On Jul 30, 8:40 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 7:27 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 5, 7:21 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> {..]
>
> >>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>> be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by
> >>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>> because you felt hungry, no.
> >>>>>>>> Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important
> >>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> life of a marginally sentient one?
> >>>>>>> Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in other ways.
> >>>>>> Why must I opt for those other ways when I prefer this way?
> >>>>> Well, the reason why you must, *according to preference
> >>>>> utilitarianism*, is clear. And my only purpose in this discussion has
> >>>>> been to explain what preference utilitarianism says. I am not trying
> >>>>> to defend it. That said, I think your choice of the more harmful meal
> >>>>> needs a bit more justification than just your taste preferences.
> >>>> Why? Nobody chooses the "least harmful meal" including you.
> >>> What of it? How does that cast any doubt on what I said?
> >> You said, "Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in
> >> other ways."
>
> >> How am I obliged to choose other ways that are less preferable to me
> >> when everyone chooses options that are less than ideal?
>
> > Everyone choose options that are less than ideal, everyone also thinks
> > that there are some limitations on the amount of harm you are allowed
> > to cause. The question is where to draw the line.
>
> Shouldn't your focus be on your own line, not mine?
>
> Not everyone thinks that they have figured out that 99% of the people in
> the world have it wrong.
>

99% of the people in the world haven't given any serious thought to
this issue at all, and know little or nothing about the way animals
are actually treated. They just continue doing what they are doing out
of habit, they're not interested in subjecting it to serious scrutiny.
Among people who have actually given the issue some serious thought,
your position is one reasonable one to take, my position is another
reasonable one to take, probably a position like mine is taken by
about as many people as those who take a position like yours. In any
case, argumentum ad populum is a pretty weak way of defending your
position.
>
>
> >>>> And that also
> >>>> misses the point that the chicken might be less harmful than other meals
> >>>> which you might prefer I eat.
> >>> Why would I prefer that you eat a more harmful meal?
> >> Based on your previous statement you very plausibly might prefer that I
> >> assuage my hunger by eating rice, beans, vegetables and fruit rather
> >> than the free-range chicken breast I prefer, regardless of the total
> >> harm resulting from the foods.
>
> > No. The total harm resulting from the foods is the primary moral
> > consideration.
>
> Not according to veganism which preaches "no animal products" as the
> rule, particularly no meat. Unless the promoters of veganism believe in
> one thing and preach something else. Is that possible?? :^\
>

People who believe that a vegan diet is morally obligatory believe
that the only way to minimize harm is to avoid all animal products.
You have offered criticism of this view, and as you know I accept that
it might be wrong, so I don't know why you are bringing up the views
of some other people in the context of this discussion. It's a dispute
about the facts, I really don't see why you are making such a big deal
out of it. Most vegan diets that people actually follow *are* better
than most non-vegan diets that people actually follow. As a general
rule of thumb, going vegan is a pretty reasonable strategy. There are
some other strategies which may be reasonable as well.


> >> This might be based on your focus on the
> >> fact that the chicken is visible, it is killed directly and
> >> deliberately, whereas the harm caused by the other food is more easily
> >> ignored, justified, less definitive.
>
> > No. What I think is that people should make every reasonable effort to
> > minimize the total amount of harm caused. Some non-vegan diets might
> > be consistent with this.
>
> They certainly would be if I happen to define unreasonable to include
> abstaining from all animal products. And I do..
>

Why? What's so unreasonable about it? Most people are able to be
perfectly healthy and happy and eat lots of delicious food while being
completely vegan.

>
>
>
>
> >>>> Why are you so intent on convicting me of
> >>>> immoral behaviour? What do you expect to gain by it?
> >>> Why are you incapable of grasping the fact that I have never once
> >>> accused you of immoral behaviour? I made a perfectly reasonable
> >>> statement. Are you interested in talking about my views or aren't you?
> >>> Will you please get over this absurd fixation on the supposed terrible
> >>> wrong of others accusing you of immoral behaviour. I'm here to talk
> >>> about ethics, not to help you evaluate your lifestyle. That's your
> >>> business.
> >> Sorry if I seem touchy, but when you say that I should not eat a chicken
> >> because I have other options that is a pretty harsh indictment of the
> >> choices I make.
>
> > It seems likely that the chicken you buy will have been produced in
> > ways that cause significantly more harm than is caused by the
> > production of other foods, such as most plant-based food.
>
> Does it now, show your evidence of this.
>

So you *do* want to talk about this? In other places in this post you
say it's none of my business and you're not interested in discussing
it.

My judgement was based on what I know about the way most chicken is
produced, and the level of crop input that most chicken requires. The
chicken you buy may be different for all I know, but given your
admission that you do buy factory-farmed meat when it's the only meat
you can find, I found that somewhat unlikely.

We can talk about it if you want to. You tell me what chicken you buy
and we'll try to find out how it was produced and make some sort of
estimate as to whether it causes more harm than most plant-based food.
Maybe it will turn out it doesn't, it was just a guess on my part. We
can try and work it out if you want to, if you're interested in
discussing the issue. I can't say I'm utterly fascinated.

> > The benefit
> > which you obtain from eating the chicken over and above the benefit
> > you could obtain by eating less harmfully produced food seems fairly
> > trivial.
>
> Not to me it doesn't. With regards to diet it is distinctly non-trivial.
>

Very interesting.

> > So, is it justifiable? Well, you decide. I simply expressed
> > the view that some justification was needed.
>
> To whom? I don't know of any ruling body that is requiring that we
> provide any such justification, provided we are acting within the law.
>

It's a view about the methodology of moral philosophy. I can't believe
I had to explain that. Do you want to talk about ethics or don't you?

If you don't think it's legitimate to suggest that any justification
is required beyond what is required by the current law, then what are
you doing in an ethics forum? For God's sake.

> > Seems like a pretty
> > reasonable view to me.
>
> It seems a little on the nosy side to me.
>

You were the one who brought up the issue of whether eating a chicken
is justifiable. In response I expressed the view that inflicting more
harm than was necessary required some justification. That's a very
reasonable view. If you find it an affront, if that strikes you as
"nosy", then that's utterly absurd, and an animal ethics forum is not
the place for you. The purpose of this forum is to discuss issues of
animal ethics, without interpreting every view that is expressed as a
personal attack.

> > No doubt you have given serious consideration
> > to the question of whether or not your behaviour is justified.
>
> Maybe I have, but it's my business.

Quite. Never suggested otherwise. I only wish we could stop talking
about it and actually get on with discussing some animal ethics.

> I'm not doing anything strange.
>
> > It's
> > your business, not mine. I don't know what kind of chicken you buy and
> > I don't know how much crop input is required for chicken production. I
> > haven't formed a definitive opinion about your behaviour, which I
> > don't know very much about anyway, and I can't really say I'm all that
> > interested in the matter, I'm here to discuss animal ethics. If you
> > find it offensive that anyone would dare to suggest that your
> > behaviour might be morally questioned, then maybe an animal ethics
> > forum isn't the place for you.
>
> What better place to express the opinion that within the law what I eat
> is nobody else's business but mine, unless I choose to discuss it?
>

That's not in question. However, usually when people come to an animal
ethics forum they have a desire to discuss something to do with animal
ethics. And you don't seem to be capable of doing that without getting
offended that anyone would dare to criticize your diet, even though no-
one actually has.

Animal ethics forums are for people who think critically about the way
we produce our food, who don't just assume that any choice within the
law is okay, who are prepared to subject it to critical discussion.
Most people are perfeclty happy to let you do whatever you want within
the law. Some people have formed views which are critical of the
status quo, and seek to persuade others of those views by reasoned
discussion and participation in the political process. It's bizarre
that you would seek out those people and tell them you're allowed to
do whatever you want, as if society somehow seriously called that into
question, as if you were somehow affronted by the views they'd
formed.

I've never expressed any interest in discussing your diet. Everytime I
make a statement about animal ethics it comes back to you. You seem to
*want* to discuss your diet. We can if you want. If you don't want to,
then can we please stop relating every statement I make back to you?
Just talk about the issues.

> > I really don't see how you can run an
> > animal ethics forum on the basis that nobody is allowed to express
> > opinions which entail that what other people are doing might be
> > morally wrong.
>
> You're allowed to express that opinion, and I'm allowed to tell you to
> mind your own business if you don't accept my reasonable response, which
> is to tell you that we all cause harm to animals.
>

Which is a stupid response. Just below we talk about people who
support dogfighting. If they made such a response it would be stupid,
I'm sure you agree.

> > You're prepared to morally condemn other people for
> > supporting dogfighting, for example.
>
> And they're free to tell me that my criticism is unwarranted if they dare.
>

Quite. And you are free to defend your diet if you choose to. Or,
alternatively, you can choose not to make it an issue.

> > If you really are upset about this and want to thrash it out, fine,
> > let's talk it over. You tell me what you eat, and we'll try to find
> > out as much as we can about how it was produced, and I'll offer any
> > opinions I may have about whether what you're doing is morally
> > justifiable.
>
> I'm not upset about it,

Then stop carrying on about it and get on with debating the real
issues.

> and I'm not interested in having you review my
> grocery purchases.
>

Good. Can't say I would have found the task all that fascinating
either.

> > Maybe I'll think it is, maybe I won't. And if you don't
> > agree, that's fine. You can try to convince me that I'm wrong if you
> > like. I really don't see what you find so offensive. I have plenty of
> > very good friends and family members who know damn well that my moral
> > views entail that what they're doing is morally wrong, and it doesn't
> > bother them in the least. We agree to disagree. People might think
> > that various aspects of my lifestyle are morally wrong in some way for
> > various reasons, so long as they respect the fact that I've thought
> > seriously about the matter and hold a different opinion I really don't
> > see why it should stop us from getting on.
>
> Real life acquaintances are a different matter. For reasons of social
> harmony people will bite their tongues and not tell you what they really
> think about your little sideways glances and obscure remarks designed to
> make them feel slightly uncomfortable. Truth be told they probably wish
> you would just blow away like a bad smell.

Here you are engaging in fantasizing about my social life without the
slightest reasonable way of knowing anything about it. Reminds me a
lot of Ball with his fantasies he makes up about people. You're also
projecting the way you were when you were an ethical vegetarian onto
me.

There are no "sideways glances and obscure remarks". I have lots of
very strong friendships with vegans and meat-eaters alike. My friends
and family all respect the seriousness with which I've studied ethics
and the commitment I've shown to putting my ideas into practice. Some
of them like to debate the matter with me, others are happy to live
and let live. None of them are offended in the least.

You say "real life acquaintances are a different matter". Well,
obviously that's true in some ways. For example, if Ball carried on in
real life the way he does here he'd probably get punched. He'd also be
universally derided and socially ostracized. He does it on here
because he can get away with it without it affecting his real-world
social life.

But, really, I don't see why the ordinary rules of real-life social
interaction shouldn't apply here, such as respecting people's right to
hold a different opinion, and treating each other with basic courtesy.
It's not reasonable to get offended just because someone else accepts
the ethical vegan position (or some approximation thereto). You're
making this all about you, carrying on as though you're the victim of
a personal attack just because other people have come to different
conclusions than you. And you've got the idea that all ethical vegans
are the way you were when you were an ethical vegetarian. It's absurd.