"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.
>
> No, they're advocating veganism as a moral baseline, but on the basis
> of arguments other than the environmental argument.

They're not "suggesting" veganism as a reasonable alternative as you
portrayed, they are stating categorically that it is the only moral avenue
available to us, assuming of course that we have a choice.

>> Not you
>> either, based on everything you've said.
>
> Why not?

Because your words reveal that you have bought the AR party line on a
fundamental level. You can't do that and at the same time take a moderate
view of animal use. The two are incongruent.

>> 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.
>
> The trouble is you don't really understand what principles I do
> accept, and when I try to explain it to you you tell me I'm not really
> saying anything and I'm a pseudo-intellectual.

That's because you tend to talk in circles. If something like this can't be
parsed down to simple understandable terms then the person speaking doesn't
really understand what they're saying. This subject is unlike higher
mathematics in that way.

> I see a problem with
> discriminating on the basis of species alone.

That statement is internally corrupt from start to finish. What do you mean
by problem, and discrimination? What do you mean when you say something is a
problem? Discrimination per se is not a negative, it is a positive. You seem
to be borrowing from the shorthand use of the word in the place of "injust
or unfair discrimination". And we don't discriminate on species "alone", we
also discriminate within our species, and not always unfairly, but not
always equitably either. Perhaps a clearer statement of that idea would be,
" It seems unjust to harm members of other species in circumstances and ways
in which we would not harm other humans."

The answer is, yes, if you look at animals and attempt to apply the
principles of human rights to them, then it seems unjust. The first question
is, was it a valid exercise to attempt that in the first place? Does it make
sense outside the confines of a theoretical model? What I know is that it is
foolhardy to subscribe to the notion that is de facto truth before grasping
all the implications and complications that it introduces in the real world.

> I acknowledge that it is
> a serious challenge to construct a plausible comprehensive ethical
> theory which does not discriminate on the basis of species. You think
> it's obvious that it can't be done, I don't agree with you and I think
> your view is partly based on a misapprehension about what constitutes
> discrimination on the basis of species. For example, when you say that
> if we abandoned discrimination on the basis of species we would no
> longer be able to wash our hair because it kills demodex mites, that
> is definitely incorrect.

You're relying on the most extreme example, what about bees, spiders and
other small critters in the lawn? What about moles and voles and lizards and
toads in crop fields? Why does their plight seem so much less important to
the vegan than the plight of the chicken? And it does.

That definitely shows you've got a long way
> to go before you understand what certain arguments do and don't
> entail. I apologize if I've been unduly condescending in pointing this
> out, and I apologize if I haven't done a very good job of helping you
> to a better understanding, but it definitely is the case that you need
> to improve your understanding before you can seriously engage with
> arguments like these. You say that's all nonsense and tell me I'm a
> pseudo-intellectual, well, you're entitled to that view, but it's
> wrong.

Those last dozen or so lines might have been better served attempting to
explain how you think instead of rambling on about my perceived
shortcomings.

I have some rough ideas about the foundations of your form of thought, but I
would prefer to hear you try to elucidate them in your own way first, using
Rupert language, not phrases pulled out of books.