On Jul 13, 1:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Jul 12, 6:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> Live by.. not profess to. There is a big difference.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> So you say but never define.
>

There's a lot you haven't defined about your position as well. You
haven't defined how extensive the obligation is to reduce the stress
experienced by the animals we farm.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> > 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.
>
> That didn't clarify anything.
>

You advocate a moral rule "We should reduce the stress of the animals
we farm." How much? Would it not be fair to paraphrase it as "Make
every reasonable effort to reduce the stress of the animals we farm"?
You've done no more by way of giving clear guidance as to what counts
as acceptable farming than I have.

Your notions of "moral person" and "capability" are quite vague too.
You think that understanding them is just a matter of common sense.
You say you've referred me to a "clear-cutt rebuttal of the argument
from marginal cases". It crucially rests on this notion of
"capability" and when you ask me for clarification you just say it's a
matter of common sense. At least when you asked me for clarification
of "equal consideration" I made a bit more of an effort. I've been
trying to be more polite with you than you were with me.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > 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... ?
>
> I have no qualms about harming animals per se, with notable exceptions. You
> *appear* to be saying that there is some broad moral restriction on harming
> animals that I ought to adhere to, but you don't define what it is. You say
> there is this obligation but you don't define how you arrive at it or
> quantify it much less live by it. Then you say that you have an exemption
> but you don't say how you arrive at the exemption. It's all completely
> amorphous.
>

It's no more amorphous than the principles advocated in the essay
which is supposed to be the foundation for your position. The author
of that essay also thinks there are some moral restrictions on harming
animals and financially supporting harm to them, and he doesn't do any
more by way of quantifying them than I do. Nor do you do any more by
way of quantifying the weaker moral restrictions which you think
apply.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> Right, and I am growing weary of watching you beat about the bush.
>

Well, I'm not particularly concerned about any frustration you may be
experiencing. I've had a lot more cause for frustration than you. I'll
do what I please.

> >> 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.
>
> Not good enough, you've been trying to pass off this "go read a book" tactic
> since the beginning, it doesn't wash. I'm discussing the issues with YOU. If
> YOU can't explain what you think then I'm not interested. I explained what I
> believe and why, AND I referred to an essay ONLINE to support my position.
>

Even if we accept the alleged rebuttal of the argument from marginal
cases in that essay, there's no clear-cut sense in which it supports
your position more than mine. The foundations for your position are
just as vague as the foundations for mine.

I too have explained what I believe and why, and have referred to a
book and an online essay written by me which I believe support my
position. I may make further efforts to clarify and support my
position if I feel inclined. I think you should appreciate me taking
the trouble, rather than rudely asking me to "just answer the
question", when I have already given you simple answers and got abuse
for my trouble. This isn't an exercise in trying to gain your
approval, you know. If I want to gain respect for my intellectual
capacities and expository skills then I can seek it from people whose
judgement I actually respect. I really have no motive for bothering
unless I think you are likely to give me feedback which I might find
interesting. If you're not interested, then we can leave it.


>
>
> >> > 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?
>
> I asked for "details" of your position on animals in the previous post. I
> didn't get them, you gave me a wordy account of how you expect people to
> behave when debating against you and said nothing at all about your position
> on harming animals. You're just not ready for this forum as far as I can
> tell.

What was all that about condescension, you tiresome obnoxious prat?

You started telling me how you expected me to behave, so I assumed we
were in the process of negotiating an agreement whereby we tried to
stop annoying each other so much. Apparently you feel entitled to
lecture me about my behaviour without making any concessions to my
views about reasonable behaviour yourself. You say you don't like my
behaviour, well, there are ways you can go about getting me to change
it, but this ain't it.

I really have no obligation to take the trouble to make myself clear
to you. I think what I've said so far should be clear enough. You
don't find it clear, well, I may make further efforts, if I do it'll
be just because I want to.