Rupert wrote:
> 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.

You're engaging in the worst kind of intellectual snobbery. You don't
know any more about how animals are actually treated than the average
person on the street. In fact you have a perception based on Animal
Rights propaganda that is likely less accurate.

> They just continue doing what they are doing out
> of habit, they're not interested in subjecting it to serious scrutiny.

More snobbery and pretension, if vegans want to scrutinize they need to
start with their own food, there's lots of death and suffering there to
keep them in hand wringing for a few years at least.

> 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.

You're kidding yourself, not that I really know what your position is,
but from what I can deduce, you're part of the 1%.

> In any
> case, argumentum ad populum is a pretty weak way of defending your
> position.

I didn't use argumentum ad populum to support my position, I am telling
you a fact to put in your pocket for future reference, you form part of
a tiny minority. I realize you probably think that is irrelevant at
worst, probably a good thing, being rather elitist in nature, as you
previous statements confirm, but to a rational person it would give pause.

And incidentally, talking about "argumentums", look up "argument ad
baculum", you use it constantly.

>>>>>> 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.

I'm not going argue this point, except to say that if all that was being
touted was veganism is "a pretty reasonable strategy" not many of us
would find anything to complain about. However, given that you strongly
advocate such ideas as "equal consideration" and "the argument from
marginal cases" I have some trouble taking your vow of moderation seriously.

>>>> 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.

I'm not them. I lived a vegetarian lifestyle for 18 years, it was very
good at first, pretty good for a long time, and not very good for the
last few years, and I had some difficulty quitting. My experience
reflects that of many others. I'm sure you have seen this website.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

>>>>>> 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.

I don't really mind, but that would only be one part of the equation, we
need to choose some plant-based foods to go up against. Any suggestions?


>>> 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.

Enjoyment of food is extremely important to me. If it were a matter of
one food being completely devoid of implication in animal death and the
other not, then there might be a basis to start rethinking, but when it
gets down to a counting game, then I know that it's a ruse, a ploy to
enforce a quasi-political agenda, not an attempt to spare animal suffering.


>>> 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?

Yes, obviously I do. Why don't you start by justifying your choices, and
see where that leads us?


> 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.

Your point is taken, please start by justifying your diet and lifestyle
in the context of your stated beliefs, i.e. "equal consideration" and
"the argument from marginal cases".
>
>>> 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.

Good idea, I will wait for you to start off.


>> 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.

Not true, however when you state that I must give equal consideration to
animals and I must justify eating chicken you can't blame me for
inferring a criticism.


> 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.

OK, you first.

>
>>> 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.

I didn't think I needed to explain that when I say "we all cause harm to
animals" I did not mean torturing them in dog pits for entertainment, I
meant in the normal course of obtaining food and going respectfully
about our daily lives. Do I need to be more explicit? Free-range organic
chicken or wild salmon cause animal death; rice, bananas, peaches and
soya products cause animal deaths.

>>> 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.

I don't quite get why I am the one defending my diet, YOU are the one
who claims to believe that animals should be accorded equal
consideration, it seems like YOU should be the one who's choices are
under the microscope, not mine, I believe that it is legitimate to kill
animals for purposes such as food production.


[..]

> 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.

I'm offended when someone, particularly a member of a marginal minority,
decides that I need to justify eating a chicken because THEY in their
wisdom have decided that I am violating some universal moral principle
by doing so. It's not really so much that I am offended, I am moved to
convince them that there is a way to pursue a personal ideal
respectfully within the confines of their own life, and that they will
ultimately be happier for it.