"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 2:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > What is irrelevant is your contention that discrimination is part of
>> > the human condition. That does not bear on the remark to which you
>> > were replying.
>>
>> Discrimination is every animal's most important survival tool. Without
>> the
>> ability to discriminate antelope would walk right up to a pride of lions
>> and
>> we would continue to eat foods known to be poisonous. You have taken a
>> negative *******ization of the word and made into your reality.
>>
>
> Discrimination, in the sense of making different moral judgements
> about two different cases, requires justification, i.e. pointing out
> some morally relevant distinction between the cases. This is a basic
> point in moral philosophy.
>
>> > You contended that there is nothing to justify about the fact that we
>> > would be more willing to kill animals to save ourselves than to kill
>> > humans to save ourselves. I don't agree with this and I bothered to
>> > say something about it, but I don't regard it as a major issue. (You
>> > later conflated this with the issue of whether there is anything to
>> > justify about the practice of eating meat, obviously I regard that as
>> > a more important issue).
>>
>> That cannot be the issue, because meat is dead. The issue must come
>> earlier,
>> that is the killing or, or the sponsoring of the killing of animals for
>> the
>> purpose of creating food. Then the question must be asked, why is it
>> necessary to justify the killing an animal to turn it into food and
>> clothing
>> and other useful products while at the same time it does not seem to be
>> necessary to justify killing animals collaterally in other forms of
>> agriculture. This raises the point, isn't food the justification?
>>
>
> Both require some justification.

Food, what better justification could there be?

> A form of agriculture which causes
> less harm might be easier to justify.

Easier to justify than food?


>> >> > I said "Maybe it
>> >> > can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
>> >> > anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think
>> >> > it
>> >> > obviously can be justified and it's not worth arguing about.
>>
>> >> Er, no. The question "What is there to justify?" means exactly what it
>> >> asks,
>> >> "What is there to justify?"; i.e. "What is there to justify if people
>> >> kill
>> >> animals to eat?"
>>
>> > That's actually not what we were talking about. Saying "what is there
>> > to justify" about that issue is really just a move to opt out of
>> > serious discussion of the issue. If you're not interested in seriously
>> > discussing the issue, you probably shouldn't be on
>> > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.
>>
>> You're constantly condescending towards people, implying they're not
>> discussing the issues properly, but you never say much of any substance
>> yourself.
>>
>
> I am only condescending as tit-for-tat. The points I make in reply to
> people are usually relevant, good points. In particular, I have
> pointed out important limitations to the arguments the antis make
> here, which they have never really adequately responded to.

If you have made such points I don't recall reading them.