Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> >> > reducing
> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes*
> >> >> the
> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line,
> >> >> and
> >> >> sinker.
> >> >
> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> >> > unnecessarily.
> >>
> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
> >> 2. All animals are sentient
> >
> > False.
>
> Name one that isn't.
>

An ant.

> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral cost.
> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or taking
> >> that
> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily.
> >
> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that
> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed
> > unnecessarily."
>
> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and
> cynical attempt to redefine your position.

Yes it would, and no it isn't.

> You have ZERO knowledge of the
> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you consume.
>

True.

> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> > unnecessarily
>
> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't even
> define "sentient".
>

Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of having
feelings.

> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
> > not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that
> > cause or support unnecessary harm.
>
> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or unnecessary
> in this context.

I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. However, I
believe removing these qualifications would make the moral principle
false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral
principle with better-defined terms that I think has a reasonable
chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm just
stating the moral principles I believe in.