> wrote
>
> 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.

Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, sounds, objects,
why would they not feel pain?

>> >> 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.

What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain probability" and
"unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective.

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

Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally deficient?

>> > 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.

What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain? There is no definitive
answer to that question, but every animal species can be observed to react
adversely or defensively to attack or injury.

>> > 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.

The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the principle to have any
meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be killed in order to
support the human race. I think that singling out food animals as political
clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some morally deluded
individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal aggrandizment.