"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 13, 2:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> A good start would be to avoid the error in thinking that leads him to
>> make
>> the presumptuous statement he makes above, which you lept on.
>>
>
> It's not presumptuous. It's just a statement which might be questioned
> when certain facts are taken into account. There are certain facts,
> which he may not be aware of, and if he took them into account he
> probably should have qualified the statement somewhat. I've agreed
> with this point many times, I thought we could just take it as read.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I can see lots of ways, in fact that statement is nonsense. For example,
>> lets say that your lifestyle causes an amount of harm measured at 57
>> units
>> (assuming one can measure it, and that assumption itself raising
>> questions,
>> but never mind..) and lets say that another person has a harm quotient of
>> 31
>> (animals harmed per year or whatever) So who has the requirement to
>> reduce?
>> What is the standard we are aiming for? Is it fair to ask Mr 31 to
>> sacrifice
>> more when Mr 57 isn't doing anything more?
>
> Well, Mr 57 probably isn't entitled to criticize Mr 31, which is why
> you people shouldn't harrass me for my lifestyle. Yes, there is a
> question of where to draw the line. That question comes up in all
> sorts of areas of morality. I don't see that that's any grounds for
> calling the statement "nonsense".

It was meant literally, not as an insult. How can you say that there is a
"requirement to reduce" when there is no means to weigh harm accurately and
no standard to measure against? How do you know if a given person has the
requirement? Reduction implies that the current level is too high, how can
you assume that? It reminds me of the statement "Vegans cause less harm than
meat-eaters". Which vegan, eating how much of what food produced where and
how? Which meat-eater, eating how much of what food produced where and how?

>> > 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.
>>
>> The problem with statements like the one you made above is that it's
>> vague,
>> undefinable, and essentally nonsense, but it contains a thin thread of
>> credibility, I mean who is going to stand up and be an advocate for harm?
>> When I say I disapprove of ape meat, and I believe that apes should be
>> classified as moral persons, I am saying something explicit, and giving a
>> reason for it, not making vague amorphous pronouncements.
>
> So it's okay to hold a position like mine as long as the criteria for
> where to draw the line are explicitly formulated?

I don't know what your position really is, so I won't prejudice my ability
to judge until I hear it. At least if you weigh all the facts as best you
can and take a clear, definite, reasonable position based on them I don't
see how anyone can legitimately attack you. They might still disagree, some
even vehemently, but at least you will have earned the respect due someone
who has ventured to take a stand. To be honest, I think you are up against
it if you go into it with a requirement to come to a position that animals
have fundamental rights, but if you leave yourself open in seeking out the
truth you can probably come up with something pretty damn profound. If you
can earn a PhD in math surely you can expend the brain-power to do something
equally worthwhile in this field, not just parrot what other men have
written. I'm telling you Rupert, this field is wide open for someone to take
a really fresh look at it. People are not as confused in very many areas as
they are in the area of the relationship with animals. The status quo is
admittedly not great, and the "AR" movement is pretty much in shambles,
collapsing under the weight of its own rhetoric, that leaves a wide field to
create something that people can relate to. Moralsat99 is pretty good
example of that in my opinion. It's well researched, straight, readable, and
it hits all the right notes. Read "The Ominore's Dilemma" if you get a
chance.