"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 1:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "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.
>>
>
> What does that mean? What's wrong with my views about animal use?

I didn't say they were wrong, I said that they are not moderate. Your
position reflects strong animal rights thinking, and therefore is not
congruent with moderate statements like the ones you posited above. If one
believes that slavery is wrong then one does not "suggest that perhaps we
should cut down on the number of slaves we own".


>> >> 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.
>>
>
> Well, Dutch, I hate to tell you this but if I tried to explain my
> thesis (in maths) to you it would take many years for you to
> understand.

I agree, I have read some of your thesis, it's way above my head, however,
as I just said, mathematics is not moral philosophy.

> You could probably understand my ideas in moral philosophy
> with a bit of effort, but you've got to approach the subject seriously
> and with an open mind.

I do have an open mind, but you have to learn how to articulate.

>You asked me to explain how my views are
> consistent with equal consideration,

I did not, I asked how any life could be.

> I said Peter Singer's views are,
> and other, non-consequentialist views could be as well, and you said
> that was just waffle. Well, it's not. It was a reasonable explanation
> of how a view could be consistent with equal consideration without
> being an absolutist animal rights position. You've got to be prepared
> to listen with an open mind and actually think about what's being said
> for more than two seconds if you want to make progress. Do you know
> much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism?

What you don't get it is that what I am interested in is ideas that can
survive in the crucible of a real-world test, not endless rhetoric.

>> > 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?
>
> There's nothing corrupt about it. If you want to understand what I
> mean, check out the talk I'm giving to some Honours students. It's in
> my Yahoo group, discussion_of_animal_ethics, in the Files section.

See, you didn't respond again.

>> 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".
>
> No, I'm not. Not all discrimination is unjust or unfair, but any kind
> of discrimination needs justification.

No it doesn't. You don't understand the meaning of the word.

> If species discrimination is
> not unjust and unfair, then fine, it must have a justification. I want
> to see it. Pointing out that we kill demodex mites when we wash our
> hair isn't good enough.

Why not, because you say so and you are a hot-shot? I never presented that
as a definitive argument, but since you keep referring to it, why isn't
pointing out that we kill demodex mites good enough to show that we must
discriminate based on species?

>> And we don't discriminate on species "alone", we
>> also discriminate within our species, and not always unfairly, but not
>> always equitably either.
>
> Yes, that's fine. My problem is with discriminating on the basis of
> species *alone*. To the extent that a practice cannot be justified
> without pure species discrimination, I think it is problematic.

So you have frequently pointed out, but never explained.

>> 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."
>>
>
> Who are relevantly similar to the members of other species.

You had to insert a waffle into a perfectly clear statement, why?

Yes,
> exactly. Thank you.

No problem.

>> 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.
>>
>
> All right, well why not also say that it's invalid to apply the notion
> of human rights to radically cognitively impaired humans?

We don't. The rights of profoundly retarded individuals are curtailed to
near zero, and their obligations as well. We do not charge such people with
crimes regardless of their actions.

> The point is
> that we draw a distinction, and it needs to be justified.

You need to justify it perhaps, most of us do not. I don't need to justify
discriminating between a chicken and a human any more than I need to justify
discriminating between a mouse and a fly, or a spider and a banana. It's
just something I do naturally.

>> > 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,
>
> Well, it was *your* example.

But not my only one, and you knew it.

>> 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.
>>
>
> I wouldn't necessarily say that.

You should, if you are really searching for the truth. Vegans constantly
make arguments why the death of the field mouse is less morally significant
than the death of the chicken or cow, as if the animals cared. I argue that
the deaths are morally equivalent, therefore it should be as important to a
vegan to consume less, or make better choices among vegetarian fare, as it
is to avoid animal products, but that is not the case. The avoidance of
animal products dwarfs all other concerns in the vegan mindset.

>It's just that it's harder to do
> something about it.

That should not make it any less significant, they die for the same reason,
because we want food. Veganism suffers from myopia, it thinks too much of
it's own prime directive, which has been foisted upon it from the animal
rights movement.

>
>> 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.
>
> Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> tell me what you think of it?

I browsed some points there the other day, I'll have a look.