On Jul 12, 6:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.com...
>
> >> > On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >> >> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >> >> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >> >> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >> >> belief in 'ar'.
>
> >> > I wrote to Derek:
>
> >> > "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
> >> > more
> >> > harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
>
> >> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>
> > Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
>
> Society will never be what you want it to be, but you can control how you
> live, what principles you choose to live by.
>

Yes.

> >> > Inflicting any more
> >> > harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> >> > currently being violated.
>
> >> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>
> > Not by me. On my behalf.
>
> Right, but as the consumers are the driving force behind the system we share
> in the complicity.
>

Sure. But in my view there are some limits to the obligation to avoid
complicity in harm.

> >> > But the constraint on me as an individual
> >> > living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> >> > avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>
> >> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to
> >> mean,
> >> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>
> > Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation. So what? I should
> > conclude that anyone can buy anything they want?
>
> That's what open to interpretation means.
>

No, it's not. Consider the following moral rule: "You should make
every reasonable effort to be considerate towards your friends". Most
people would accept that moral rule and find that it gave them some
concrete guidance. It's difficult to define exactly what counts as
"reasonable", but there are some clear-cut cases.

>
>
> >> > And
> >> > considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> >> > what counts as a reasonable effort.
>
> >> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
> >> reasonable.
>
> > I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> > have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
>
> Not all of them, but a significant number of them are, they have to be.
>

Yes, all right, and it is the same with you, so... ?

> >> > All deontologists hold that
> >> > sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> >> > constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> >> > were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>
> >> > Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> >> > AR. Okay, fine.
>
> >> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
> >> what you believe.
>
> > I've said quite a lot about it.
>
> You type a lot but you don't reveal anything.
>
> > I think I've been about as clear as
> > you.
>
> You always say that, but it's not true.

Well, you think it's not true. It's probably not profitable to argue
about it. Either I feel inclined to make further efforts to make
myself clear to you or I don't.

> You're not clear at all, you deal in
> generalities, other people's ideas, not what you specifically believe.
>

There's nothing wrong with referring to a book which someone else
wrote in order to explain what I believe, if I happen to agree with
some of the ideas in the book. That book outlines a position which is
certainly at least as clearly defined as yours, and goes into a lot
more detail trying to justify it. And I'm inclined to agree with most
of the positions taken in that back. If you'd had a look at Chapter 9
you'd know a bit more about them.


> > What do you want to know?
>
> I hope you answered in the last post.

Sorry, I don't quite follow this. You hope I answered what where?