fall back on an equally
>> defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least
>> harm" practice.
>>
>> To this, Karen replied, "No, that veganism *can*
>> represent a least-harm practice."
>>
>> The potential of a practice is morally meaningless.
>> There only is meaning to what one *does*, not what one
>> *might* do but doesn't.
>>
>> Karen continued:
>>
>> The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that
>> it is "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis,
>> but that it is a more -- not *absolutely*, but
>> *more* -- just practice because it better respects
>> animals.
>>
>> Karen seems to want to take a cafeteria approach to
>> utilitarianism and deontology. (For those not familiar
>> with her, Karen - "glorfindel", bleaghh - historically
>> has leaned toward deontology, believing that animals
>> should hold "rights".) She wants to try to cadge as
>> much prestige as she can from utilitarian beliefs
>> without really adopting them. But there is *no*
>> improvement, in utility or otherwise, from adopting a
>> belief system, and some half measures based on it, that
>> don't actually reduce the level of harm one causes.
>>
>> By trying to make much of her belief that "veganism"
>> has more potential to reduce harm, but not actually
>> *doing* things to reduce harm, Karen is demonstrating
>> once again that "veganism" is almost entirely about
>> symbolic gestures.
>
>
>
> ~jonnie~?....................why do you wear your underpants on
> the
> outside of your clothing?
=======================
Typical response from a usenet vegan loon. Nothing....


>