"Rupert" > wrote

> On Jul 12, 6:04 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 12, 11:24 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> > What you'd like to be the case, Ball, is that the only options for
>> >> > people who make radical challenges to the status quo regarding
>> >> > nonhuman animals are Singer's preference utilitarianism or a view
>> >> > which entails that we should never under any circumstances buy
>> >> > products whose production caused harm to "subjects-of-a-life", or
>> >> > sentient beings. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
>>
>> >> Why isn't it as simple as that, why are you not at least compelled to
>> >> do
>> >> everything in your power? Because it's too inconvenient? The idea that
>> >> humans have rights implies that we do everything in our power to
>> >> protect
>> >> their safety.
>>
>> > Well, you tell me.
>>
>> Tell you what?
>>
>
> You apparently think that you are not obliged to do absolutely
> everything you can to stop buying products whose production causes
> harm to animals.

Absolutely right. I make no claim whatsoever that I am obliged to minimize
harm to animals in farming per se, harm to animals is part and parcel of
farming. We want food, we farm, we're stronger, we win, animals lose, the
end. There are some specific areas of obligation which I believe exist which
are consistent with our moral framework, those are an obligation to minimize
the stress on animals we farm, and the obligation to minimize environmental
impact.

> You also apparently think that it is somehow harder
> for me to justify having this view than it is for you. Perhaps you can
> spell out for me exactly what has led you to this conclusion.

For starters, you never spell it out, you express vaguely that you have a
belief in some form of rights for animals, then you jump to saying that you
are not obliged to do any more than you want to to avoid causing harm to
animals. We're left to fill in the blanks.

> I suspect you will mention the fact that I have expressed my support
> for DeGrazia's notion of "equal consideration".

That's part of it.

> Well, look, I'll tell
> you what, maybe I'll write up something about this. I'll write it up
> with the intention of getting it published, and I'll let you have a
> look. Okay?

I'd prefer if you would just answer the question. I'm not planning on
waiting patiently while you write a paper t be "published", publish
something here.


>> > My point was simply that one may coherently hold a
>> > view that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals,
>>
>> Of course, virtually everybody believes that, everyone believes that it
>> is
>> completely immoral to torture animals for example, but that's a far cry
>> from
>> "equal consideration".
>>
>
> Yes, it is.

Great, that clears everything up ;^\


>> > but that we are not obliged to do absolutely everything in our power
>> > to avoid buying products whose production harmed them.
>>
>> Not at all, not as long as that harm and those constraints don't
>> intersect.
>> If those constraints are very stringent then there is a high degree of
>> likelihood that they will intersect.
>>
>
> Exactly.

Are yours stringent? Do they intersect? Where?

>> >You too hold
>> > such a view, so presumably you agree with me.
>>
>> Pretty much everbody agrees with that, in general, but the devil's in the
>> details. We need the details before I will say that we agree.
>>
>
> I don't think we agree on all the issues there are in animal ethics,
> but I thought maybe we could agree on this one point.

I don't know what you believe, you never say. I need to know.


>> > It's pretty bloody
>> > obvious, but he apparently doesn't get it, that's why I say he has a
>> > thick skull.
>>
>> He gets that, he's just filling in the blanks of all the issues you are
>> skirting around and not being forthright about, the details.
>
> Well, not really. He's just saying I must be either a follower of
> Singer or a follower of Regan because those are the only ones he's
> read, and I'm explaining to him, no, that's not so. If he's going to
> speak to me the way he does then it's his job to make his case that
> I'm a hypocrite. He apparently thinks he already knows enough about my
> position to conclude that I'm being hypocritical. Fine, let him make
> his case.

How? since you never spell it out, we're forced to make some assumptions.

> It's not true that I'm not being forthright about my position, I've
> made a reasonable effort, but it's exhausting work trying to
> communicate with you people. (Yes, I know you think the fault lies
> with me, save your breath).

The fault is completely with you, and it's not lack of effort, it's lack of
a clear focus. It's exausting watching you beat around the bush endlessly
and never saying any of substance. You refer vaguely to some authors works,
you complain about how you're treated, and you write paragraphs about how
earnest your efforts are, but you never commit to saying what you actually
believe. What are you afraid of, that you'll be ridiculed? You're ridiculed
now.


>> And when those
>> are filled in, well, then we'll see. If you ever get around to it.
>>
>
> Well, that would be nice. If you said "Look, I'm not very clear on
> what your position is, I need you to explain it more clearly before I
> pass judgement on it". That would certainly be very nice and
> reasonable.

That's what I'm saying above. Explain yourself.

> But that's not the approach that any of you are taking.
> You all think you already understand my position well enough to know
> that I am a hypocrite. Well, maybe so. Bring on the demonstration.
> Ball is apparently happy to say "you believe in AR" and call that a
> demonstration. All right, well, everyone can form their own views
> about whether that's an adequate argument.

What is your position, exactly?


>> > If you want to talk about why I think it's consistent
>> > with equal consideration, well, fine, we can have another go at that,
>> > once we've come to an agreement about what we regard as reasonable
>> > behaviour.
>>
>> Good, shoot. Tell me what you think is reasonable. Details, details..
>> gimmee
>> details.
>>
>
> Okay, well, I'm a reasonable, intelligent person just like you. I'm
> not immune to reason. Whenever someone makes a point I make a good
> faith effort to consider it fairly and make a serious response to it.
> I've thought about these issues at least as much as you have, I've
> formed some views. Yes, there are a lot of areas of vagueness and
> uncertainty, but no more than in anyone else's views, I don't think.
>
> I mean, you call me condescending, well, you once said to me "That's
> the same circular verbal diarrhoea he engages in. You didn't say
> anything in that paragraph." You think that's not condescending? I
> wouldn't say something like that to you, even if I thought it was
> true. I'd just specify what I found unclear. You say you're just
> analyzing what you see. Apparently you're allowed to do that but when
> I do that it's condescending.
>
> Just assume good faith. Have respect for the fact that someone is
> taking the trouble to try and have a serious conversation with you. If
> you find something unclear or inadequate, say what you find unclear or
> inadequate about it. Don't just rubbish it without engaging in it.
> Criticize the arguments, not the person.

OK, but I didn't mean I want the details of how you want the responders here
to behave. I meant the details of your position on harming animals, in plain
English, where's your line, what is reasonable and what principles and other
guidelines did you use to arrive at it?

[..]