On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument. It's
> > perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one rational
> > thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously no-one's
> > going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their impact on
> > the environment, but cutting down on animal products is nevertheless
> > one reasonable step to take.
>
> Veganism does make sense when presented in reasonable terms such as that,
> but as you know, it seldom is It usually goes hand-in-hand with hard-core
> Animal Rights ideology which does not take such a temperate view. It's a
> huge leap from "one rational thing to do" to a banner-carrying,
> blood-tossing, moral imperative, a position that sees eating meat as
> disgusting. Lets not pretend that AR advocates are merely "suggesting
> veganism as a reasonable alternative". You know that is not the case for the
> mainstream of AR, perhaps Singer, but not Regan or Francione. Not you
> either, based on everything you've said. If you have decided to accept AR
> ideology before the final arguments are in, then you can't be tolerant, it
> would be like tolerating slavery. I can see finding AR ideas interesting,
> but as a mathematician you must be logical, so I can't see why you have
> chosen to accept AR principles as right by default with so many questions
> about it still unanswered. You don't have to reject it, but at the very
> least you should be more skeptical about them, at least as skeptical as you
> would be if someone announced a revolutionary proof, a trisection of an
> angle or something, without providing hard evidence.

Actually, this contention that I should be "skeptical" about them is
interesting. One of two things has to be done: we either have to find
a good justification for discrimination on the basis of species, or
else we have to build a plausible comprehensive ethical framework
which avoids it. You're saying I should be more skeptical about the
possibility of the latter than the former, partly because you think
that it's obvious that the latter can't be done and hence the former
needs no justification anyway. As I say, I don't share that view. I
think your skepticism about the possibility of building a
comprehensive ethical framework which avoids discrimination on the
basis of species is partly based on a misapprehension of what that
would involve. I am somewhat skeptical about the possibility of
building such a framework, but I am at least equally skeptical about
the possibility of finding a good justification for discrimination on
the basis of species.

The analogy with trisection of the angle is not quite apt because I
have read and understood the proof that such a thing is impossible.