| Glorfindel |
Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
> against veganism is a fallacy.
Glorfindel wrote:
Yes, that is true, for several reasons.
Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
animals for food *certainly* do, and always will. The question of
which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.
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. As Derek has noted,
the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
its death at human hands. An equivalent diet of gathering need not
involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
rights in "pest control."
There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of
animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested.
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
Dreck wrote:
>>BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of
>>animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested.
>
> I ought to set some time aside
Set some time aside for more productive pursuits. According to your
twin, you're a shiftless giro parasite. Is your nation paying you to
read and stir **** on usenet?
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
Dreck blew more platitude-filled hot air:
>>>>>No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits.
>>>>
>>>>=====================
>>>>You don't do that do you, fool!
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot best
>>>forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or not
>>>is irrelevant.
>>
>>===========================
>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong
>
> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
Non sequitur: you're not right because of a solution. Your claim that
you're offering a "better" solution is also a logical fallacy.
You might have a case of establishing your virtue if you were to
*PRACTICE* what you preach; I'm not convinced, though, that you'd be
better because you eat some things and refuse to eat other things. All
you're doing now is showing what a ****-stirring windbag you really are
by promoting ideals you never intend to follow yourself. It's just a
specious platitude.
Veganism is the product of clueless Utopian urbanites who, almost as a
rule, *don't* forage and, worse with respect to their disingenuous
platitudes, really don't care that they're causing animals to die via
their consumption of commercially-grown foods. They only care that they
don't violate the rule of not eating animal parts. They extend this rule
to include things that *might* have animal parts, such as the
ingredients found on lists like this:
http://www.veganwolf.com/animal_ingredients.htm
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
Dreck continued blowing hot air:
> Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal
> deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal
> deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a
> World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
According to such (il)logic, then, vegans could also consume dairy
because veal calves are collateral to milk production.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> The idea that killing animals is a moral problem in a world where collateral
> deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
No, of course not. You could just as well claim that the idea that
killing *humans* is a moral problem in a world where human deaths,
collateral, accidental, and intentional, are ubiquitous is specious.
The scale may be different in *some* areas -- although not all --
for humans. In some times and places, the scale is similar, and
sometimes even the rationale is similar. But because it's
*our* species, humans other than those doing the killing usually
consider the killing a moral problem.
Consider "ethnic cleansing" or "the final solution" or the
campaign against the kulaks in Soviet Russia, or the killing
of the aristocrats in France during the Terror, or many other
examples. The humans killed were defined as a threat or even
a "pest" in much the same way animals are defined in
agriculture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Paying lip service to collateral deaths is not nearly good enough, the
> revelation demands that you take account of it in your moral calculations.
Taking account of something does not require that others respond in the
same way you would. You cannot say someone has not considered the
issue because you don't like the results of their consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Veganism must be rejected utterly because it creates a false dilemma then
> addresses it with a solution that does not work.
The solution does not work *for you*. It does work for others,
because the moral issue for them is, or may be, different. If
the issue is the property status of farmed animals, and the
injustice of denying them appropriate liberty and moral status,
veganism is a solution to that moral issue. You cannot define
that moral issue as meaningless *for others* because you see it
as meaningless for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dave wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>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.
>>As Derek has noted,
>>the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
> Impractical but not impossible.
You are probably right -- *very* impractical for most people,
though.
>
>>so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
>>world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
>>in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
> Not necessarily. Avoiding all animal products will certainly reduce
> the impact of your diet compared with that of any remotely typical
> Western omnivore. However it remains plausible that a diet based
> around the lowest impact plant foods and supplements you can
> obtain to provide adequate nutrition could be improved by replacing
> some of these with meat from grass-fed and/or wild animals.
I'd agree if the meat were scavenged, as you said above. However,
on an animal rights basis, hunting or ranching animals for meat
would not be acceptable on ethical grounds.
>>Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
>>is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
>>meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
>>its death at human hands.
> If predation is a violation of an animals rights then why shouldn't we
> exterminate predator species?
There are several answers to this given by various writers on
animal rights. Regan, and those who accept his basic rights-based
concept, feel that because humans are the only moral agents we
know, only humans have an obligation to act ethically toward moral
patients, which include most animals above a certain degree of
self-awareness. Francione takes a legal-style approach, which
is reasonable since he is a professor who teaches law. He uses
the human example that we are obligated not to violate the rights
of others actively, but we are not legally obligated to aid other
humans, and the same applies to animals. What we are obligated to
do is not to treat animals as property or mere resources. 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.
Most pro-animal-rights people simply note that obligate
carnivores *must* kill, and that when there is
real necessity, this cannot be a moral issue.
I think the most convincing position, for me, is that of
Sapontzis in his _Morals, Reason, and Animals_. His
answer is somewhat like yours below. He says that "humans
are morally obligated to prevent predation whenever doing
so would not occasion as much or more suffering than it
would prevent." This seems very much in tune with a common
sense approach in the real world. For example, humans are
obligated to prevent predation by their companion animals,
to defend animals over whom they have stewardship (animals
in zoos, domestic flocks and herds, and so on) from
predation by other animals, and so on. However, exterminating
wild predators not only causes suffering to them, but suffering
to their prey when the ecosystem in unbalanced, and there is
no practical way to make it work. We've seen this many time
in the real world when predators have been removed from an
ecosystem. However, because we *are* moral agents, and
because humans are not obligate carnivores, we cannot take
over the role of predators without violating the rights of
the prey animals. Recent efforts to reintroduce top predators
to ecosystems where they have been eliminated, such as the
wolves in Yellowstone, seem to me to be the best solution.
> My answer to this is that predators
> have a useful role to play in the ecosystem, maintaining the balance
> between vegan animals and their food supply but this then begs the
> obvious question, why shouldn't man play the role of predator as
> and when it is in the interests of a given ecosystem for him to do so?
I'd say that ecosystems have no interests -- an ecosystem is not
conscious. Only individual conscious beings within an ecosystem
have interests _per se_. However, preserving a healthy, balanced
ecosystem is usually the best way to foster the interests of the
conscious members of the ecosystem.
>>An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
>>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
>>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
>>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,
> I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
> to economic resources either.
>>and
>>again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
>>the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
>>most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
>>rights in "pest control."
> Which is every bit an injustice as killing an animal for food.
Yes, in and of itself. However, the other additional injustices
involved in farming animals make it, as I see it, worse. An
animal spending a lifetime in a factory farm surely suffers
more, and has his natural behaviors frustrated longer and worse, than
a free animal who lives his own life and pursues his own interests
up until the time of his death.
> In fact
> if we ate the victims of 'pest control' then we would need to grow
> less food and hence cause fewer injustices.
By that logic, a murderer who ate his victim would be less
culpable than one who did not. I can't see that would be a
good ethical act in itself.
>>There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
>>just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
>>applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
>>different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
>>including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
>>This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
> What about if it is impractical to eat a sufficient variety of plant
> foods
> without consuming at least some that are more harmful to animals
> than certain obtainable animal foods? Note I am not claiming it
> to be true but I have not seen it shown to be an implausible scenario
> either.
If we go back to the scavenger model, that would certainly be true.
We'd have to ask if we are considering "harmful" in a pure
utilitarian sense, the net balance of suffering for all concerned,
or if we are talking about harm in an at-least-partly rights-based
sense, in which harm cannot justly be done in violation of a being's
rights, even if such harm will provide a benefit to others. We
already generally agree this is unethical in the case of rights-
bearing beings (e.g. humans).
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:26:54 +0000, Derek <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> 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,
It's no more disgusting - actually, much less - than
your absurd belief that you are doing chickens, pigs
and cows some kind of "good deed" by causing them to be
bred into existence. You aren't doing them any favor
and they do not "benefit", in any way, by coming into
existence. You are merely and absurdly and stupidly
trying to rationalize your own self interest.
|
|
|
| S. Maizlich |
dh@. wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> 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.
They are not doing a disservice to any animals by not
eating meat. Your phony "consideration" of their lives
is total bull****.
|
|
|
| S. Maizlich |
dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:11:33 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:cd6bq1lldpcckvfjg15j3op6ldck27dh6o@4ax.com...
>
>
>>> 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 **** about your stupic illogic.
>
>
> If you think it's illogich,
It is. It has been conclusively shown to be illogic.
> then explain WHY we should
> never consider the lives of livestock or wildlife.
No, YOU explain why we should consider the lives of
livestock.
>
>
>>>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?
There is no moral good that results from the basic
existence of livestock. The animals do not, in any
way, "benefit" from coming into existence. The benefit
is entirely a material one for the people who consume
the animals.
Guarantee: you will puke out your "some do, some
don't" bull****. You are wrong. NO animals "benefit"
from coming into existence.
The only consideration due the lives of livestock is
potentially negative: one might, and "vegans" do,
conclude that their lives are too bad, even at their
best, to justify breeding them into existence, and so
one might choose not to consume products made from
domestic livestock (interestingly, I think one could
justify consuming products from opportunistically
obtained wild animals.) But no one should conclude
that the lives of livestock animals are somehow "worth
it" to them; that is complete illogic and a transparent
rationalization of *your* interest, not theirs.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:26:16 +0000, Derek <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:45:05 +0000, Derek <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek <usenet.email@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>(Rejoinder)
>>>>>>Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
>>>>>>aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
>>>>>>and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
>>>>>>intentionally for food.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
>>>>>Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
>>>>>
>>>>>S.L. Davis,
>>>>
>>>>.. and how many times those figures have been found
>>>>to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork
>>>>is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows;
>>>>
>>>>[While eating animals who are grazed rather than
>>>> intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare
>>>> of farmed animals given their current mistreatment,
>>>> Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable
>>>> to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical
>>>> error in using total rather than per capita estimates
>>>> of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number
>>>> of animals killed in ruminant and crop production
>>>> systems and ignores important considerations about
>>>> the welfare of animals under both systems; and third,
>>>> he does not consider the number of animals who are
>>>> prevented from existing under the two systems.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>>>collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>>
>>> No matter what we do it will involve animals existing,
>>
>>So, playing a game of chess will involve animals existing, will
>>it?
>>
>>
>>>unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born.
>>>So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which
>>>animals do we want to promote life for.
>>
>>No it shouldn't. It's a stupid question.
>
>
> It seems stupid to you, but that's because as I've often
> pointed out: you "ARAs" only care about yourselves and
> promoting veganism, and are not capable of considering
> what the animals get out of it.
No, it's stupid just because it's plainly absurd on its
face. As we have regularly pointed out, YOU only care
about yourself; this laughable "consideration" you
pretend to give to farm animals is a bull**** rationale
on your part. You don't give them any such
consideration. You *CAN'T*, because there is no moral
meaning to them of coming into existence.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>The problem with all these claims is that there is no single "vegan
>>diet"
>>and no single "other diet".
> Excellent observation, you are failing veganism 101.
You are still flailing away at your strawman. Derek, Glorfindel,
and Dave have all specifically *agreed* there is no single
"vegan diet" and no single "other diet."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> But veganism is not a "general rule" proposition, it's a binary "solution".
That is false.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
>>Glorfindel 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.
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.
>>>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.
> See?
Yes, see?
>>> 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.
> What about an very good non-vegan diet including a nominal amount of
> free-range game or fish compared with a less-than-ideal vegan diet?
That is comparing apples and oranges, as I said. You would have
to compare a "very good" vegan/gathering/scavenging diet (which
might well include some amount -- even a fairly large amount --
of scavenged meat or fish) with an *equivalent* diet including
killed meat. The VGS diet would again win easily.
>>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.
> There's no reason to believe that anyone with access to fresh or game cannot
> cause as little or less harm than a person who consumes all commercially
> obtained plant-based foods.
No, there certainly is not -- but that is comparing apples and oranges
again.
>>>As Derek has noted,
>>>the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
>>Impractical but not impossible.
> There is no reason to talk in absolutes except to create false impressions.
Which was what I said below:
>>>so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
>>>world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
>>>in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>>>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
>>>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
>>>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
>>>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,
>>I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
>>to economic resources either.
> We are all economic resources, we are all exploited in many different ways.
But we are not all *reduced* to economic resources *only*. That is
the injustice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>It is only by comparing vastly
>>>different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
>>>including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
> Same lie. A typical urban vegan diet can plausibly be improved by replacing
> some of the high-impact plant-based foods with fresh caught fish. This is
> not "apples and oranges".
Yes, it is a perfect example of "apples and oranges." A typical urban
diet including factory-farmed meat and battery eggs would be the
equivalent, not an urban vegan diet vs "fresh caught fish". If you
were talking about commercially-caught fish, you would have to consider
the massive deaths involved in by-catch, the collateral deaths involved
in producing the boats, the fuel for them, the nets and other
equipment, the transportation to market, the displacement of animals in
creating highways, factories, supermarkets, and processing and storage
facilities, and so on. Apples and oranges. If you are talking about a
VSG gathered diet vs a diet including "fresh caught fish" caught
one-by-one by an individual and consumed on the spot, the VSG diet
wins again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Of course it's plausible, I have been a living example in my own life. I
> have relatives now in the north who hunt every autumn to fill the freezer
> with moose or venison for the winter. This food goes a very long way in
> reducing their dependence on imported foodstuffs.
But the *equivalent* diet would be a VSG diet gathered from local
plants and scavenged meat vs one involving hunted meat. Your
example is apples and oranges again.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" <notgiven@all.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>You are still flailing away at your strawman. Derek, Glorfindel,
>>and Dave have all specifically *agreed* there is no single
>>"vegan diet" and no single "other diet."
> Vegans consistently claim that following a vegan diet greatly reduces or
> eliminates death and suffering of animals, that a vegan diet is always
> "better" in this respect.
Strawmanvegan Rides Again. What I have said is that *given the
same parameters* a Vegan/scavenging/gathering (than you, Dave)
diet will be better than an *equivalent* diet involving animals
intentionally killed for food.
> This notion is so easily foiled that it is
> laughable. Necessarily implicit in all claims of this sort is the false
> notion that all vegan diets and all non-vegan diets must be alike.
No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
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.
> we are talking about life, where people are
> simultaneously confronted by sources and types of food and possible
> combinations thereof. Therefore it is grossly disingenuous and dishonest to
> say that you cannot compare fresh-caught fish or game to factory-farmed or
> imported fruit and vegetables when in life people *are* presented with those
> very choices.
Oh, you can compare them, but you can equally compare fruits and
vegetables raised in small-scale (perhaps backyard) organic
gardens with minimal, non-toxic pest control, and harvested by
hand, with factory-farmed battery chicken eggs. Both are
choices available to consumers. The comparison would be of
limited value, however.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dave wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>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. Scavenging meat, gathering unfertilized eggs, etc.,
would not violate animal rights or animal welfare, so I see
no ethical issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>on an animal rights basis, hunting or ranching animals for meat
>>would not be acceptable on ethical grounds.
> It is understood that shooting hunting or ranching is not compatible
> with the priniple of animal rights but what if the products of these
> activities accrue fewer animal deaths per calorie of food than
> the non-animal foods that represent the real-world alternative?
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. There would
have to be consideration of other factors also, such as how
the animals were treated before their deaths, whether the
methods of producing non-animal products could be improved,
and so on. A simple one-to-one comparison of number of deaths
might not be the best way of making an ethical choice in every
case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> The only rational reason I can think of for declaring an action (in
> this
> case predation) unethical is the harm that it does.
Harm can have many meanings; I think you would have to define
your term.
> 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.
> then it follows that more
> predation means more harm and if we predate the foxes then we
> decrease the total amount of predation.
But not necessarily the total amount of harm, especially if
the prey population then increases to levels the ecosystem
cannot support well.
>>Francione takes a legal-style approach, which
>>is reasonable since he is a professor who teaches law. He uses
>>the human example that we are obligated not to violate the rights
>>of others actively, but we are not legally obligated to aid other
>>humans, and the same applies to animals.
> Fair enough but not being obligated to exterminate predators is
> a long way from being ethically forbidden from doing so.
Agreed. I don't find Francione convincing here.
>>What we are obligated to
>>do is not to treat animals as property or mere resources. 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.
> With all due respect to Linzey this reads like a load of babble.
I think it does make sense, but only in a specifically theological
context.
>>>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. 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>>>>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
>>>>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
>>>>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
>>>>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,
>>>I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
>>>to economic resources either.
>>>>and
>>>>again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
>>>>the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
>>>>most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
>>>>rights in "pest control."
>>>Which is every bit an injustice as killing an animal for food.
>>Yes, in and of itself. However, the other additional injustices
>>involved in farming animals make it, as I see it, worse.
> We can remove these injustices from the equation by considering
> only wild animals. I realise this leads to an apples and oranges
> type of equation but unless you are able to eat "justly" in the real
> world then the comparison is still highly relevant.
It is relevant, but it is indeed "apples and oranges," because
large-scale pest control only applies to large-scale farming
of vegetables. The artificial quantity of food in a limited
area is what brings the "pest" animals in large numbers, so
in a sense, humans "farm" "pests" just as much as they farm
domestic animals. The only really wild animals would be those
humans ran into in your scavenging/gathering or a hunting/gathering
lifestyle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>In fact
>>>if we ate the victims of 'pest control' then we would need to grow
>>>less food and hence cause fewer injustices.
>>By that logic, a murderer who ate his victim would be less
>>culpable than one who did not. I can't see that would be a
>>good ethical act in itself.
> Only if by eating his victim he would "need" to kill fewer people
> in the future:-)
Or fewer other animals. Given a rigorous animal rights approach,
a human who ate his human victim would need less other food, and
so would cause fewer direct deaths of animals slaughtered for meat,
or indirect collateral deaths. (This is probably an excessively
theoretical discussion ). :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>What about if it is impractical to eat a sufficient variety of plant
>>>foods
>>>without consuming at least some that are more harmful to animals
>>>than certain obtainable animal foods? Note I am not claiming it
>>>to be true but I have not seen it shown to be an implausible scenario
>>>either.
>>If we go back to the scavenger model, that would certainly be true.
>>We'd have to ask if we are considering "harmful" in a pure
>>utilitarian sense, the net balance of suffering for all concerned,
> 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.
> Pardoxically
> I am not saying utilitarianism is the best system because it is
> so much harder to follow than systems with clear moral boundaries
> and can be used to justify doing just about anything.
>>or if we are talking about harm in an at-least-partly rights-based
>>sense, in which harm cannot justly be done in violation of a being's
>>rights, even if such harm will provide a benefit to others. We
>>already generally agree this is unethical in the case of rights-
>>bearing beings (e.g. humans).
> Do we?
Well, society in general does, I would say. We generally agree
things like human slavery or medical testing on unwilling subjects
are unethical even if they would benefit other humans, for
example. 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.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Occam's Razor ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> It says that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
No, that's not at all what Occam's razor is about. Occam
or William of Ockham (do you even know who he was?) was a
medieval philosopher (c 1285 - 1349)involved in the
argument against the reality of Platonic Universals, the
philosophical position known as Nominalism. His position
was that only individual entities exist, and that abstract
categories (such as "Man" or "Tree" ) exist only as
intellectual concepts, not as realities in themselves.
When he said that entities should not be multiplied without
necessity, that was what he was talking about. His "razor"
had nothing to do with claiming the "most *obvious* answer
is usually correct. The most obvious answer is
frequently wrong.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
> This isn't an exercise in high school logic, it's reality.
An excuse used by every person who wants to ignore morality
in his treatment of the weaker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> For the first part, *if* indeed through
> some doomsday scenario humans were as numerous as the rest of the animal
> kingdom, in such a world I figure that it probably *would* be quite all
> right to kill them, in fact we would likely all have bountys on our heads
> because the world could not support us all.
Do you have any concept of what you are actually saying? I hope not.
This is a truly evil philosophy.
You understand, I hope, that in this scenario, we would not *all*
have bounties on our heads, but that the most powerful would
simply kill those whose resources they wished to take. That
probably would happen, as it has happened in many times and places
where the fabric of society has broken down and force become the
only factor. But there has *never* been any society which has
seen this as a legitimate morality in and of itself. Even the
most naked force has always been cloaked in some claim to a
"right" of the stronger or more powerful to take things away from
the weaker for some reason.
In many ways, this *is* the way some humans treat animals, but
it is, simply, wrong, and it is seen as wrong by most people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> You need to rewind back to where Derek proposed a theoretical world where
> humans were as ubiquitous as non-human animals.
Glorfindel wrote:
That wasn't what he was proposing, nor what I was talking about.
You concentrate of numbers, but numbers are irrelevant to the
ethical argument. It doesn't matter if more animals are
killed and fewer humans are killed. Deaths are no more
"ubiquitous" among non-humans than among humans. Even if they
were, it would not make them right or wrong. You are deaf to
the entire issue of ethics; you claim it doesn't even exist.
Why should you have such anger toward people who do see an
ethical issue you don't believe exist? Why should it matter
to you? Why don't you just shrug your shoulders and walk away
from the whole thing? I don't see what you get out of all
this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> This is nice but all irrelevant to the case at hand. My point is made,
No, it is not.
> you
> cannot simply extrapolate human moral concepts and apply them to animals
That is not what animal rights is about.
> the world (reality) will not allow it.
Thank God my reality is not yours! I wouldn't want to live in the
kind of world you have created for yourself. You have gradually
dismantled all concept of morality in an attempt to discredit
applying moral standards to treatment of animals, and have slid
down into nihilism like a Nietzsche on steroids.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>You concentrate of numbers, but numbers are irrelevant to the
>>ethical argument.
> No they are not. Numbers are a central factor when we decide how to behave
> towards animals. Consider our attitude towards endangered species like white
> tigers vs our attitude towards plagues of tens-of-millions of grasshoppers
> or deer mice.
Your attitude may be different, but the ethical issue is not. If we are
granting preference to species on the basis of numbers, humans are one
of the least endangered, and should be down there with the pigeons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>Deaths are no more
>>"ubiquitous" among non-humans than among humans.
> That's ridiculous. More animals probably die every second than humans die in
> a year.
This is debatable, but, in any case, we're into apples and oranges
again. You are trying to compare (without any hard data ) one species
vs an aggregate of all other species. This makes no sense. If we
compare the *percentage* of each species which dies, the numbers
are probably similar -- 'though this is just a guess, as your claim is.
Of all mice, how many die per year, and what percentage is that in
terms of the total number and the shorter lifespan of mice vs the
much longer lifespan and total number of human? Given the enthusiasm
with which humans kill each other in wars and political disputes and
crimes, I would guess the numbers are probably not that different.
To make any rational comparison, rather than an emotional outburst,
you would have to compare species one to one, and to make any legitimate
comparison you would have to have some hard numbers species-wide. You
would also have to distinguish between mice killed by non-human
predators and mice killed specifically by humans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I find veganism, and the way vegans defend and promote their ideas an
> interesting and poorly understood phenomenon.
It would be better understood (by you) if you would listen to what
the vegans here actually write, instead of dismissing it and
pointing at a strawman.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
> against veganism is a fallacy.
Glorfindel wrote:
Yes, that is true, for several reasons.
Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
animals for food *certainly* do, and always will. The question of
which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.
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. As Derek has noted,
the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
its death at human hands. An equivalent diet of gathering need not
involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
rights in "pest control."
There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of
animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested.
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
Dreck blew more platitude-filled hot air:
>>>>>No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits.
>>>>
>>>>=====================
>>>>You don't do that do you, fool!
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot best
>>>forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or not
>>>is irrelevant.
>>
>>===========================
>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong
>
> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
Non sequitur: you're not right because of a solution. Your claim that
you're offering a "better" solution is also a logical fallacy.
You might have a case of establishing your virtue if you were to
*PRACTICE* what you preach; I'm not convinced, though, that you'd be
better because you eat some things and refuse to eat other things. All
you're doing now is showing what a ****-stirring windbag you really are
by promoting ideals you never intend to follow yourself. It's just a
specious platitude.
Veganism is the product of clueless Utopian urbanites who, almost as a
rule, *don't* forage and, worse with respect to their disingenuous
platitudes, really don't care that they're causing animals to die via
their consumption of commercially-grown foods. They only care that they
don't violate the rule of not eating animal parts. They extend this rule
to include things that *might* have animal parts, such as the
ingredients found on lists like this:
http://www.veganwolf.com/animal_ingredients.htm
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
Dreck continued blowing hot air:
> Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal
> deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal
> deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a
> World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
According to such (il)logic, then, vegans could also consume dairy
because veal calves are collateral to milk production.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
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.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
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.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" <notgiven@all.com> 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.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" <notgiven@all.com> 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.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
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.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
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.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
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 **** doing?
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
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.
|
|
|
| SlipperySlope |
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.
|
|
|
|
