Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 03:36:32 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:00:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>>>>>My view is that killing animals to obtain food is natural, normal,
>>>>>and not a real moral dilemma.
>>>>
>>>> Then you have no valid argument against the vegan who
>>>> allegedly causes them if they're not morally wrong. It's
>>>> as simple as that, and your criticisms are rightly dismissed.
>>>
>>>But they OUGHT TO BE wrong TO YOU

>>
>> If your earlier statement is true, then according to it they aren't
>> morally wrong to anyone.

>
>I'm glad you finally agree


I don't, and that's why I wrote, "according to you ...."
You claim to believe that the collateral deaths found in
agriculture aren't morally wrong, yet you're on record
claiming that animals hold rights against us;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

and

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

and

"In the eyes of the world, animals hold a right to
not be beaten."
Dutch Jun 24 2005 http://tinyurl.com/8hj3v

and

"Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar
way as minor children or people in comas.
They can hold rights against us, but we can't
hold rights against them."
Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx

Why do you assert that animals hold rights against us
while at the same time asserting that the collateral
deaths of animals found in agriculture aren't morally
wrong? Also, before answering that it's only the
animals in our care that hold rights against us, bear
in mind that according to you wild animals hold rights
against us as well, as shown in your response to my
question below this line.

[start - me to you]
> Then, do foxes hold a right against hound dogs
> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made
> illegal, dummy?

[you]
Rights cannot be held against non-human animals, who
are not moral agents. It is reasonable to say that they
hold rights against fox hunters though.
[end]
Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9hp37

Explain how and why animals hold rights against us,
and then explain how that reasoning excludes large
mammals as rights bearers on the basis of how they're
killed. If Harrison has to answer why he favours the
lives of livestock animals over the lives of wildlife
animals, it's only fair that you should answer why you
advocate rights for livestock animals and animals in
our care while rejecting the rights of other animals
not in our care.
  #162 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:57:26 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:36:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:18:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:27:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as other
>>>>>>>animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you've completely misunderstood the principle. It states that
>>>>>> one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>And the minimum assumptions needed about the moral implications of
>>>>>killing
>>>>>animals to obtain food is none.
>>>>
>>>> It requires at least two;
>>>
>>>It requires NO assumptions

>>
>> Wrong

>
>No, right, it requires no assumptions


Then you cannot use the principle of Occam's razor because
it deals with assumptions.

>> If it requires zero assumptions, as you claim, then you've plainly
>> misused Occam's razor because it wouldn't be needed. You've
>> misused the principle because you clearly don't understand it.

>
>ZERO is the least number of assumptions required.


Occam's razor requires at least two, so you cannot use it
as a principle when zero assumptions are being made.

>>>> 'it is' and 'it is not', so you're plainly
>>>> wrong to assert it requires none at all, and you're plainly
>>>> wrong to assert that, "Occam's Razor says that killing other
>>>> animals to obtain food, as other animals do, is not a moral
>>>> dilemma at all." Occam's razor says nothing of the kind.
>>>
>>>It says that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one

>>
>> NO, it doesn't.

>
>"This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all
>scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a
>set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one."


So how does this principle work where zero assumptions are
allegedly being made, you imbecile? As we can see from
your source it's a principle which is used "to choose from a
set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon"
Choosing from a set involves more than choosing from zero.
Using it to choose from a zero set of assumptions is absurd,
and those who claim to use for such a purpose demonstrates
they don't understand the principle to begin with.

>> [In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make
>> no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it
>> says
>>
>> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]
>>
>> or
>>
>> Given **two** equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.]
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

>
>The simpler in this case being that the same fundamental model applies to
>humans when competing for food as applies to every other species.


Compared to what? To use Occam's razor you need at least
one more assumption, and you're claiming to have used the
principle where zero assumptions are only required.

>> As we can see, your statement;
>>
>> "Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as
>> other animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all."
>>
>> is false. Occam's razor deals with assumption[s], not zero
>> assumptions, you idiot.

>
>Zero is a number, dingbat.


You need at least two if you're going to use Occam's razor, so
when you claim;

"Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as
other animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all."

based on zero assumptions, it's plain to see that that's false, and
that you don't understand Occam's razor.
  #163 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:25:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Glorfindel" > wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>>>Having said that, she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt to
>>>>>animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans won't do that, it
>>>>>goes against their nature.

>>
>> Glorfindel wrote:
>>
>>>>No, it goes against the qualification I introduced that when the
>>>>parameters are equal, the vegan or scavenger/gatherer diet, will
>>>>always cause fewer deaths, less suffering, or less violation of
>>>>animals' rights than a diet including hunted or farmed meat.
>>>>This is true.

>>
>>> This is not some sport where good players are only matched against
>>> players of comparable strength,

>>
>> But if the comparison is to be meaningful, we must discuss on that
>> basis.

>
>On the contrary, for it to be meaningful we must NOT impose arbitrary rules
>when comparing foods.


Rubbish; you're the first to complain if a vegan dares
to compare their least-harm vegan diet to an omni diet
without some sort of rule. Right at the top of this post
you criticise Glorfindel because, allegedly, according to
you;

"she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt to
animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans
won't do that, it goes against their nature."

But now you're claiming there are no rules for comparing
them. Make up your mind.

>There ARE no *rules* about comparing or choosing foods
>in day to day life


According to you there are, or you wouldn't be criticising
vegans for allegedly failing to "entertain any comparison of
diets wrt to animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins"
If "There ARE no *rules* about comparing or choosing foods
in day to day life", what the Hell are you complaining about?
  #164 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Dave wrote:

> Glorfindel wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>>That is completely true. I can see no ethical problem with a diet
>>>>including scavenged meat, gathered unfertilized eggs, and so on.


>>>But technically this is still an omnivore diet.


>>Yes, true. I am more concerned with the spirit than the letter
>>here. Scavenging meat, gathering unfertilized eggs,


> Aside: Is it possible to determine whether eggs are fertilized
> or not as you gather them?


With domestic fowl, you would know if there was a male in with
the females, and with both domestic and wild eggs, you could
candle the eggs -- with a bright flashlight in the wild.
Within a few days, the developing embryo shows up as a network
of blood lines.

I don't think an early-development embryo is sentient or has
rights or welfare on its own. What bothers me about gathering
eggs is the effect on the parents. If all the eggs are removed,
the parents often produce another clutch, which can be hard on
the female. Also, if the species is under stress, removing too
many eggs can threaten the species's survival. So I would
suggest leaving at least a few eggs in a nest if you gather
some.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>Because I do accept the idea of animal rights, I would not
>>generally agree that the rights of individual animals can be
>>sacrificed in a purely utilitarian calculation.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


> Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase my question:
> What if hunting and ranching involved fewer violations of animal
> rights than the non-animal foods that represent the real world
> alternative?


>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Then we have to find other real world alternatives.

This is a hard ethical limit for me. I don't see how we can consider
animal *rights* _per se_ without applying the same basic criterion
we apply to human rights: a genuine right cannot justly be violated
no matter what benefit results for others on a utilitarian basis. To
do that is to deny the concept of rights. This isn't an issue for
a pure utilitarian calculation. Also, in the real world we often end
up with a very unclear balancing act where neither act can be seen as
just on the basis of rights and we are forced to choose a lesser evil.
The bombing of Hiroshima is an example. There is no question that by
traditional laws of war, mass killing of civilian noncombatants was
unethical. It was justified (and still is) by claiming many Allied
lives were saved by avoiding an invasion of the Home Islands. You
can apply the same logic to hunting and ranching animals. But it is
always hypothetical. You can never *know* for sure how many lives
were saved, while the concrete act is a certain violation of a right.
Also,if we routinely violate rights on utilitarian calculation, the
very idea of rights eventually becomes moot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>Now if you accept
>>>that predation is unethical on that basis


>>I don't believe predation is *unethical* except when it is
>>carried out by moral agents. There is a difference between
>>an act which is harmful and an act which is unethical. Most
>>unethical acts will cause harm of some kind, but the reverse
>>is not necessarily true.


> To my way of thinking the idea that other humans or companion
> animals should be prevented or discouraged from prevention
> does not sit easily side by side with the idea that preventing wild
> predators from doing the same is actively wrong.


I understand your point.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


> Then we're back to predation is not necessarily harmful
> within the context of the bigger picture.


Yes, I agree, in terms of the system as a whole. Unless
we can control fertility of wild animals, it is
necessary. But, as above, I believe it is *unethical*
when carried out by moral agents (human).

That's where the theological argument comes in. I agree
with C.S. Lewis and Linzey that a creation where death
and predation are necessary for the system to function
properly is a basically flawed (evil/sinful/imperfect)
system, and so it could not be the Creation as God intended
or intends it. It must be the result of the corruption
inherent in the whole of Creation as it now exists.
This is only an important consideration for Christian
or other religious people.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


> Linzey,
>>>>like C.S. Lewis in an earlier generation, refers to predation as
>>>>"the vampire's dilemma," regards it as a result of the Fall and
>>>>the corrupt state of Creation, and sees no end to it until the
>>>>Second Coming when all creation will be made new. He says that
>>>>"there is no pure land" and we can only change our own behavior
>>>>toward animals.


>>>>>We would be violating the rights of
>>>>>these animals


>>>>Yes.


>>>>>but in doing so we would prevent the rights of many
>>>>>more animals from being violated.


>>>>Not according to the rights-based theories, which hold that
>>>>only a moral agent can violate rights, and so that, while
>>>>prey animals would suffer death, their *rights* would not
>>>>be violated, because moral patients cannot hold rights against
>>>>other moral patients.


>>>This is an example of what I like to term "arbitrary ethics" They
>>>are self consistent and superficially reasonable but serve no
>>>obvious practical purpose in terms of making the planet a better
>>>place for those sentient creatures who inhabit it.


>>I think you have to consider such questions as soon as you
>>introduce the concept of rights at all. You don't *need*
>>to involve a concept of rights.


> Perhaps not although it is possible to frame plausible utilitarian
> arguments to justify the concept of rights.


>> You can go with a purely
>>utilitarian ethic. That can present problems of its own,
>>however. Singer's support for infanticide has been
>>criticized on that basis.


> To me it is not good enough to say Singer supports infanticide
> therefore there must be something wrong with his
> utilitarian ethic.


I agree. Given his premises, his conclusion is quite reasonable.

> A better approach would be to consider his
> reasoning and either come up with a counter argument or
> revise your assumption that infanticide is never justified.


I could see situations in which infanticide ( or euthanasia )
of severely damaged new-borns might be justified on both a
utilitarian and a rights basis, using the same argument Regan
uses in _The Case For Animal Rights_ to apply to euthanasia
of non-humans on a rights basis.

I am in favor of the option of assisted suicide for those who
want it also.

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>Now we come to the crux of the matter. Although predation may
>>>cause considerable distress to the victims and their companions
>>>it is also an important means of maintaining a healthy balance
>>>within an ecosystem. Thus although we violate the theoretical
>>>rights of prey animals when we take on the role of predator, our
>>>actions do not seem so inexcusable when we consider the
>>>bigger picture.


>>It is not quite that easy. There is the ethical issue if one
>>believes in animal rights, but there are also a variety of
>>practical issues involved in humans trying to artificially
>>reproduce a natural predator/prey system. Most predation
>>by humans would be by sport or subsistence hunters, and they
>>( especially sport hunters )often do not remove the same animals
>>other animal predators would. Culls by biologists might be
>>closer to natural predation, but would still be artificial and
>>couldn't include *all* the subtle factors involved in
>>animal/animal prey/predator interactions. We don't -- possibly
>>can't -- understand the natural systems well enough to
>>reproduce them exactly, and that can have drastic results.


> These are all good points but it must also be noted that natural
> predators don't bother to analyse the effects of their predation
> on their ecosystems.


Could we see it as an "Invisible Hand" at work. No, it doesn't
always work out in real life. I'd rather trust to it in most
cases, because the natural predators and prey have evolved together
and adjusted to each other more exactly than humans have. There
seems to be considerable evidence that early humans were responsible
for the extinction of several species of megafauna even before
civilization developed. We're just clumsy that way, and I don't
trust us to do a really good job of fine-tuning the ecosystem.

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



> Then the LHP indicates scavenged/gathered products as the first
> preference. If it is not practical to meet your nutritional needs that
> way
> then the next best thing would be local organic plant foods harvested,
> packaged processed and stored in an animal friendly manner.
> If it is still not practical to meet your nutritional needs then it is
> at least plausible that eating the flesh of hunted wild animals or
> handlined fish is in accordance with the LHP or the
> least violations of animal rights principle.


Least harm, I would agree. Animal right, I would not, for reasons given
above.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>Essentially yes, I think a system of ethics that does not attempt
>>>to justify itself on utilitarian grounds is arbitrary.


>>I think utilitarian results have to be part of the calculation,
>>but only part.


> Then what is the purpose of ethics in your view?


Well, that's a major question, isn't it? I'm not sure I can give
a simple answer off the top of my head. You first: what do *you*
see as the purpose of ethics?

I guess one major purpose would be to defend and define rights
and assure they are not violated for purely utilitarian considerations.
The interests of the weaker can only be given consideration by
appealing to ethics, I think. Probably this is why Dutch refuses
to see killing of animals in food production as a moral issue at
all. It's a lot easier to dismiss the question entirely than to
try to grapple with the complexities of ethical trade-offs in the
real world.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> Some do disagree, but the consensus is quite strong
>>that some things cannot ethically be done to rights-bearing
>>beings no matter the benefit to others. That is, in effect,
>>the very definition of a right.


  #165 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Derek" > wrote

> Explain how and why animals hold rights against us


I would never bother to expend the effort again to attempt a detailed
explanation for you because you are insincere and hostile. The explanations
I have already given in the past are more than adequate for anyone to
understand my position clearly *if they wanted to*.

Here, read this, it explains rights in great detail;

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/

"Within the will theory it is impossible for "incompetents" like infants,
animals, and comatose adults to have rights. Yet we ordinarily would not
doubt that these incompetents can have rights, for example the right not to
be tortured (MacCormick 1982, 154-66)."

The first sentence there reveals the theoretical basis of Jonathan and
other's position that animals cannot hold rights. In "theory" that's true.
Yet the second sentence reveals what I have been saying, they undoubtedly do
anyway.




  #166 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Derek" > wrote
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:57:26 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>>>>>And the minimum assumptions needed about the moral implications of
>>>>>>killing
>>>>>>animals to obtain food is none.
>>>>>
>>>>> It requires at least two;
>>>>
>>>>It requires NO assumptions
>>>
>>> Wrong

>>
>>No, right, it requires no assumptions

>
> Then you cannot use the principle of Occam's razor because
> it deals with assumptions.


It recommends the use of the fewest possible assumptions, zero being the
fewest possible.


  #167 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Derek" > wrote
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:25:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Glorfindel" > wrote
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Having said that, she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans won't do that, it
>>>>>>goes against their nature.
>>>
>>> Glorfindel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>No, it goes against the qualification I introduced that when the
>>>>>parameters are equal, the vegan or scavenger/gatherer diet, will
>>>>>always cause fewer deaths, less suffering, or less violation of
>>>>>animals' rights than a diet including hunted or farmed meat.
>>>>>This is true.
>>>
>>>> This is not some sport where good players are only matched against
>>>> players of comparable strength,
>>>
>>> But if the comparison is to be meaningful, we must discuss on that
>>> basis.

>>
>>On the contrary, for it to be meaningful we must NOT impose arbitrary
>>rules
>>when comparing foods.

>
> Rubbish; you're the first to complain if a vegan dares
> to compare their least-harm vegan diet to an omni diet
> without some sort of rule. Right at the top of this post
> you criticise Glorfindel because, allegedly, according to
> you;
>
> "she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt to
> animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans
> won't do that, it goes against their nature."
>
> But now you're claiming there are no rules for comparing
> them. Make up your mind.
>
>>There ARE no *rules* about comparing or choosing foods
>>in day to day life

>
> According to you there are, or you wouldn't be criticising
> vegans for allegedly failing to "entertain any comparison of
> diets wrt to animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins"
> If "There ARE no *rules* about comparing or choosing foods
> in day to day life", what the Hell are you complaining about?


If there is an opening to misconstrue and misintepret you will find it, no
matter how silly. Of course we can make up rules to compare foods, if we
hate yellow vegetables then when choosing vegetables we would eliminate yams
on the basis of colour. If one hates meat, then one would impose a rule
eliminating meat.

In the current discussion however we are supposed to using the criterion of
"probable degree of impact on animals", therefore no rule based on "fairness
to vegans" or "fairness to meat eaters" makes any sense at all. I am
complaining about the vegan's absurd refusal to simply compare all foods
objectively without imposing artificial "rules" prohibiting certain specific
comparisons. "We can't compare Organic/Free Range meat with factory farmed
rice or imported bananas because it's "not fair". When you go into a market
do you ever see signs saying, "When making your food choices please refrain
from comparing aisle 6 with aisle 12, it's unfair to aisle 6"? Of course the
reason for this absurd position is obvious, it would force the vegan to
either admit that some meats might have a lesser impact than some plant
foods, or to mount another obfuscation, which is what I expect you will now
do.

This line of argument is clear evidence of the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy"
that vegans promote, why else would you be engaging in such sophistry?




  #168 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Dutch wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

> it would force the vegan to
> either admit that some meats might have a lesser impact than some plant
> foods,


We've all agreed to this already, several steps back in the discussion.

What I'm saying is that you have to consider similar foods within the
same kind of category to get a real, meaningful comparison. If you
consider factory-farmed animals vs agribusiness monocrop plants, the
plants come out better; if you consider hand-gathered wild plants vs
hunted local game, the plants come out better; if you consider small
local organic gardens vs small local flocks and herds, the plants again
come out better.
  #169 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

>> it would force the vegan to
>> either admit that some meats might have a lesser impact than
>> some plant
>> foods,

>
> We've all agreed to this already, several steps back in the
> discussion.
>
> What I'm saying is that you have to consider similar foods
> within the
> same kind of category to get a real, meaningful comparison.

=================================
A comparison you refuse to make. You continue to spew that any
meat that meets your definition of less harm is always some hard
to get, unconvinient food. You're wrong, as usual. Grass-fed,
organic meats are readily available for anyone. They are a
convenient, easily obtainable food. As easy as your
factory-farmed veggies.


If you
> consider factory-farmed animals vs agribusiness monocrop
> plants, the
> plants come out better;

========================
See, there you go again, you refuse to use a meat that is readily
available as a comparison to the typical usenet vegan diet
veggies.

if you consider hand-gathered wild plants vs
> hunted local game, the plants come out better;

==============================
Again, you make false comparisons. There are far more people
that use hunted meats as a portion of their diet than there are
people that hand-gather wild plants in this country. There are
far more people that hunt than there are vegans. There are no
usenet vegans that hand-gather any meaningful portion, if any, of
their food. You're a willfully ignorant propagandist that
refuses to open your eyes.


if you consider small
> local organic gardens vs small local flocks and herds, the
> plants again
> come out better.



  #170 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On 21 Dec 2005 15:15:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:26:54 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>
>> >On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>Derek wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>> >>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>> >>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>> >>> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>> >>>
>> >>> (Critic)
>> >>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>> >>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>> >>> still die for their food during crop production.
>> >>>
>> >>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>> >>> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>> >>> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>> >>> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>> >>> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>> >>> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>> >>> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>> >>> implemented.
>> >>
>> >>There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
>> >>appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
>> >>be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
>> >>like this:
>> >>
>> >>(Critic)
>> >>Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
>> >>cause any animals to die. This justification is false. Therefore
>> >>veganism
>> >>can not be logically justified.
>> >>
>> >>The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
>> >>Therefore
>> >>B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?
>> >
>> >It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent, or something close
>> >to it because your minor premise states that A (apparently the
>> >antecedent) is false. It's a straw man too because it presumes
>> >vegans make the claim that abstaining from meat means their
>> >diet has no association with animals deaths.

>>
>> I've heard other lies from veg*ns too. Amusingly, I've more
>> than once seen people estimate how many chickens, pigs,
>> cows etc they've "saved" by being veg*n. It's really disgusting,
>> since veg*nism does absolutely NOTHING to help any animals
>> raised for food, much less does it save any.

>
>Considering the conditions some farm animals are kept
>in this statement is false. Veganism saves animals from
>all manner of abuses, imprisonment in barren, crowded
>cages being the most obvious.


It doesn't save animals. It prevents them at best. Saving
something and preventing it are not the same thing.

>Of course any non-vegan
>diet that also excludes animals raised under unsatisfactory
>welfare conditions can make the same claims.
>
>> People can't save
>> animals with their diet. They CAN contribute to decent lives for
>> food animals with their diet, but NOT by being veg*n, so you
>> couldn't care about anything like that.

>
>*yawn* The reason farming causes farm animals to live is
>(effectively) because it causes animals to be farmed


It's because it provides them with an environment that
is efficient in causing them to reproduce and grow.

>not
>because it causes them to live. There is a good reason why
>no one except you seems to care!


About what, and what is the "good" reason why no one
else cares about it? If you're going to say something about
the animals' lives, you can't say no one but me cares about
them because there are some people like Goo/Dutch/"ARAs"
who care very much, and are maniacally OPPOSED to seeing
people consider the animals' lives because doing so considers
that some thing(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to
veganism.

>> So back to the disgusting
>> veg*n/"AR" lying which you like much better than anything to
>> do with providing decent lives for livestock: savour the veg*n
>> "pride" you're entitled to feel as you read the lies one of your
>> "AR" representatives tells to deform children's view of reality:
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> Here you come to save the day!
>> [...]
>> And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
>> their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
>> make milk for their babies, not for people!
>> [...]
>> Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
>> be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
>> your life cheese-free!
>>
>> http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE CHICKENS?
>>
>> Life for chickens on factory farms is awful!
>> Chickens can feel things just as dogs and
>> cats do. Please help animals and stay healthy
>> by becoming a vegetarian! Call or write to
>> PETA for free recipes.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE PIGS?
>>
>> Pigs value their lives just as much as you
>> and I value ours. So please don't eat them!
>> Call or write to PETA for free animal-
>> friendly, vegetarian recipes.
>>
>> http://www.peta-online.org/pdfs/Lchickid.pdf
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯



  #171 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On 21 Dec 2005 15:25:46 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>> >> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>> >> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>> >> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>> >>
>> >> (Critic)
>> >> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>> >> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>> >> still die for their food during crop production.
>> >>
>> >> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>> >> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>> >> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>> >> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>> >> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>> >> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>> >> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>> >> implemented.
>> >
>> >There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
>> >appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
>> >be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
>> >like this:
>> >
>> >(Critic)
>> >Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
>> >cause any animals to die. This justification is false.

>>
>> No doubt. They contribute to animal deaths with their diet,
>> use of roads and building, electricity, paper and wood, etc
>> like everyone else does. ALL they appear to avoid trying to
>> contribute to is life and death for livestock.
>>
>> >Therefore
>> >veganism
>> >can not be logically justified.
>> >
>> >The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
>> >Therefore
>> >B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?

>>
>> Surely it's classified as some form of bullshit, like most
>> "AR" fantasy. LOL. Do you know the one about the kid
>> who killed and ate his parents? He then bitched about
>> being an orphan. That's a Goo/Dutch fantasy they equate
>> to raising animals for food. Human child sex slavery is
>> another, and Dutch claims to have developed that
>> comparison from his own experience(s) with farm animals.
>> Maybe you can spot the idiocy in their "AR" drenched
>> fantasies, but then again maybe you can't...they can't...
>>
>> Hey, maybe you can help them. We've been trying to
>> figure out which type wildlife we should put in place of
>> livestock and why,
>> and so far about the best we have is
>> a short list from Coproph Boy (Dutch) which consists of:
>> mice, frogs and groundhogs.

>
>Maybe if you asked a question that actually has some sort
>of relevance you might get more of a response.


LOL! Maybe if I asked a question that you could figure
out how to answer you would answer it. In fact you would
if you could, but you won't because you can't.

>Unless it would be paved
>> or used for crops as I'm convinced it would, the land would
>> probably provide life for some types of animals. What type
>> animals do YOU want it to support INSTEAD OF livestock,
>> and why? If/when you can't answer the question, you
>> might finally consider that it would be just about as good
>> to provide the livestock with decent lives as it would to
>> instead provide life for wildlife that you don't care enough
>> about to even know what kind(s) you're trying to talk about.

>
>*yawn*. We are not the ones trying to determine which
>animals come into existence in the future.


Well you were. Have you already forgotten about your
wildlife? Or have you decided that they should not be
taken into consideration after all? Are you now crawling
away from your position that caused me to eternally
wonder which type wildlife you think/thought we should
put in place of livestock and why?

>You are.


Duh. I'm here to discuss human influence on animals.

>> Because so far it certainly appears that's the way it is in
>> some cases. Even if you do manage to explain a few wild
>> animals you'd want to promote life for, like mice, then we
>> (those of us who think it through) would also have to wonder
>> why it wouldn't be just as well to raise some other form of
>> livestock than your mice...it just keeps on and on... But
>> hate it though you do, it ALWAYS comes down to which
>> animals we're going to promote life for and which ones
>> we're not.

>
>No. That is most definately not the issue. The issue is whether
>we should rear, milk and kill some of those animals.
>
>> That's just the way it is, so I'm still suprised that
>> even the honest "ARAs" can hate a fact so much, and
>> can not believe that true "AR" opponents hate it, since
>> there's no reason why any of us should.

>
>I have no doubt that you are sincere about your inability to
>comprehend.


LOL! That's entirely because of your/"their" complete
inability to explain. There is absolutely NO reason why
anyone who has an interest in promoting decent lives for
farm animals, should be opposed to considering the fact
that humans deliberately provide life for billions of them,
and amusingly you/"they" aren't even able to make one
up. LOL.......
  #172 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:23:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:11:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...

>>
>>>> No matter what we do it will involve animals existing,
>>>> unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born.
>>>
>>>Shut up ****wit, nobody gives a shit about your stupic illogic.

>>
>> If you think it's illogic Coproph, then explain WHY we should
>> never consider the lives of livestock or wildlife.

>
>Because the lives of livestock or wildlife per se do not present a real
>moral issue. ARAs say that the lives of animals present a moral issue,
>legitimate critics of AR say that this is a false issue.


Not in regards to whether or not it's cruel *to the ANIMALS!!!*,
which is an aspect that you are admittedly incapable of considering.

>You accept their
>premise then proceed to make it worse.


I point out facts about it that YOU/"ARAs" hate because they
suggest that some thing(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior
to veganism.

>>>> So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which
>>>>animals do we want to promote life for. If you feel it's
>>>>none, then explain why. If you feel we should promote
>>>>life for some and not for others, explain that. You, Dutch
>>>>and Goo all agree that we should provide lives for wildlife
>>>>INSTEAD OF lives for wildlife AND livestock, but none
>>>>of you can explain WHICH wildlife, and/or WHY.
>>>
>>>No it should never be asked.

>>
>> Why should we never consider any animals when we think
>> about human influence on animals?

>
>That depends on what you mean by "consider".


You are not capable of giving them any consideration, while
I'm capable of giving them consideration in more than one way.

>If you are implying invoking
>the Logic of the Larder, then the reason is as I stated above.


You have never given a REASON. You only insist that it's
so, but will never be able to provide any reason obviously
because you can't even think of one.
  #173 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

>> it would force the vegan to
>> either admit that some meats might have a lesser impact than some plant
>> foods,

>
> We've all agreed to this already, several steps back in the discussion.


Show me.

> What I'm saying is that you have to consider similar foods within the
> same kind of category to get a real, meaningful comparison.


Why is such a comparison real or meaningful? Why would anyone use such a
method of categorization when choosing foods?

If you
> consider factory-farmed animals vs agribusiness monocrop plants, the
> plants come out better; if you consider hand-gathered wild plants vs
> hunted local game, the plants come out better; if you consider small
> local organic gardens vs small local flocks and herds, the plants again
> come out better.


The only reason I can think of that anyone would compare foods in such a
fashion would be to create the false impression that some meat does *not*
have a lesser impact than some plant foods, as that paragraph tends to do.
There is no other reason to do it.


  #174 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:23:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:11:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>>>> No matter what we do it will involve animals existing,
>>>>> unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born.
>>>>
>>>>Shut up ****wit, nobody gives a shit about your stupic illogic.
>>>
>>> If you think it's illogic Coproph, then explain WHY we should
>>> never consider the lives of livestock or wildlife.

>>
>>Because the lives of livestock or wildlife per se do not present a real
>>moral issue. ARAs say that the lives of animals present a moral issue,
>>legitimate critics of AR say that this is a false issue.

>
> Not in regards to whether or not it's cruel *to the ANIMALS!!!*,
> which is an aspect that you are admittedly incapable of considering.


Wrong.

>>You accept their
>>premise then proceed to make it worse.

>
> I point out facts about it that YOU/"ARAs" hate because they
> suggest that some thing(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior
> to veganism.



Wrong.

>>>>> So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which
>>>>>animals do we want to promote life for. If you feel it's
>>>>>none, then explain why. If you feel we should promote
>>>>>life for some and not for others, explain that. You, Dutch
>>>>>and Goo all agree that we should provide lives for wildlife
>>>>>INSTEAD OF lives for wildlife AND livestock, but none
>>>>>of you can explain WHICH wildlife, and/or WHY.
>>>>
>>>>No it should never be asked.
>>>
>>> Why should we never consider any animals when we think
>>> about human influence on animals?

>>
>>That depends on what you mean by "consider".

>
> You are not capable of giving them any consideration, while
> I'm capable of giving them consideration in more than one way.


Wrong.

>>If you are implying invoking
>>the Logic of the Larder, then the reason is as I stated above.

>
> You have never given a REASON. You only insist that it's
> so, but will never be able to provide any reason obviously
> because you can't even think of one.


Wrong.

Very good.


  #175 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>> You have never given a REASON. You only insist that it's
>> so, but will never be able to provide any reason obviously
>> because you can't even think of one.

>
>Wrong.


What reason(s) are you saying you have given? I am correct
in predicting that you can provide no example(s). Hey, let's you
make a list...LOL...well that's the end of that list. But. If you're
up for a try then why don't you just make a list of good reasons
why we should not consider animals' lives when we consider
human influence on animals, so it's all right there. I know why
you won't, but it would be great to see you try.


  #176 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Dutch wrote:

> "Glorfindel" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.


>>>it would force the vegan to
>>>either admit that some meats might have a lesser impact than some plant
>>>foods,


>>We've all agreed to this already, several steps back in the discussion.


> Show me.


Google is your friend....

>>What I'm saying is that you have to consider similar foods within the
>>same kind of category to get a real, meaningful comparison.


> Why is such a comparison real or meaningful? Why would anyone use such a
> method of categorization when choosing foods?


Because there is no point in considering foods in *different*
categories if you are trying to determine whether plant or
killed animal foods *you can get* cause less harm/violation of rights.

> If you
>>consider factory-farmed animals vs agribusiness monocrop plants, the
>>plants come out better; if you consider hand-gathered wild plants vs
>>hunted local game, the plants come out better; if you consider small
>>local organic gardens vs small local flocks and herds, the plants again
>>come out better.



> The only reason I can think of that anyone would compare foods in such a
> fashion would be to create the false impression that some meat does *not*
> have a lesser impact than some plant foods, as that paragraph tends to do.
> There is no other reason to do it.



There is every reason to do it, if one is dealing with people in the
real world. People don't all have access to all kinds of foods.
They have to choose from what they can find and afford, so you have to
compare within categories they can use.

If one is a poor person in the inner city with no car, one's only
*practical* source of food is going to be corner mom-and-pop convenience
stories, cheap fast-food restaurants, and big chain mega-supermarkets
(and perhaps small ethnic stores in some cities). So we compare
factory-farmed animal foods vs agribusiness plant foods. Even if
grass-fed niche-market meat is available, poor city people aren't going
to be able to afford it. They're going to have to choose peanut butter
vs factory-farmed eggs, or chicken, or canned/frozen commercial products.

If one lives in the country, or can visit wilderness areas, one will
have access to hunted meat and gathered plants, so we can compare
the harm involved in those foods. These are either rich sport hunters
and gourmet gatherers, or poor but rural subsistence hunter/gatherers.

If one is relatively wealthy in the city or suburbs, one can choose
niche-market meats, like "free-range" chicken or imported grass-fed
beef, or small-scale organic vegetables from local farmers' markets
or hothouses.

It may work to try to convince one of the people in the last two
categories to buy or hunt less-harmful meats, but they can *also*
buy or gather less-harmful plants, and if they are looking for
the *lowest*-impact foods, the plants are the way they will go.
It's a matter of education and putting out the information on the
sources of agribusiness veggies and factory-farmed animal products.

It's useless to tell a poor inner-city person to buy local grass-fed
beef instead of peanut butter. They simply can't do it.
  #177 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:


>>>What I'm saying is that you have to consider similar foods within the
>>>same kind of category to get a real, meaningful comparison.

>
>> Why is such a comparison real or meaningful? Why would anyone use such a
>> method of categorization when choosing foods?

>
> Because there is no point in considering foods in *different*
> categories if you are trying to determine whether plant or
> killed animal foods *you can get* cause less harm/violation of rights.


"Foods you can get" is a category unto itself, it has nothing to do with
categorizing vegan and non-vegan foods in other ways, such as methods of
production.

>> If you
>>>consider factory-farmed animals vs agribusiness monocrop plants, the
>>>plants come out better; if you consider hand-gathered wild plants vs
>>>hunted local game, the plants come out better; if you consider small
>>>local organic gardens vs small local flocks and herds, the plants again
>>>come out better.

>
>
>> The only reason I can think of that anyone would compare foods in such a
>> fashion would be to create the false impression that some meat does *not*
>> have a lesser impact than some plant foods, as that paragraph tends to
>> do. There is no other reason to do it.

>
>
> There is every reason to do it, if one is dealing with people in the real
> world. People don't all have access to all kinds of foods.
> They have to choose from what they can find and afford, so you have to
> compare within categories they can use.


Affordability and availability are completely different issues and you know
it. You are attempting to move the goalposts.

So, can I conclude that assuming that affordability and availability are
removed as factors, that it makes no sense to limit the comparison between
foods?

> If one is a poor person in the inner city with no car, one's only
> *practical* source of food is going to be corner mom-and-pop convenience
> stories, cheap fast-food restaurants, and big chain mega-supermarkets
> (and perhaps small ethnic stores in some cities). So we compare
> factory-farmed animal foods vs agribusiness plant foods. Even if
> grass-fed niche-market meat is available, poor city people aren't going
> to be able to afford it. They're going to have to choose peanut butter
> vs factory-farmed eggs, or chicken, or canned/frozen commercial products.


Many, if not most people can make choices between organic free-range meat or
eggs or the canned/frozen imported plant foods, or buy some of each. This is
a perfectly valid place to compare food impacts.

> If one lives in the country, or can visit wilderness areas, one will
> have access to hunted meat and gathered plants, so we can compare
> the harm involved in those foods. These are either rich sport hunters and
> gourmet gatherers, or poor but rural subsistence hunter/gatherers.


These narrowly defined categories are nonsense. Most rural working people
can supplement their diets much more easily by hunting or fishing than by
"gathering plants".

> If one is relatively wealthy in the city or suburbs, one can choose
> niche-market meats, like "free-range" chicken or imported grass-fed
> beef, or small-scale organic vegetables from local farmers' markets
> or hothouses.


You are arbitrarily and dishonestly pigeonholing and pre-defining the
choices people have.

> It may work to try to convince one of the people in the last two
> categories to buy or hunt less-harmful meats, but they can *also*
> buy or gather less-harmful plants, and if they are looking for
> the *lowest*-impact foods, the plants are the way they will go.
> It's a matter of education and putting out the information on the
> sources of agribusiness veggies and factory-farmed animal products.
>
> It's useless to tell a poor inner-city person to buy local grass-fed beef
> instead of peanut butter. They simply can't do it.


Strawman, you have totally abandoned the jist of this debate in favour of
diversions. The point is that most people *could* reduce their current
impact with non-vegan choices. Saying that we must not compare the worst of
vegan foods to the best of non-vegan foods is just an attempt to pull the
wool over people's eyes.


  #178 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.


You are the one determined not to see any option other than the one
you prefer.

Dutch wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


> The point is that most people *could* reduce their current
> impact with non-vegan choices.


Absolutely -- but most people could *also* reduce their current
impact with vegan or vegetarian or gathered/scavenged choices --
and that those choices would be less harmful than the
equivalent killed-animal choices.

> Saying that we must not compare the worst of
> vegan foods to the best of non-vegan foods


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Go right ahead. Just compare the best of vegan foods with the
worst of non-vegan foods as well. It is very possible to
create a vegan diet which beats (non-scavenged) animal-based
diets in health, price, and amount of harm caused.

But you ignore that option.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #179 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are the one determined not to see any option other than the
> one
> you prefer.

======================
It is you that has decided blinders are best for your options,
killer.
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>> The point is that most people *could* reduce their current
>> impact with non-vegan choices.

>
> Absolutely -- but most people could *also* reduce their current
> impact with vegan or vegetarian or gathered/scavenged
> choices --
> and that those choices would be less harmful than the
> equivalent killed-animal choices.
>
>> Saying that we must not compare the worst of vegan foods to
>> the best of non-vegan foods

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> Go right ahead. Just compare the best of vegan foods with the
> worst of non-vegan foods as well. It is very possible to
> create a vegan diet which beats (non-scavenged) animal-based
> diets in health, price, and amount of harm caused.
>
> But you ignore that option.

==========================
It is you that is ignoring the options that most people take.
I'm talking about what lazy, conveninece-oriented usenet vegans
*could* do since all they do now is buy their food at the
mega-box grocery store. There are plenty of stores that now
carry free-range, grass-fed, hormone-free meats. Instead of
making those choices, you continue, like all phoney usenet
vegans, to purchase your imported fruits and veggies without
regard to their origin or cost in animal deaths. Afterall, you
have your simple rule for your simple mind, eh hypocrite? Never
once have you even considered which foods you now buy cause the
least/most amount of death and suffering to animals, and make
your choices accordingly. Instaed, like I said, you follow only
what your simple mind tells you, killer.


>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>



  #180 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Glorfindel" > wrote
>
> You are the one determined not to see any option other than the one
> you prefer.


Not true at all, and you must know it. There is no doubt about it, plant
foods in most cases have a lesser impact than meat. I have no reason to
dispute that fact.

>> The point is that most people *could* reduce their current impact with
>> non-vegan choices.

>
> Absolutely -- but most people could *also* reduce their current
> impact with vegan or vegetarian or gathered/scavenged choices --
> and that those choices would be less harmful than the
> equivalent killed-animal choices.


There is no such thing as "equivalent killed-animal choices", there are
simply choices.

>> Saying that we must not compare the worst of vegan foods to the best of
>> non-vegan foods

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> Go right ahead. Just compare the best of vegan foods with the
> worst of non-vegan foods as well.


Of course, plant-based foods will usually win this comparison whenever
animals are supplemented to any degree with cultivated feed.

> It is very possible to
> create a vegan diet which beats (non-scavenged) animal-based
> diets in health, price, and amount of harm caused.
>
> But you ignore that option.


I do not ignore it in theory, I ignore in reality because I do not choose to
follow a vegan diet. I also dispute the notion that there is any valid moral
distinction between meat and vegetables per se.




  #181 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Dutch wrote:

> "Glorfindel" > wrote


>>You are the one determined not to see any option other than the one
>>you prefer.


> Not true at all, and you must know it. There is no doubt about it, plant
> foods in most cases have a lesser impact than meat. I have no reason to
> dispute that fact.


Then you have no reason to dispute that a plant-only diet *can* be the
least-harm diet available.

>>>The point is that most people *could* reduce their current impact with
>>>non-vegan choices.


>>Absolutely -- but most people could *also* reduce their current
>>impact with vegan or vegetarian or gathered/scavenged choices --
>>and that those choices would be less harmful than the
>>equivalent killed-animal choices.


> There is no such thing as "equivalent killed-animal choices", there are
> simply choices.


*shrug*

>>>Saying that we must not compare the worst of vegan foods to the best of
>>>non-vegan foods


>>Go right ahead. Just compare the best of vegan foods with the
>>worst of non-vegan foods as well.


> Of course, plant-based foods will usually win this comparison whenever
> animals are supplemented to any degree with cultivated feed.


Yes.

>>It is very possible to
>>create a vegan diet which beats (non-scavenged) animal-based
>>diets in health, price, and amount of harm caused.


>>But you ignore that option.


> I do not ignore it in theory, I ignore in reality because I do not choose to
> follow a vegan diet.


Then you have no reason to criticize those who state that a vegan diet
*can* be a least-harm diet. You can only criticize choices made by
vegans *within* available plant foods. Vegans can also criticize other
vegans for choices made within plant-based food, and do. A vegan can
create a diet which satisfies both his ethics and yours.

> I also dispute the notion that there is any valid moral
> distinction between meat and vegetables per se.


I do not, if the meat is not scavenged from already-dead animals.

So -- we have established that your only real ethical argument with
vegans is that they do not always choose the least harmful vegan
options. You can have no criticism of veganism _per se_ on ethical
grounds.

You are a sad case, Dutch, and I am sad to see you driven out into
limbo. You have lost your original ethical system without finding a
new one, and the rationale you now give for your choices is clearly
inadequate: I can't really argue for the superiority of my ethical
choice any longer, so I will simply say no ethical choice exists: I
will wish the issue away. You are truly one of the lost ones, and
I am sorry for you. God help you.

  #182 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Karen Winter lied:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied:

>
>
>>> You are the one determined not to see any option other than the one
>>> you prefer.

>
>
>> Not true at all, and you must know it. There is no doubt about it,
>> plant foods in most cases have a lesser impact than meat. I have no
>> reason to dispute that fact.

>
>
> Then you have no reason to dispute that a plant-only diet *can* be the
> least-harm diet available.


You have no valid reason to claim that your plant-only
diet or any other such diet *IS* the least-harm diet
available.


>
>>>> The point is that most people *could* reduce their current impact
>>>> with non-vegan choices.

>
>
>>> Absolutely -- but most people could *also* reduce their current
>>> impact with vegan or vegetarian or gathered/scavenged choices --


Then why don't you do it?


>>> and that those choices would be less harmful than the
>>> equivalent killed-animal choices.

>
>
>> There is no such thing as "equivalent killed-animal choices", there
>> are simply choices.

>
>
> *shrug*


Whiff-off noted.


>
>>>> Saying that we must not compare the worst of vegan foods to the best
>>>> of non-vegan foods

>
>
>>> Go right ahead. Just compare the best of vegan foods with the
>>> worst of non-vegan foods as well.

>
>
>> Of course, plant-based foods will usually win this comparison whenever
>> animals are supplemented to any degree with cultivated feed.

>
>
> Yes.


But meaningless in practice.


>
>>> It is very possible to
>>> create a vegan diet which beats (non-scavenged) animal-based
>>> diets in health, price, and amount of harm caused.


Then why don't you do it?


>
>
>>> But you ignore that option.

>
>
>> I do not ignore it in theory, I ignore in reality because I do not
>> choose to follow a vegan diet.

>
>
> Then you have no reason to criticize those who state that a vegan diet
> *can* be a least-harm diet.


No self-congratulating "vegan" - you, for instance -
claims virtue because of what a "vegan" diet *can* be;
you sanctimoniously claim virtue by the unsubstantiated
implication that *your* diet is least-harm, when you
have taken NO steps to ensure that it is.


> You can only criticize choices made by
> vegans *within* available plant foods. Vegans can also criticize other
> vegans for choices made within plant-based food, and do.


No, they don't. That's simply false. In fact,
virtually all "vegans" who have participated here
pointedly refuse to make such comparisons, because they
view group solidarity as more important that
intellectual and moral consistency. "vegans" all
subscribe to the demonstrably false notion that not
consuming animal parts is all one need do to claim
moral superiority.



> A vegan can
> create a diet which satisfies both his ethics and yours.


No, a "vegan" can't do that, because her so-called
ethics requires that *no* animals die.


>> I also dispute the notion that there is any valid moral distinction
>> between meat and vegetables per se.

>
>
> I do not, if the meat is not scavenged from already-dead animals.


You can't coherently explain or justify the
distinction, except to fall back on rubbish philosophy
by published sophists.



> So -- we have established that your only real ethical argument with
> vegans is that they do not always choose the least harmful vegan
> options. You can have no criticism of veganism _per se_ on ethical
> grounds.


Yes, of course there is. It embodies a grotesque
logical fallacy. It is neither proposed nor followed
as an attempted *least* harm basis; lurking underneath
it is always the false belief that it is a ZERO harm
practice. In addition is the unsupportable belief that
one *ought* to practice, or strive for, a zero-harm
"lifestyle". You have never demonstrated there is
moral harm done by killing animals to consume them.
  #183 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Glorfindel" > wrote

>
>>>You are the one determined not to see any option other than the one
>>>you prefer.

>
>> Not true at all, and you must know it. There is no doubt about it, plant
>> foods in most cases have a lesser impact than meat. I have no reason to
>> dispute that fact.

>
> Then you have no reason to dispute that a plant-only diet *can* be the
> least-harm diet available.


I would not dispute such a claim, but conditional, modest positions are not
the usual stuff of vegans.

>>>>The point is that most people *could* reduce their current impact with
>>>>non-vegan choices.

>
>>>Absolutely -- but most people could *also* reduce their current
>>>impact with vegan or vegetarian or gathered/scavenged choices --
>>>and that those choices would be less harmful than the
>>>equivalent killed-animal choices.

>
>> There is no such thing as "equivalent killed-animal choices", there are
>> simply choices.

>
> *shrug*


Too bad you don't get the significance of that objection, because it
illustrates the artificiality and dishonesty of your attempts to align food
comparisons in ways that support your bias.

>>>>Saying that we must not compare the worst of vegan foods to the best of
>>>>non-vegan foods

>
>>>Go right ahead. Just compare the best of vegan foods with the
>>>worst of non-vegan foods as well.

>
>> Of course, plant-based foods will usually win this comparison whenever
>> animals are supplemented to any degree with cultivated feed.

>
> Yes.


Instantaneous recognition, go figure..

Try this one on for size, see how quickly the cognitive dissonance kicks
in..

Non-plant-based foods will usually win this comparison where they are
free-range/organic and the plant-based foods are obtained through
large-scale commercial agriculture and/or imported.


>>>It is very possible to
>>>create a vegan diet which beats (non-scavenged) animal-based
>>>diets in health, price, and amount of harm caused.

>
>>>But you ignore that option.

>
>> I do not ignore it in theory, I ignore in reality because I do not choose
>> to follow a vegan diet.

>
> Then you have no reason to criticize those who state that a vegan diet
> *can* be a least-harm diet.


There is no such thing as "a least-harm diet".

> You can only criticize choices made by vegans *within* available plant
> foods. Vegans can also criticize other
> vegans for choices made within plant-based food, and do. A vegan can
> create a diet which satisfies both his ethics and yours.


If vegans modified their position to say that their dietary regime *can* be
a "least-harm diet" (whatever that means) I might not bother arguing the
point, because it implies that non-vegan diets might also be.

>> I also dispute the notion that there is any valid moral distinction
>> between meat and vegetables per se.

>
> I do not, if the meat is not scavenged from already-dead animals.


The AR sophistry you base that on is not convincing.

> So -- we have established that your only real ethical argument with
> vegans is that they do not always choose the least harmful vegan
> options.


That's utterly incorrect, not surprisingly.

You can have no criticism of veganism _per se_ on ethical
> grounds.


Yes I do. It is unethical to create a pseudo-ethic then base judgement of
others on it. That is the sin of self-righteousness,

<snip sanctimonious speech>


  #184 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Leif Erikson wrote:

Jonnie's usual rubbish. Jonnie, Jonnie -- it's ridiculous that
you can't launch your attacks without lying and misrepresenting
the position of those posting here.

You might as well recognize that you have been outmaneuvered,
and no one sees you as anything other than a laughingstock.

  #185 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Karen Winter lied and whiffed off:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Jonnie's usual rubbish.


As usual, Karen, you can't address the hard issues.

Try again:

You [Karen] have no valid reason to claim that your
plant-only diet or any other such diet *IS* the
least-harm diet available.


And:

Karen waffled: Absolutely -- but most people could
*also* reduce their current impact with vegan or
vegetarian or gathered/scavenged choices

I answered: Then why don't you do it?


And:

Dutch: Of course, plant-based foods will usually
win this comparison whenever animals are
supplemented to any degree with cultivated feed.

Karen smugly and emptily wasted space: "Yes."

I write: "But meaningless in practice."

and so you whiffed off.


And then you puffed yourself up with:

Karen: Then you have no reason to criticize those
who state that a vegan diet *can* be a least-harm diet.

I replied: No self-congratulating "vegan" - you,
for instance - claims virtue because of what a
"vegan" diet *can* be; you sanctimoniously claim
virtue by the unsubstantiated implication that
*your* diet is least-harm, when you have taken NO
steps to ensure that it is.

and you whiffed off *again*.


Face the facts, Karen - YOU are the one who has been
outmaneuvered. We know who you are, you don't have any
new twists on your stale empty ideology, and you
demonstrate that you simply like to fight...because
you're an asshole.

I *knew* you wouldn't be able to ignore me for long,
Karen; you just don't have a lick of self-discipline.
Hey, how's the fetal alcohol syndrome lump of shit doing?


  #186 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Leif Erikson wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> I *knew* you wouldn't be able to ignore me for long


I thought it was you. Thanks for admitting it so readily.

Killfile this persona.
  #187 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
SlipperySlope
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Karen Winter lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>> I *knew* you wouldn't be able to ignore me for long

>
>
> I thought it was you. Thanks for admitting it so readily.


Why would I deny it? I'm *always* honest, Karen. You
should try it. You might begin by stopping this silly,
stupid and untenable charade that you're not Karen
Winter. You *are* Karen Winter, as you readily gave away.

  #188 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


Glorfindel wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Glorfindel wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>>That is completely true. I can see no ethical problem with a diet
> >>>>including scavenged meat, gathered unfertilized eggs, and so on.

>
> >>>But technically this is still an omnivore diet.

>
> >>Yes, true. I am more concerned with the spirit than the letter
> >>here. Scavenging meat, gathering unfertilized eggs,

>
> > Aside: Is it possible to determine whether eggs are fertilized
> > or not as you gather them?

>
> With domestic fowl, you would know if there was a male in with
> the females, and with both domestic and wild eggs, you could
> candle the eggs -- with a bright flashlight in the wild.
> Within a few days, the developing embryo shows up as a network
> of blood lines.
>
> I don't think an early-development embryo is sentient or has
> rights or welfare on its own. What bothers me about gathering
> eggs is the effect on the parents. If all the eggs are removed,
> the parents often produce another clutch, which can be hard on
> the female. Also, if the species is under stress, removing too
> many eggs can threaten the species's survival. So I would
> suggest leaving at least a few eggs in a nest if you gather
> some.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>Because I do accept the idea of animal rights, I would not
> >>generally agree that the rights of individual animals can be
> >>sacrificed in a purely utilitarian calculation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> > Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase my question:
> > What if hunting and ranching involved fewer violations of animal
> > rights than the non-animal foods that represent the real world
> > alternative?

>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> Then we have to find other real world alternatives.
>
> This is a hard ethical limit for me.


Ok. How does an ordinary Joe with no direct control over his
food supply ensure that his diet is not responsible for any
animal rights violations?

> I don't see how we can consider
> animal *rights* _per se_ without applying the same basic criterion
> we apply to human rights: a genuine right cannot justly be violated
> no matter what benefit results for others on a utilitarian basis. To
> do that is to deny the concept of rights. This isn't an issue for
> a pure utilitarian calculation. Also, in the real world we often end
> up with a very unclear balancing act where neither act can be seen as
> just on the basis of rights and we are forced to choose a lesser evil.
> The bombing of Hiroshima is an example. There is no question that by
> traditional laws of war, mass killing of civilian noncombatants was
> unethical. It was justified (and still is) by claiming many Allied
> lives were saved by avoiding an invasion of the Home Islands. You
> can apply the same logic to hunting and ranching animals. But it is
> always hypothetical. You can never *know* for sure how many lives
> were saved, while the concrete act is a certain violation of a right.
> Also,if we routinely violate rights on utilitarian calculation, the
> very idea of rights eventually becomes moot.


Actually I am open to the concept of rights but only if
they serve utilitarian purposes. The torturing of terrorist
suspects might serve as an example here. If a terrorist
attack can be prevented by extracting information by
torture than the torture can clearly be justified on utilitarian
grounds. The problem is that once torture is sanctioned
it is liable to gradually become more and more routine.
The argument that a society with some moral boundaries
or "rights" would be a better society in which to live than
a society that used utilitarian judgements on a case by
case basis is plausible. I'm not sure it is correct but it is
certainly plausible. This line of reasoning is also relevant
to the issue of animal experiments among other things.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>Now if you accept
> >>>that predation is unethical on that basis

>
> >>I don't believe predation is *unethical* except when it is
> >>carried out by moral agents. There is a difference between
> >>an act which is harmful and an act which is unethical. Most
> >>unethical acts will cause harm of some kind, but the reverse
> >>is not necessarily true.

>
> > To my way of thinking the idea that other humans or companion
> > animals should be prevented or discouraged from prevention
> > does not sit easily side by side with the idea that preventing wild
> > predators from doing the same is actively wrong.

>
> I understand your point.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> > Then we're back to predation is not necessarily harmful
> > within the context of the bigger picture.

>
> Yes, I agree, in terms of the system as a whole. Unless
> we can control fertility of wild animals, it is
> necessary. But, as above, I believe it is *unethical*
> when carried out by moral agents (human).
>
> That's where the theological argument comes in. I agree
> with C.S. Lewis and Linzey that a creation where death
> and predation are necessary for the system to function
> properly is a basically flawed (evil/sinful/imperfect)
> system, and so it could not be the Creation as God intended
> or intends it. It must be the result of the corruption
> inherent in the whole of Creation as it now exists.
> This is only an important consideration for Christian
> or other religious people.


I probably shouldn't get involved in theological debates
because I am grossly ignorant of the subject but is it
not a basic tenet of Christian Theology that God is
all powerful? By definition an all powerful God can not
make a mistake and the nature of Creation MUST be
exactly as God intended.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> > Linzey,
> >>>>like C.S. Lewis in an earlier generation, refers to predation as
> >>>>"the vampire's dilemma," regards it as a result of the Fall and
> >>>>the corrupt state of Creation, and sees no end to it until the
> >>>>Second Coming when all creation will be made new. He says that
> >>>>"there is no pure land" and we can only change our own behavior
> >>>>toward animals.

>
> >>>>>We would be violating the rights of
> >>>>>these animals

>
> >>>>Yes.

>
> >>>>>but in doing so we would prevent the rights of many
> >>>>>more animals from being violated.

>
> >>>>Not according to the rights-based theories, which hold that
> >>>>only a moral agent can violate rights, and so that, while
> >>>>prey animals would suffer death, their *rights* would not
> >>>>be violated, because moral patients cannot hold rights against
> >>>>other moral patients.

>
> >>>This is an example of what I like to term "arbitrary ethics" They
> >>>are self consistent and superficially reasonable but serve no
> >>>obvious practical purpose in terms of making the planet a better
> >>>place for those sentient creatures who inhabit it.

>
> >>I think you have to consider such questions as soon as you
> >>introduce the concept of rights at all. You don't *need*
> >>to involve a concept of rights.

>
> > Perhaps not although it is possible to frame plausible utilitarian
> > arguments to justify the concept of rights.

>
> >> You can go with a purely
> >>utilitarian ethic. That can present problems of its own,
> >>however. Singer's support for infanticide has been
> >>criticized on that basis.

>
> > To me it is not good enough to say Singer supports infanticide
> > therefore there must be something wrong with his
> > utilitarian ethic.

>
> I agree. Given his premises, his conclusion is quite reasonable.


I wouldn't go so far as to say I agree with his premises but I
certainly
don't find any of them unreasonable. Do you?

> > A better approach would be to consider his
> > reasoning and either come up with a counter argument or
> > revise your assumption that infanticide is never justified.

>
> I could see situations in which infanticide ( or euthanasia )
> of severely damaged new-borns might be justified on both a
> utilitarian and a rights basis, using the same argument Regan
> uses in _The Case For Animal Rights_ to apply to euthanasia
> of non-humans on a rights basis.
>
> I am in favor of the option of assisted suicide for those who
> want it also.


I wholeheartedly agree on both counts.

> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>Now we come to the crux of the matter. Although predation may
> >>>cause considerable distress to the victims and their companions
> >>>it is also an important means of maintaining a healthy balance
> >>>within an ecosystem. Thus although we violate the theoretical
> >>>rights of prey animals when we take on the role of predator, our
> >>>actions do not seem so inexcusable when we consider the
> >>>bigger picture.

>
> >>It is not quite that easy. There is the ethical issue if one
> >>believes in animal rights, but there are also a variety of
> >>practical issues involved in humans trying to artificially
> >>reproduce a natural predator/prey system. Most predation
> >>by humans would be by sport or subsistence hunters, and they
> >>( especially sport hunters )often do not remove the same animals
> >>other animal predators would. Culls by biologists might be
> >>closer to natural predation, but would still be artificial and
> >>couldn't include *all* the subtle factors involved in
> >>animal/animal prey/predator interactions. We don't -- possibly
> >>can't -- understand the natural systems well enough to
> >>reproduce them exactly, and that can have drastic results.

>
> > These are all good points but it must also be noted that natural
> > predators don't bother to analyse the effects of their predation
> > on their ecosystems.

>
> Could we see it as an "Invisible Hand" at work. No, it doesn't
> always work out in real life. I'd rather trust to it in most
> cases, because the natural predators and prey have evolved together
> and adjusted to each other more exactly than humans have.
> There seems to be considerable evidence that early humans
> were responsible for the extinction of several species of
> megafauna even before civilization developed. We're just
> clumsy that way, and I don't trust us to do a really good job of fine-tuning the
> ecosystem.


How do you feel about conservation charities that sometime use
mass culls as an attempt to repair ecosystems that have become
unbalanced somehow, for example as a result of the introduction
of a non-native species or sudden environmental changes?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> > Then the LHP indicates scavenged/gathered products as the first
> > preference. If it is not practical to meet your nutritional needs that
> > way
> > then the next best thing would be local organic plant foods harvested,
> > packaged processed and stored in an animal friendly manner.
> > If it is still not practical to meet your nutritional needs then it is
> > at least plausible that eating the flesh of hunted wild animals or
> > handlined fish is in accordance with the LHP or the
> > least violations of animal rights principle.

>
> Least harm, I would agree. Animal right, I would not, for reasons given
> above.


I'm still not entirely sure what reasons. You have conceded that
lethal methods of pest control are in violation of animal rights. Is it

implausible to you that the number of rodents deliberately posioned per
calorie of grain is greater than the number of deer deliberately shot
per calorie of venison?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>Essentially yes, I think a system of ethics that does not attempt
> >>>to justify itself on utilitarian grounds is arbitrary.

>
> >>I think utilitarian results have to be part of the calculation,
> >>but only part.

>
> > Then what is the purpose of ethics in your view?

>
> Well, that's a major question, isn't it? I'm not sure I can give
> a simple answer off the top of my head. You first: what do *you*
> see as the purpose of ethics?


How about to balance the conflicting interests of sentient beings
in such a way as to foster the greatest overall quality (x quantity)
of life?

> I guess one major purpose would be to defend and define rights
> and assure they are not violated for purely utilitarian considerations.


I see rights as a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

> The interests of the weaker can only be given consideration by
> appealing to ethics, I think.


Yes.

> Probably this is why Dutch refuses
> to see killing of animals in food production as a moral issue at
> all. It's a lot easier to dismiss the question entirely than to
> try to grapple with the complexities of ethical trade-offs in the
> real world.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> Some do disagree, but the consensus is quite strong
> >>that some things cannot ethically be done to rights-bearing
> >>beings no matter the benefit to others. That is, in effect,
> >>the very definition of a right.


  #189 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Karen Winter lied:

> Dave wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied:

>
>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>
>>>>> However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
>>>>> always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
>>>>> same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
>>>>> involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
>>>>> diet would involve at least some animal deaths.

>
>
>>>> The ideal omnivore diet in this context would be a scavenger-gatherer
>>>> diet. There is no reason why this need cause any more deaths than
>>>> a pure gatherer diet.

>
>
>>> That is completely true. I can see no ethical problem with a diet
>>> including scavenged meat, gathered unfertilized eggs, and so on.

>
>
>> But technically this is still an omnivore diet.

>
>
> Yes, true. I am more concerned with the spirit than the letter
> here.


In other words, lip service - empty symbolism.
  #190 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Dave wrote:

> Glorfindel wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>>Because I do accept the idea of animal rights, I would not
>>>>generally agree that the rights of individual animals can be
>>>>sacrificed in a purely utilitarian calculation.


>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase my question:
>>>What if hunting and ranching involved fewer violations of animal
>>>rights than the non-animal foods that represent the real world
>>>alternative?


>>Then we have to find other real world alternatives.


>>This is a hard ethical limit for me.


> Ok. How does an ordinary Joe with no direct control over his
> food supply ensure that his diet is not responsible for any
> animal rights violations?


Probably not possible in the real world. In fact, it is
virtually impossible for anyone in the real world in our
Western industrialized civilization to live without
being responsible for *some* violation of animal rights, at
least indirectly. Human civilization is built on use of
animals, displacement of animals, collateral deaths of animals
in the production of goods and services. The same is true
of human rights. Hardly a week goes by that an article does
not come out about horrible conditions among the workers in
China who produce the products for Wal-Mart and Target, or
the child slaves who pick cocoa beans, or sweatshop labor
among undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles, and so on.
In the real world, all people have to work to reduce their
negative impact on others, direct and indirect, as far as
reasonably practical. It will never be perfect, for human
or animal rights, but we can try to do our best to avoid the
worst choices. Vegetarianism/veganism I see as one of the
better choices.


>>I don't see how we can consider
>>animal *rights* _per se_ without applying the same basic criterion
>>we apply to human rights: a genuine right cannot justly be violated
>>no matter what benefit results for others on a utilitarian basis. To
>>do that is to deny the concept of rights.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


> Actually I am open to the concept of rights but only if
> they serve utilitarian purposes.


That is not a concept of rights I am comfortable with,
but it is probably the closest one can come using a
purely utilitarian calculation.

> The torturing of terrorist
> suspects might serve as an example here. If a terrorist
> attack can be prevented by extracting information by
> torture than the torture can clearly be justified on utilitarian
> grounds. The problem is that once torture is sanctioned
> it is liable to gradually become more and more routine.
> The argument that a society with some moral boundaries
> or "rights" would be a better society in which to live than
> a society that used utilitarian judgements on a case by
> case basis is plausible. I'm not sure it is correct but it is
> certainly plausible. This line of reasoning is also relevant
> to the issue of animal experiments among other things.


>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>Then we're back to predation is not necessarily harmful
>>>within the context of the bigger picture.


>>Yes, I agree, in terms of the system as a whole. Unless
>>we can control fertility of wild animals, it is
>>necessary. But, as above, I believe it is *unethical*
>>when carried out by moral agents (human).

>
>>That's where the theological argument comes in. I agree
>>with C.S. Lewis and Linzey that a creation where death
>>and predation are necessary for the system to function
>>properly is a basically flawed (evil/sinful/imperfect)
>>system, and so it could not be the Creation as God intended
>>or intends it. It must be the result of the corruption
>>inherent in the whole of Creation as it now exists.
>>This is only an important consideration for Christian
>>or other religious people.


> I probably shouldn't get involved in theological debates
> because I am grossly ignorant of the subject but is it
> not a basic tenet of Christian Theology that God is
> all powerful? By definition an all powerful God can not
> make a mistake and the nature of Creation MUST be
> exactly as God intended.


You are not the first person to express this idea -- it's
one of the classic arguments against the goodness of God, or
even God's existence. While some human pain can be seen as
punishment or teaching, animal pain and pain in innocent
humans are difficult to square with an all-good, all-powerful
God.

One response which makes sense to me is the idea that God
is love, and love requires more than one being for its
expression. The Christian idea of the Trinity involves the
idea that the three Persons within the unity of God allows
God to express love perfectly within His own Being. He
created a universe outside Himself so that He might love it,
conscious beings within it might love Him, and all might
glorify Him.

God might eliminate all pain and sin by making all created
beings unable to act sinfully, and all nature to be unable to
harm those within it. But in doing so, He would eliminate all
freedom for created beings, make us all respond like rocks
falling under the influence of gravity. In order for humans
and other created beings to act freely and respond to God's
love, nature must be concrete and universal -- a rock must act
the same whether someone is using it as a shelter or using it
to bash in another being's head. And in order for beings,
especially humans and (if one believes in them) angels, to
respond to the love of God and other beings, to be moral
beings *at all*, they must have free will to act. That means
they must have, be allowed, the ability and freedom to act
sinfully, harmfully, as well as morally, in good ways. Some
beings will use this freedom in wrong and harmful ways.
According to Christian belief, Satan has already done so, and
Linzey and C.S. Lewis suggest Satan has corrupted created
nature by introducing predation and animal pain even before
humans existed. Humans also create(d) pain, suffering, injustice
through their own free-will sinful acts. But that free will
also allows them to love God and other beings (including
animals) and act morally toward them. Without freedom, good
and evil cannot exist, there can be no good moral action.

The theological idea is that the whole of creation will eventually
be redeemed and made perfect. In the present created order, Jesus in
His incarnation took on our nature, became a part of the suffering of
all created beings, sacrificed Himself for all created beings, and
will eventually redeem all suffering. Linzey says that our human
role as stewards of God's creation requires us to follow Jesus's
example and live as the "servant species" working with God, Christ,
and the Holy Spirit in creation to relieve suffering, bring about
justice and "hasten the Kingdom" and the redemption of the world.


Let me break this up by responding to the rest of your post elsewhere.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



  #191 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma. Part II


To continue:

Dave wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>>You can go with a purely
>>>>utilitarian ethic. That can present problems of its own,
>>>>however. Singer's support for infanticide has been
>>>>criticized on that basis.


>>>To me it is not good enough to say Singer supports infanticide
>>>therefore there must be something wrong with his
>>>utilitarian ethic.


>>I agree. Given his premises, his conclusion is quite reasonable.


> I wouldn't go so far as to say I agree with his premises but I
> certainly
> don't find any of them unreasonable. Do you?


No. I don't agree with him on all his arguments, but none
of them seem unreasonable _per se_.

>>>A better approach would be to consider his
>>>reasoning and either come up with a counter argument or
>>>revise your assumption that infanticide is never justified.


>>I could see situations in which infanticide ( or euthanasia )
>>of severely damaged new-borns might be justified on both a
>>utilitarian and a rights basis, using the same argument Regan
>>uses in _The Case For Animal Rights_ to apply to euthanasia
>>of non-humans on a rights basis.


I probably should note that the major difference between Singer's
utilitarian approach to euthanasia and a rights-based approach
like Regan's is that Singer says the decision should be based
on which choice increases the total sum of happiness in the
whole system. That includes the idea that a new, healthy baby can
"replace" the severely disabled baby and increase the happiness
of the parents, the new baby, and society as a whole. A rights
based approach like Regan's concept of "preference-respecting
euthanasia" says that the only being whose welfare/rights matters
is the individual human or animal to be euthanized. Those who
can make their preference known (as in assisted suicide) should
have their preference respected. Those who can't (as babies and
non-human animals) should have the decision made on the basis of
what is in *their* best interests as far as we can determine their
preference to be -- that is, what their own choice would be if
they could express it. Euthanasia of such beings in acute,
untreatable suffering, which will continue as long as they are
conscious, can be seen as a kind of assisted suicide for them.
To be just and recognize their rights, euthanasia cannot be based
on our own utilitarian considerations ( for example, how difficult
it is for us to care for them, or how expensive the treatment
required, or how much it bothers *us* to watch them suffer, or
how nice it would be for us to have a new, healthy pet) but on
the basis of what value their continued life has *for them*.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>I am in favor of the option of assisted suicide for those who
>>want it also.


> I wholeheartedly agree on both counts.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


> How do you feel about conservation charities that sometime use
> mass culls as an attempt to repair ecosystems that have become
> unbalanced somehow, for example as a result of the introduction
> of a non-native species or sudden environmental changes?


Very, very conflicted, I must say. If it is a matter of massive
overpopulation in a devastated area, and the animals cannot be
removed to another habitat, and no appropriate predator or other
factor can be introduced, a cull might be seen as a form of
"preference-respecting euthanasia" as above, considering the
value of his life to each of the animals involved.

The first example I find much more problematical. I see a sound
native ecosystem as very important, and contribute to several
wilderness organizations. I would wish that the original ecological
balance of plants, animals, and other elements like wetlands, rivers,
clean air, and so on, could be restored in as many areas as
possible. I'd like to see species reintroduced in their former
habitats whenever possible. From a rights perspective, however,
it does not matter if an individual animal belongs to a "native"
species or not -- it still has an inherent value as an individual
which must be respected. It's wrong to kill a feral burro because
she isn't a desert bighorn, or a pigeon because he isn't a bluebird,
or even a feral cat because she preys on native birds or animals in
an area. What I'd like is for wilderness supporters to avoid mass
culls and work on methods of decreasing the fertility of non-native
species. Eggs of non-native bird species (e.g. pigeons) can be removed
and destroyed, contraceptives can be introduced in feed or baits,
and so on. Animals can even be trapped, spayed/neutered and released,
as is done with feral cat colonies in many places. Dominant animals
can be nurtured rather than culled, so as to prevent sub-dominant
animals from replacing them and breeding. There are a lot of non-lethal
options to be explored before resorting to culling.

>>>Then the LHP indicates scavenged/gathered products as the first
>>>preference. If it is not practical to meet your nutritional needs that
>>>way
>>>then the next best thing would be local organic plant foods harvested,
>>>packaged processed and stored in an animal friendly manner.
>>>If it is still not practical to meet your nutritional needs then it is
>>>at least plausible that eating the flesh of hunted wild animals or
>>>handlined fish is in accordance with the LHP or the
>>>least violations of animal rights principle.


>>Least harm, I would agree. Animal rights, I would not, for reasons given
>>above.


> I'm still not entirely sure what reasons. You have conceded that
> lethal methods of pest control are in violation of animal rights. Is it
> implausible to you that the number of rodents deliberately posioned per
> calorie of grain is greater than the number of deer deliberately shot
> per calorie of venison?


No, it is entirely plausible and even probable. However, from a rights
perspective, the violation of the deer's rights as an individual cannot
be justified on the basis of the violation of the mice's rights as
individuals. In effect, "two wrongs don't make a right." The only
just course of action would be to respect the rights of *both* by
trying to avoid poisoning the mice in production of vegetables and
using some other method of protecting the crop (for example, better
fences, or more secure storage buildings).

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>Essentially yes, I think a system of ethics that does not attempt
>>>>>to justify itself on utilitarian grounds is arbitrary.


>>>>I think utilitarian results have to be part of the calculation,
>>>>but only part.


>>>Then what is the purpose of ethics in your view?


>>Well, that's a major question, isn't it? I'm not sure I can give
>>a simple answer off the top of my head. You first: what do *you*
>>see as the purpose of ethics?


> How about to balance the conflicting interests of sentient beings
> in such a way as to foster the greatest overall quality (x quantity)
> of life?


I would see that as a good goal, as long as the inherent value of
each individual within the whole is respected first, as in the
example of the mice above, or the euthanized animal above. I would
see considering *only* the overall sum of welfare as a potential
slippery slope which can lead to very bad consequences for the
minority victims.

>>I guess one major purpose would be to defend and define rights
>>and assure they are not violated for purely utilitarian considerations.


> I see rights as a means to an end, not an end in themselves.


I see them as a means of defining how the inherent value of each
individual should justly be respected, independent of utilitarian
benefit to others.

>>The interests of the weaker can only be given consideration by
>>appealing to ethics, I think.


> Yes.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #192 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


Glorfindel wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Glorfindel wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>>Because I do accept the idea of animal rights, I would not
> >>>>generally agree that the rights of individual animals can be
> >>>>sacrificed in a purely utilitarian calculation.

>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase my question:
> >>>What if hunting and ranching involved fewer violations of animal
> >>>rights than the non-animal foods that represent the real world
> >>>alternative?

>
> >>Then we have to find other real world alternatives.

>
> >>This is a hard ethical limit for me.

>
> > Ok. How does an ordinary Joe with no direct control over his
> > food supply ensure that his diet is not responsible for any
> > animal rights violations?

>
> Probably not possible in the real world.


OK. How does an ordinary Joe with no direct control over his food
supply ensure that his diet is not responsible for more animal rights
violations than it would be if he replaced some of it with flesh from
large wild animals shot in their natural habitat? I realise that the
question may be purely academic for many people.

> In fact, it is
> virtually impossible for anyone in the real world in our
> Western industrialized civilization to live without
> being responsible for *some* violation of animal rights, at
> least indirectly. Human civilization is built on use of
> animals, displacement of animals, collateral deaths of animals
> in the production of goods and services. The same is true
> of human rights. Hardly a week goes by that an article does
> not come out about horrible conditions among the workers in
> China who produce the products for Wal-Mart and Target, or
> the child slaves who pick cocoa beans, or sweatshop labor
> among undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles, and so on.


That is a good point to which the people who try to make the
connection between veganism and hypocrisy don't appear to
have a satisfactory answer.

> In the real world, all people have to work to reduce their
> negative impact on others, direct and indirect, as far as
> reasonably practical. It will never be perfect, for human
> or animal rights, but we can try to do our best to avoid the
> worst choices. Vegetarianism/veganism I see as one of the
> better choices.


I agree with that vegan diets and to a lesser extent vegetarian diets
are better as a general rule but there are exceptions.

> >>I don't see how we can consider
> >>animal *rights* _per se_ without applying the same basic criterion
> >>we apply to human rights: a genuine right cannot justly be violated
> >>no matter what benefit results for others on a utilitarian basis. To
> >>do that is to deny the concept of rights.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> > Actually I am open to the concept of rights but only if
> > they serve utilitarian purposes.

>
> That is not a concept of rights I am comfortable with,
> but it is probably the closest one can come using a
> purely utilitarian calculation.
>
> > The torturing of terrorist
> > suspects might serve as an example here. If a terrorist
> > attack can be prevented by extracting information by
> > torture than the torture can clearly be justified on utilitarian
> > grounds. The problem is that once torture is sanctioned
> > it is liable to gradually become more and more routine.
> > The argument that a society with some moral boundaries
> > or "rights" would be a better society in which to live than
> > a society that used utilitarian judgements on a case by
> > case basis is plausible. I'm not sure it is correct but it is
> > certainly plausible. This line of reasoning is also relevant
> > to the issue of animal experiments among other things.

>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>Then we're back to predation is not necessarily harmful
> >>>within the context of the bigger picture.

>
> >>Yes, I agree, in terms of the system as a whole. Unless
> >>we can control fertility of wild animals, it is
> >>necessary. But, as above, I believe it is *unethical*
> >>when carried out by moral agents (human).

> >
> >>That's where the theological argument comes in. I agree
> >>with C.S. Lewis and Linzey that a creation where death
> >>and predation are necessary for the system to function
> >>properly is a basically flawed (evil/sinful/imperfect)
> >>system, and so it could not be the Creation as God intended
> >>or intends it. It must be the result of the corruption
> >>inherent in the whole of Creation as it now exists.
> >>This is only an important consideration for Christian
> >>or other religious people.

>
> > I probably shouldn't get involved in theological debates
> > because I am grossly ignorant of the subject but is it
> > not a basic tenet of Christian Theology that God is
> > all powerful? By definition an all powerful God can not
> > make a mistake and the nature of Creation MUST be
> > exactly as God intended.

>
> You are not the first person to express this idea


I'm aware that I'm not being terribly original.

>-- it's one of the classic arguments against the goodness of God, or
> even God's existence.


> While some human pain can be seen as
> punishment or teaching, animal pain and pain in innocent
> humans are difficult to square with an all-good, all-powerful
> God.
>
> One response which makes sense to me is the idea that God
> is love, and love requires more than one being for its
> expression. The Christian idea of the Trinity involves the
> idea that the three Persons within the unity of God allows
> God to express love perfectly within His own Being. He
> created a universe outside Himself so that He might love it,
> conscious beings within it might love Him, and all might
> glorify Him.
>
> God might eliminate all pain and sin by making all created
> beings unable to act sinfully, and all nature to be unable to
> harm those within it. But in doing so, He would eliminate all
> freedom for created beings,


Fair enough but why not create beings with no desire to sin?

> make us all respond like rocks
> falling under the influence of gravity. In order for humans
> and other created beings to act freely and respond to God's
> love, nature must be concrete and universal -- a rock must act
> the same whether someone is using it as a shelter or using it
> to bash in another being's head. And in order for beings,
> especially humans and (if one believes in them) angels, to
> respond to the love of God and other beings, to be moral
> beings *at all*, they must have free will to act.


Again why can a being need some evil in order to have free will?

> That means
> they must have, be allowed, the ability and freedom to act
> sinfully, harmfully, as well as morally, in good ways.


Freedom to act sinfully is not the same as willingness to
act sinfully.

> Some
> beings will use this freedom in wrong and harmful ways.
> According to Christian belief, Satan has already done so, and
> Linzey and C.S. Lewis suggest Satan has corrupted created
> nature by introducing predation and animal pain even before
> humans existed.


I suppose if Satan is infinitely powerful and infintely evil then
it is possible for evil to be compatible with an infinitely good
infinitely powerful god.

> Humans also create(d) pain, suffering, injustice
> through their own free-will sinful acts. But that free will
> also allows them to love God and other beings (including
> animals) and act morally toward them. Without freedom, good
> and evil cannot exist, there can be no good moral action.


They say I don't belong.. I must stay below, alone..
Because of my beliefs, I'm supposed to stay where evil is sown..
But what is evil anyway? Is there reason to the rhyme..?
Without Evil, there can be no good..
So it must be good to be evil sometimes..

> The theological idea is that the whole of creation will eventually
> be redeemed and made perfect. In the present created order, Jesus in
> His incarnation took on our nature, became a part of the suffering of
> all created beings, sacrificed Himself for all created beings, and
> will eventually redeem all suffering. Linzey says that our human
> role as stewards of God's creation requires us to follow Jesus's
> example and live as the "servant species" working with God, Christ,
> and the Holy Spirit in creation to relieve suffering, bring about
> justice and "hasten the Kingdom" and the redemption of the world.


How does following Jesus's example require us not to eat meat?

> Let me break this up by responding to the rest of your post elsewhere.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


  #193 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Part II


Glorfindel wrote:
> To continue:
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>>You can go with a purely
> >>>>utilitarian ethic. That can present problems of its own,
> >>>>however. Singer's support for infanticide has been
> >>>>criticized on that basis.

>
> >>>To me it is not good enough to say Singer supports infanticide
> >>>therefore there must be something wrong with his
> >>>utilitarian ethic.

>
> >>I agree. Given his premises, his conclusion is quite reasonable.

>
> > I wouldn't go so far as to say I agree with his premises but I
> > certainly
> > don't find any of them unreasonable. Do you?

>
> No. I don't agree with him on all his arguments, but none
> of them seem unreasonable _per se_.
>
> >>>A better approach would be to consider his
> >>>reasoning and either come up with a counter argument or
> >>>revise your assumption that infanticide is never justified.

>
> >>I could see situations in which infanticide ( or euthanasia )
> >>of severely damaged new-borns might be justified on both a
> >>utilitarian and a rights basis, using the same argument Regan
> >>uses in _The Case For Animal Rights_ to apply to euthanasia
> >>of non-humans on a rights basis.

>
> I probably should note that the major difference between Singer's
> utilitarian approach to euthanasia and a rights-based approach
> like Regan's is that Singer says the decision should be based
> on which choice increases the total sum of happiness in the
> whole system. That includes the idea that a new, healthy baby can
> "replace" the severely disabled baby and increase the happiness
> of the parents, the new baby, and society as a whole. A rights
> based approach like Regan's concept of "preference-respecting
> euthanasia" says that the only being whose welfare/rights matters
> is the individual human or animal to be euthanized. Those who
> can make their preference known (as in assisted suicide) should
> have their preference respected. Those who can't (as babies and
> non-human animals) should have the decision made on the basis of
> what is in *their* best interests as far as we can determine their
> preference to be -- that is, what their own choice would be if
> they could express it. Euthanasia of such beings in acute,
> untreatable suffering, which will continue as long as they are
> conscious, can be seen as a kind of assisted suicide for them.
> To be just and recognize their rights, euthanasia cannot be based
> on our own utilitarian considerations ( for example, how difficult
> it is for us to care for them, or how expensive the treatment
> required, or how much it bothers *us* to watch them suffer, or
> how nice it would be for us to have a new, healthy pet) but on
> the basis of what value their continued life has *for them*.


Thanks for that summation. I think Regan is wrong to trivialise
the financial and emotional and time costs to the parents.
If we accept Francoine's argument that we are obligated not to
violate the rights of others but not morally obligated to help
others then is it not better to painlessly euthanise the infant
than to wait for him/her to die of neglect?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>I am in favor of the option of assisted suicide for those who
> >>want it also.

>
> > I wholeheartedly agree on both counts.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> > How do you feel about conservation charities that sometime use
> > mass culls as an attempt to repair ecosystems that have become
> > unbalanced somehow, for example as a result of the introduction
> > of a non-native species or sudden environmental changes?

>
> Very, very conflicted, I must say. If it is a matter of massive
> overpopulation in a devastated area, and the animals cannot be
> removed to another habitat, and no appropriate predator or other
> factor can be introduced, a cull might be seen as a form of
> "preference-respecting euthanasia" as above, considering the
> value of his life to each of the animals involved.
>
> The first example I find much more problematical. I see a sound
> native ecosystem as very important, and contribute to several
> wilderness organizations. I would wish that the original ecological
> balance of plants, animals, and other elements like wetlands, rivers,
> clean air, and so on, could be restored in as many areas as
> possible. I'd like to see species reintroduced in their former
> habitats whenever possible. From a rights perspective, however,
> it does not matter if an individual animal belongs to a "native"
> species or not -- it still has an inherent value as an individual
> which must be respected. It's wrong to kill a feral burro because
> she isn't a desert bighorn, or a pigeon because he isn't a bluebird,
> or even a feral cat because she preys on native birds or animals in
> an area. What I'd like is for wilderness supporters to avoid mass
> culls and work on methods of decreasing the fertility of non-native
> species. Eggs of non-native bird species (e.g. pigeons) can be removed
> and destroyed, contraceptives can be introduced in feed or baits,
> and so on. Animals can even be trapped, spayed/neutered and released,
> as is done with feral cat colonies in many places. Dominant animals
> can be nurtured rather than culled, so as to prevent sub-dominant
> animals from replacing them and breeding. There are a lot of non-lethal
> options to be explored before resorting to culling.


OK.

> >>>Then the LHP indicates scavenged/gathered products as the first
> >>>preference. If it is not practical to meet your nutritional needs that
> >>>way
> >>>then the next best thing would be local organic plant foods harvested,
> >>>packaged processed and stored in an animal friendly manner.
> >>>If it is still not practical to meet your nutritional needs then it is
> >>>at least plausible that eating the flesh of hunted wild animals or
> >>>handlined fish is in accordance with the LHP or the
> >>>least violations of animal rights principle.

>
> >>Least harm, I would agree. Animal rights, I would not, for reasons given
> >>above.

>
> > I'm still not entirely sure what reasons. You have conceded that
> > lethal methods of pest control are in violation of animal rights. Is it
> > implausible to you that the number of rodents deliberately posioned per
> > calorie of grain is greater than the number of deer deliberately shot
> > per calorie of venison?

>
> No, it is entirely plausible and even probable. However, from a rights
> perspective, the violation of the deer's rights as an individual cannot
> be justified on the basis of the violation of the mice's rights as
> individuals. In effect, "two wrongs don't make a right."


But we are not talking about violating the rights of the deer and the
rights
of the mice. We are talking about violating the rights of the deer or
the rights of the mice.

> The only
> just course of action would be to respect the rights of *both* by
> trying to avoid poisoning the mice in production of vegetables and
> using some other method of protecting the crop (for example, better
> fences, or more secure storage buildings).


Indeed but how does that help Average Joe the consumer choose which
rights to endorse the violation of?
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>>>Essentially yes, I think a system of ethics that does not attempt
> >>>>>to justify itself on utilitarian grounds is arbitrary.

>
> >>>>I think utilitarian results have to be part of the calculation,
> >>>>but only part.

>
> >>>Then what is the purpose of ethics in your view?

>
> >>Well, that's a major question, isn't it? I'm not sure I can give
> >>a simple answer off the top of my head. You first: what do *you*
> >>see as the purpose of ethics?

>
> > How about to balance the conflicting interests of sentient beings
> > in such a way as to foster the greatest overall quality (x quantity)
> > of life?

>
> I would see that as a good goal, as long as the inherent value of
> each individual within the whole is respected first, as in the
> example of the mice above, or the euthanized animal above. I would
> see considering *only* the overall sum of welfare as a potential
> slippery slope which can lead to very bad consequences for the
> minority victims.


This is where the concept of rights comes in - as a means to an end.

> >>I guess one major purpose would be to defend and define rights
> >>and assure they are not violated for purely utilitarian considerations.

>
> > I see rights as a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

>
> I see them as a means of defining how the inherent value of each
> individual should justly be respected, independent of utilitarian
> benefit to others.


I guess that's where we have to agree to differ. I am interested in
the whole.

> >>The interests of the weaker can only be given consideration by
> >>appealing to ethics, I think.

>
> > Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


  #194 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.

Dave wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.


>>>Ok. How does an ordinary Joe with no direct control over his
>>>food supply ensure that his diet is not responsible for any
>>>animal rights violations?


Glorfindel wrote:

>>Probably not possible in the real world.


> OK. How does an ordinary Joe with no direct control over his food
> supply ensure that his diet is not responsible for more animal rights
> violations than it would be if he replaced some of it with flesh from
> large wild animals shot in their natural habitat? I realise that the
> question may be purely academic for many people.


It's academic for most people. It also ignores all the additional
animal deaths and rights violations which are involved in that
animal shot in his natural habitat, if the hunter does not also
live in that habitat. It's not just one hunted animal = one death.
It's all the collateral damage involved in the environmental impact
of the things required to get the hunter there and back. This
kind of calculation ends up being pretty much academic as well,
because the variables are so difficult to measure against each other.

The best alternative would be for a person with even a small area
where he can raise crops to grow as much food as possible --
anything from a couple of fruit trees and some tomato plants in his
backyard to a real vegetable garden, or participating in one of
the community gardens which are found in many progressive towns.
After that, buying from local farmers. In my town, there is a tour
of local organic farms every year, so that customers can see
for themselves the conditions under which the produce is grown,
and a co-op which buys the produce and distributes it to members in
the nearby towns. Beyond that, all one can do is research the
products one buys, and try to choose those with a lower environmental
impact.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>In the real world, all people have to work to reduce their
>>negative impact on others, direct and indirect, as far as
>>reasonably practical. It will never be perfect, for human
>>or animal rights, but we can try to do our best to avoid the
>>worst choices. Vegetarianism/veganism I see as one of the
>>better choices.


> I agree with that vegan diets and to a lesser extent vegetarian diets
> are better as a general rule but there are exceptions.


Yes, one can't make black-and-white statements about diet or other
aspects of lifestyle.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>While some human pain can be seen as
>>punishment or teaching, animal pain and pain in innocent
>>humans are difficult to square with an all-good, all-powerful
>>God.


>>One response which makes sense to me is the idea that God
>>is love, and love requires more than one being for its
>>expression. The Christian idea of the Trinity involves the
>>idea that the three Persons within the unity of God allows
>>God to express love perfectly within His own Being. He
>>created a universe outside Himself so that He might love it,
>>conscious beings within it might love Him, and all might
>>glorify Him.


>>God might eliminate all pain and sin by making all created
>>beings unable to act sinfully, and all nature to be unable to
>>harm those within it. But in doing so, He would eliminate all
>>freedom for created beings,


> Fair enough but why not create beings with no desire to sin?


Sin is defined as turning one's will away from God -- it does
not have to result in harm for any other being. It's an issue
of freedom again. For a being to say "yes" *freely* she must
be able to say "no" freely; to obey freely, one must be
capable of disobeying as well. To have a will which can turn
to God *freely* and love and obey Him freely, a person must
have the capacity to turn away freely as well. God does not,
we believe, want zombie automatons, but loving sons and
daughters.

Christianity has generally taught that humans had a bit of help
in becoming sinful -- they were tempted. Most modern Christians
see this as metaphorical, rather than a literal Adam and Eve.
My church teaches that original sin does not follow from the Fall
of Adam and Eve, but from this ability and tendency of humans to
act contrary to God's will.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


> Again why can a being need some evil in order to have free will?


He doesn't, but free will will usually involve some times when a being
will make wrong choices, just because we aren't perfect.

>>That means
>>they must have, be allowed, the ability and freedom to act
>>sinfully, harmfully, as well as morally, in good ways.


> Freedom to act sinfully is not the same as willingness to
> act sinfully.


No. In fact, many people, starting with St. Paul, have
complained that they don't want to act sinfully, but they
end up doing so anyway. It's part of being human.

>>Some
>>beings will use this freedom in wrong and harmful ways.
>>According to Christian belief, Satan has already done so, and
>>Linzey and C.S. Lewis suggest Satan has corrupted created
>>nature by introducing predation and animal pain even before
>>humans existed.


> I suppose if Satan is infinitely powerful and infintely evil then
> it is possible for evil to be compatible with an infinitely good
> infinitely powerful god.


No, that's a Gnostic or Zoroastrian belief. Christianity teaches
that Satan is also a created being and less powerful than God,
but more powerful and cunning than humans (or animals). He doesn't
really have to be blamed for human sin; we do it on our own.

>>Humans also create(d) pain, suffering, injustice
>>through their own free-will sinful acts. But that free will
>>also allows them to love God and other beings (including
>>animals) and act morally toward them. Without freedom, good
>>and evil cannot exist, there can be no good moral action.


> They say I don't belong.. I must stay below, alone..
> Because of my beliefs, I'm supposed to stay where evil is sown..
> But what is evil anyway? Is there reason to the rhyme..?
> Without Evil, there can be no good..
> So it must be good to be evil sometimes..


It's sort of like light and dark: without dark, we wouldn't understand
light. There can be good without evil, but there cannot be
good done *freely*, good with moral value, unless there is
the capacity to do otherwise. This is similar to the secular
idea that moral patients ( in Regan's system ) cannot violate
rights, because they cannot act either morally or immorally.
Many people have said animals are sinless, or innocent, in
this way, but it does not mean they cannot do harm to others.
They are just not morally responsible for what they do. In
the same way, a severely retarded person or a young child can
do harm or even kill another person, but we don't hold them
morally responsible, or try them as adults in our legal system.

A similar thought to yours is an old medieval poem:

"Adam lay yboundan, bounden in a bond
Four thousand yeare thought he not too long.
And all was for an apple, and apple that he took,
As clerkes finden written in here booke.
Never had that apple, apple taken been,
Never had Our Lady been Heaven's Queen.
Blessed be that apple, apple take was.
Therefore we maun sing, "Deo gratias!"

The idea is that God always brings good out of evil, and turns
all sin into redemption. The sin isn't good in itself, but
God will use it to bring about a good result.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


> How does following Jesus's example require us not to eat meat?


There is a fairly elaborate discussion of this in Andrew Linzey's
books, and for a more complete analysis, I'd suggest reading
at least _Christianity and the Rights of Animals_ and _Animal
Theology_.

Animals are more like us than the rest of Creation -- something
which is obvious to everyone who has had any experience with them.
They have consciousness and ability to feel pleasure and pain,
and what we do to them matters more to them, than what we do to
other created things matters to them. This is reflected in the
Biblical story of the Flood, where the Covenant between God and
humanity afterward includes animals as well, and animals are said
to share the same basic nature -- the same "breath" -- as humans,
unlike plants or inanimate objects. The story in Genesis states
that in our uncorrupted state, in Eden, humans were created to be
vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30). This is the ideal. In the same
way, there was no predation in the paradicical state, no violence.
We should remember that the animals are created by God, and thus
*belong* to God -- anything we do to them, we are doing, in essence,
to Someone Else's property, and only under His sufferance. We have
to answer to God for the life of every one of His creatures that
we take, and had better have a really good reason. "It tastes good"
is not a good enough reason to kill. What Linzey says is that:
"When we have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we
should live otherwise." We almost never *have* to use animals in the
way they are used in commercial farming today, or kill them as they are
killed in factory farms. We have other options. Even so, Linzey adds,
"The truth is that even if we adopt a vegetarian or vegan life-style, we
are still not free of killing, either directly or indirectly...it is
only *one* very small step toward the vision of a peaceful world."

If we take the example of Jesus, Linzey notes that, "...there is a
powerful strand in his ethical teaching about the primacy of mercy
to the weak, the powerless and the oppressed...Who is more deserving
of this special compassion than the animals so commonly exploited
in our world today?" In other words, the example of Jesus is
showing mercy to those in our power, in "lowering" ourselves to
serve those who are helpless, suffering, and in need, in sacrificing
ourselves for those who cannot help themselves and are oppressed
and hurt and killed. The animals, even more than humans, are "the
least of these" whom we are to feed and offer shelter and comfort,
for as we do it to "the least of these," Jesus says, we do it to
Him. The fact that we *have* such near-absolute power over other
conscious, feeling beings capable of suffering -- as God does over
us -- is the very reason we should do our best to use it wisely and
compassionately, and to try to reduce suffering and harm whenever
possible, rather than add to it.

I think that means we should not involve ourselves in modern
commercial meat/animal products production, especially factory
farming, and if we do not *have* to kill animals to live, we should,
as Linzey says, live otherwise. In general, that would mean
being vegetarian or vegan, except in the case of things like
gathered eggs, milk shared fairly with the mother animal's young, and
scavenged meat. We should care for other animals as we would have
God care for us, and as He has shown He does care for us.



  #195 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma. Part II

Dave wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote:


>>To continue:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>To be just and recognize their rights, euthanasia cannot be based
>>on our own utilitarian considerations ( for example, how difficult
>>it is for us to care for them, or how expensive the treatment
>>required, or how much it bothers *us* to watch them suffer, or
>>how nice it would be for us to have a new, healthy pet) but on
>>the basis of what value their continued life has *for them*.


> Thanks for that summation. I think Regan is wrong to trivialise
> the financial and emotional and time costs to the parents.


I don't think he trivializes those things, but he ( and I )
believe they can't be used as the primary reasons for
euthanasia, unless the subject consents.

Let's take another example. Suppose we have a sick old woman
who wants to spare her family financial and emotional
suffering. She asks her family to help her with assisted
suicide, and they do. In that case, she is taking the costs
to others into consideration, and suicide under those conditions
would respect her right to choose what she wants done with her
own body, and be based on a utilitarian analysis of the total
system as well.

OTOH, take the same sick old woman who does *not* want to die.
If her family kills her to spare themselves suffering (or for her
insurance) it would be considered murder and a violation of
her rights.


> If we accept Francoine's argument that we are obligated not to
> violate the rights of others but not morally obligated to help
> others then is it not better to painlessly euthanise the infant
> than to wait for him/her to die of neglect?


Oh, yes. I think so.

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>I'm still not entirely sure what reasons. You have conceded that
>>>lethal methods of pest control are in violation of animal rights. Is it
>>>implausible to you that the number of rodents deliberately posioned per
>>>calorie of grain is greater than the number of deer deliberately shot
>>>per calorie of venison?


>>No, it is entirely plausible and even probable. However, from a rights
>>perspective, the violation of the deer's rights as an individual cannot
>>be justified on the basis of the violation of the mice's rights as
>>individuals. In effect, "two wrongs don't make a right."


> But we are not talking about violating the rights of the deer and the
> rights
> of the mice. We are talking about violating the rights of the deer or
> the rights of the mice.


Either one is wrong from a rights perspective. While one may have to
choose between two wrongs, it is better to try to avoid either one by
looking for least-harmful sources of vegetables. And, of course,
humans are not pure carnivores. Even if a hunter reduces the amount
of vegetable food in his diet, he will still eat some. Unless it is
gathered plants, he will then violate the rights of both groups
anyway.

>>The only
>>just course of action would be to respect the rights of *both* by
>>trying to avoid poisoning the mice in production of vegetables and
>>using some other method of protecting the crop (for example, better
>>fences, or more secure storage buildings).


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>>Well, that's a major question, isn't it? I'm not sure I can give
>>>>a simple answer off the top of my head. You first: what do *you*
>>>>see as the purpose of ethics?


>>>How about to balance the conflicting interests of sentient beings
>>>in such a way as to foster the greatest overall quality (x quantity)
>>>of life?


>>I would see that as a good goal, as long as the inherent value of
>>each individual within the whole is respected first, as in the
>>example of the mice above, or the euthanized animal above. I would
>>see considering *only* the overall sum of welfare as a potential
>>slippery slope which can lead to very bad consequences for the
>>minority victims.


> This is where the concept of rights comes in - as a means to an end.


>>>>I guess one major purpose would be to defend and define rights
>>>>and assure they are not violated for purely utilitarian considerations.


>>>I see rights as a means to an end, not an end in themselves.


>>I see them as a means of defining how the inherent value of each
>>individual should justly be respected, independent of utilitarian
>>benefit to others.


> I guess that's where we have to agree to differ. I am interested in
> the whole.


I understand. We can agree to disagree here.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



  #196 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


Glorfindel wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

>
> >>>Ok. How does an ordinary Joe with no direct control over his
> >>>food supply ensure that his diet is not responsible for any
> >>>animal rights violations?

>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>Probably not possible in the real world.

>
> > OK. How does an ordinary Joe with no direct control over his food
> > supply ensure that his diet is not responsible for more animal rights
> > violations than it would be if he replaced some of it with flesh from
> > large wild animals shot in their natural habitat? I realise that the
> > question may be purely academic for many people.

>
> It's academic for most people. It also ignores all the additional
> animal deaths and rights violations which are involved in that
> animal shot in his natural habitat, if the hunter does not also
> live in that habitat. It's not just one hunted animal = one death.
> It's all the collateral damage involved in the environmental impact
> of the things required to get the hunter there and back.


These fatcors are not ignored any more than the environmental
impact of getting beans from the farm to your plate.

> This
> kind of calculation ends up being pretty much academic as well,
> because the variables are so difficult to measure against each other.


It is almost impossible to measure. The best we can do is make
an educated guess.

> The best alternative would be for a person with even a small area
> where he can raise crops to grow as much food as possible --
> anything from a couple of fruit trees and some tomato plants in his
> backyard to a real vegetable garden, or participating in one of
> the community gardens which are found in many progressive towns.
> After that, buying from local farmers. In my town, there is a tour
> of local organic farms every year, so that customers can see
> for themselves the conditions under which the produce is grown,
> and a co-op which buys the produce and distributes it to members in
> the nearby towns. Beyond that, all one can do is research the
> products one buys, and try to choose those with a lower environmental
> impact.


No dispute with any of that.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>In the real world, all people have to work to reduce their
> >>negative impact on others, direct and indirect, as far as
> >>reasonably practical. It will never be perfect, for human
> >>or animal rights, but we can try to do our best to avoid the
> >>worst choices. Vegetarianism/veganism I see as one of the
> >>better choices.

>
> > I agree with that vegan diets and to a lesser extent vegetarian diets
> > are better as a general rule but there are exceptions.

>
> Yes, one can't make black-and-white statements about diet or other
> aspects of lifestyle.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>While some human pain can be seen as
> >>punishment or teaching, animal pain and pain in innocent
> >>humans are difficult to square with an all-good, all-powerful
> >>God.

>
> >>One response which makes sense to me is the idea that God
> >>is love, and love requires more than one being for its
> >>expression. The Christian idea of the Trinity involves the
> >>idea that the three Persons within the unity of God allows
> >>God to express love perfectly within His own Being. He
> >>created a universe outside Himself so that He might love it,
> >>conscious beings within it might love Him, and all might
> >>glorify Him.

>
> >>God might eliminate all pain and sin by making all created
> >>beings unable to act sinfully, and all nature to be unable to
> >>harm those within it. But in doing so, He would eliminate all
> >>freedom for created beings,

>
> > Fair enough but why not create beings with no desire to sin?

>
> Sin is defined as turning one's will away from God -- it does
> not have to result in harm for any other being. It's an issue
> of freedom again. For a being to say "yes" *freely* she must
> be able to say "no" freely; to obey freely, one must be
> capable of disobeying as well. To have a will which can turn
> to God *freely* and love and obey Him freely, a person must
> have the capacity to turn away freely as well. God does not,
> we believe, want zombie automatons, but loving sons and
> daughters.
>
> Christianity has generally taught that humans had a bit of help
> in becoming sinful -- they were tempted. Most modern Christians
> see this as metaphorical, rather than a literal Adam and Eve.
> My church teaches that original sin does not follow from the Fall
> of Adam and Eve, but from this ability and tendency of humans to
> act contrary to God's will.


I don't feel that really answers the question. I can accept that God
wanted
to give us the freedom to commit sin but that still doesn't explain why
we
should have the desire to sin.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> > Again why can a being need some evil in order to have free will?

>
> He doesn't, but free will will usually involve some times when a being
> will make wrong choices, just because we aren't perfect.


And if God is all powerful and we are not perfect the only logical
explaination is that God doesn't want us to be perfect.
>
> >>That means
> >>they must have, be allowed, the ability and freedom to act
> >>sinfully, harmfully, as well as morally, in good ways.

>
> > Freedom to act sinfully is not the same as willingness to
> > act sinfully.

>
> No. In fact, many people, starting with St. Paul, have
> complained that they don't want to act sinfully, but they
> end up doing so anyway. It's part of being human.
>
> >>Some
> >>beings will use this freedom in wrong and harmful ways.
> >>According to Christian belief, Satan has already done so, and
> >>Linzey and C.S. Lewis suggest Satan has corrupted created
> >>nature by introducing predation and animal pain even before
> >>humans existed.

>
> > I suppose if Satan is infinitely powerful and infintely evil then
> > it is possible for evil to be compatible with an infinitely good
> > infinitely powerful god.

>
> No, that's a Gnostic or Zoroastrian belief. Christianity teaches
> that Satan is also a created being and less powerful than God,
> but more powerful and cunning than humans (or animals). He doesn't
> really have to be blamed for human sin; we do it on our own.


OK. Thanks for the Theology lesson. BTW it is mathematically
possible for the Devil to be infinitely poweful *and* less powerful
than God.

> >>Humans also create(d) pain, suffering, injustice
> >>through their own free-will sinful acts. But that free will
> >>also allows them to love God and other beings (including
> >>animals) and act morally toward them. Without freedom, good
> >>and evil cannot exist, there can be no good moral action.

>
> > They say I don't belong.. I must stay below, alone..
> > Because of my beliefs, I'm supposed to stay where evil is sown..
> > But what is evil anyway? Is there reason to the rhyme..?
> > Without Evil, there can be no good..
> > So it must be good to be evil sometimes..

>
> It's sort of like light and dark: without dark, we wouldn't understand
> light. There can be good without evil, but there cannot be
> good done *freely*, good with moral value, unless there is
> the capacity to do otherwise.



That can explain away a small amount of sin and suffering but not
realisitically on the scale we witness in the real world.

> This is similar to the secular
> idea that moral patients ( in Regan's system ) cannot violate
> rights, because they cannot act either morally or immorally.
> Many people have said animals are sinless, or innocent, in
> this way, but it does not mean they cannot do harm to others.
> They are just not morally responsible for what they do. In
> the same way, a severely retarded person or a young child can
> do harm or even kill another person, but we don't hold them
> morally responsible, or try them as adults in our legal system.
>
> A similar thought to yours


I stole the thought from the South Park movie.

> is an old medieval poem:
>
> "Adam lay yboundan, bounden in a bond
> Four thousand yeare thought he not too long.
> And all was for an apple, and apple that he took,
> As clerkes finden written in here booke.
> Never had that apple, apple taken been,
> Never had Our Lady been Heaven's Queen.
> Blessed be that apple, apple take was.
> Therefore we maun sing, "Deo gratias!"
>
> The idea is that God always brings good out of evil, and turns
> all sin into redemption. The sin isn't good in itself, but
> God will use it to bring about a good result.


It's still very hard to believe that sin is necessary on the scale
of reality.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> > How does following Jesus's example require us not to eat meat?

>
> There is a fairly elaborate discussion of this in Andrew Linzey's
> books, and for a more complete analysis, I'd suggest reading
> at least _Christianity and the Rights of Animals_ and _Animal
> Theology_.
>
> Animals are more like us than the rest of Creation -- something
> which is obvious to everyone who has had any experience with them.
> They have consciousness and ability to feel pleasure and pain,
> and what we do to them matters more to them, than what we do to
> other created things matters to them. This is reflected in the
> Biblical story of the Flood, where the Covenant between God and
> humanity afterward includes animals as well, and animals are said
> to share the same basic nature -- the same "breath" -- as humans,
> unlike plants or inanimate objects. The story in Genesis states
> that in our uncorrupted state, in Eden, humans were created to be
> vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30). This is the ideal. In the same
> way, there was no predation in the paradicical state, no violence.


If the "paradicial" state is superior to our current state why did
God abandon it? If it wasn't why did he create it in the first place?

> We should remember that the animals are created by God, and thus
> *belong* to God -- anything we do to them, we are doing, in essence,
> to Someone Else's property, and only under His sufferance.


The same can be said of plants, mountains, rivers, everything.

> We have
> to answer to God for the life of every one of His creatures that
> we take, and had better have a really good reason. "It tastes good"
> is not a good enough reason to kill. What Linzey says is that:
> "When we have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we
> should live otherwise." We almost never *have* to use animals in the
> way they are used in commercial farming today, or kill them as they are
> killed in factory farms. We have other options. Even so, Linzey adds,
> "The truth is that even if we adopt a vegetarian or vegan life-style, we
> are still not free of killing, either directly or indirectly...it is
> only *one* very small step toward the vision of a peaceful world."
>
> If we take the example of Jesus, Linzey notes that, "...there is a
> powerful strand in his ethical teaching about the primacy of mercy
> to the weak, the powerless and the oppressed...Who is more deserving
> of this special compassion than the animals so commonly exploited
> in our world today?" In other words, the example of Jesus is
> showing mercy to those in our power, in "lowering" ourselves to
> serve those who are helpless, suffering, and in need, in sacrificing
> ourselves for those who cannot help themselves and are oppressed
> and hurt and killed. The animals, even more than humans, are "the
> least of these" whom we are to feed and offer shelter and comfort,
> for as we do it to "the least of these," Jesus says, we do it to
> Him. The fact that we *have* such near-absolute power over other
> conscious, feeling beings capable of suffering -- as God does over
> us -- is the very reason we should do our best to use it wisely and
> compassionately, and to try to reduce suffering and harm whenever
> possible, rather than add to it.


I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment but I find it odd trying to
find a justification for it within Christianity. Firstly because many
of the concepts of Chrisianity make me incredulous. A perfect
God creating a sinful World being an example. Secondly
because the Old Testament explicitly permitted people to eat
animals (at least of those species that were deemed "clean")
and there is no record of Jesus rescinding this permission or
even forbidding his followers to eat meat.

> I think that means we should not involve ourselves in modern
> commercial meat/animal products production, especially factory
> farming, and if we do not *have* to kill animals to live, we should,
> as Linzey says, live otherwise. In general, that would mean
> being vegetarian or vegan, except in the case of things like
> gathered eggs, milk shared fairly with the mother animal's young, and
> scavenged meat. We should care for other animals as we would have
> God care for us, and as He has shown He does care for us.


  #197 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Part II


Glorfindel wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > Glorfindel wrote:

>
> >>To continue:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>To be just and recognize their rights, euthanasia cannot be based
> >>on our own utilitarian considerations ( for example, how difficult
> >>it is for us to care for them, or how expensive the treatment
> >>required, or how much it bothers *us* to watch them suffer, or
> >>how nice it would be for us to have a new, healthy pet) but on
> >>the basis of what value their continued life has *for them*.

>
> > Thanks for that summation. I think Regan is wrong to trivialise
> > the financial and emotional and time costs to the parents.

>
> I don't think he trivializes those things, but he ( and I )
> believe they can't be used as the primary reasons for
> euthanasia, unless the subject consents.


I see all the interested parties, as having needs that ought to
be given consideration. It appears that Regan and you want to
pay far more attention to the needs of the infant than his/her
parents. In your ethics the parents needs appear to be little
more than a tie-breaker if the judgement is too close to call.
Is this fair?

> Let's take another example. Suppose we have a sick old woman
> who wants to spare her family financial and emotional
> suffering. She asks her family to help her with assisted
> suicide, and they do. In that case, she is taking the costs
> to others into consideration, and suicide under those conditions
> would respect her right to choose what she wants done with her
> own body, and be based on a utilitarian analysis of the total
> system as well.


Yes.

> OTOH, take the same sick old woman who does *not* want to die.
> If her family kills her to spare themselves suffering (or for her
> insurance) it would be considered murder and a violation of
> her rights.


Although it is perhaps inconsistent of me to be introducing
non-utilitarian considerations, I think there is a relevant difference
between
an old woman and infant here. The woman will likely have invested
a great deal of time and/or money and (during pregnancy) health in
order to bring her children up. If she wants to be kept alive the
children
sort of owe it to her in a way. A baby killed shortly after birth is in
the same position as a baby who hadn't been concieved, at least
from an atheistic perspective.

> > If we accept Francoine's argument that we are obligated not to
> > violate the rights of others but not morally obligated to help
> > others then is it not better to painlessly euthanise the infant
> > than to wait for him/her to die of neglect?

>
> Oh, yes. I think so.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>I'm still not entirely sure what reasons. You have conceded that
> >>>lethal methods of pest control are in violation of animal rights. Is it
> >>>implausible to you that the number of rodents deliberately posioned per
> >>>calorie of grain is greater than the number of deer deliberately shot
> >>>per calorie of venison?

>
> >>No, it is entirely plausible and even probable. However, from a rights
> >>perspective, the violation of the deer's rights as an individual cannot
> >>be justified on the basis of the violation of the mice's rights as
> >>individuals. In effect, "two wrongs don't make a right."

>
> > But we are not talking about violating the rights of the deer and the
> > rights
> > of the mice. We are talking about violating the rights of the deer or
> > the rights of the mice.

>
> Either one is wrong from a rights perspective. While one may have to
> choose between two wrongs, it is better to try to avoid either one by
> looking for least-harmful sources of vegetables.


Of course.

> And, of course,
> humans are not pure carnivores. Even if a hunter reduces the amount
> of vegetable food in his diet, he will still eat some. Unless it is
> gathered plants, he will then violate the rights of both groups
> anyway.


Surely what matters is how many individual animals are violated, not
how many groups are? Do vegans not eat more plant matter than
non-vegans?
>
> >>The only
> >>just course of action would be to respect the rights of *both* by
> >>trying to avoid poisoning the mice in production of vegetables and
> >>using some other method of protecting the crop (for example, better
> >>fences, or more secure storage buildings).

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> >>>>Well, that's a major question, isn't it? I'm not sure I can give
> >>>>a simple answer off the top of my head. You first: what do *you*
> >>>>see as the purpose of ethics?

>
> >>>How about to balance the conflicting interests of sentient beings
> >>>in such a way as to foster the greatest overall quality (x quantity)
> >>>of life?

>
> >>I would see that as a good goal, as long as the inherent value of
> >>each individual within the whole is respected first, as in the
> >>example of the mice above, or the euthanized animal above. I would
> >>see considering *only* the overall sum of welfare as a potential
> >>slippery slope which can lead to very bad consequences for the
> >>minority victims.

>
> > This is where the concept of rights comes in - as a means to an end.

>
> >>>>I guess one major purpose would be to defend and define rights
> >>>>and assure they are not violated for purely utilitarian considerations.

>
> >>>I see rights as a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

>
> >>I see them as a means of defining how the inherent value of each
> >>individual should justly be respected, independent of utilitarian
> >>benefit to others.

>
> > I guess that's where we have to agree to differ. I am interested in
> > the whole.

>
> I understand. We can agree to disagree here.


Sure. You are welcome to present arguments in favour of your
position but my belief that it is the whole that matters is an axiom
to me.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]" [email protected] Vegan 128 27-05-2018 11:27 PM
Zionist pressure group ADL offers solution to the "December Dilemma"of European Christmas celebrations Jim34 General Cooking 36 13-12-2007 03:42 AM
"dead-frog numbers [was: faq collateral included deaths in organic rice production]" [email protected] Vegan 4 14-09-2006 05:31 PM
Collateral Deaths Associated with the Vegetarian Diet Derek Vegan 0 16-12-2005 12:54 PM
Animal Collateral Deaths [email protected] Vegan 33 13-11-2003 10:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"