On Jul 12, 7:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >I read the rest of the essay. The position he defends is different
> > from mine in that he ascribes moral status to non-sentient living
> > beings. Nevertheless on the whole it struck me as closer to my
> > position than to yours. Note the remark on p. 34 that "if this is
> > accepted, we have a prima facie moral duty to be vegetarians". Do you
> > think it's offensive and presumptuous for him to say such a thing?
>
> I noticed that, yes, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that one necessarily
> causes less harm by consuming a vegetarian diet. It many be "generally" true
> that plants cause less harm than meat, but since it isn't categorically true
> the actual dictum ought to be, "we have a prima facie duty to consume the
> food that causes the least harm in a particular instance." Once you go there
> though, as you know, a pandora's box opens up. Why only apply the rule to
> diet, what about other consumer activities? And then where do you draw the
> line, if you can draw a line when faced with a prima facie duty, between
> causing harm and living a happy productive life?

I agree that it opens up a Pandora's box, but I don't see how this can
be avoided. I don't see how anyone can plausibly deny that there is a
requirement to make some effort to reduce the amount of harm needed to
support your lifestyle. Once I thought I heard you express agreement
with me on this point. More recently you said we are never entitled to
pass judgement on any pattern of consumption and in the same post said
that you disapproved of the consumption of ape meat. This left me
feeling somewhat confused about where you stand.