Re: Moral corruption - the blight of "animal 'rights' activists"

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:33:47 GMT, usual suspect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>>, which are true accidents we 
>>>strive mightily and at great expense to prevent, and 
>>>the collateral deaths of animals, which are ignored by 
>>>everyone, or the intentional deaths of vermin animals, 
>>>which are deliberately caused and of which Karen and 
>>>you, Dreck, approve as evidenced by your continued, 
>>>fully aware purchases.
>> 
>> I don't see any causal link between my trade with
>> him and the method he uses to satisfy my demand.
>> It doesn't instruct him to farm one way or the other.
>> Those options are his, and he, being completely
>> autonomous is responsible for his actions. I blame him
>> on the basis that he is a morally responsible agent
>> carrying obligations to endure the consequences of 
>> his actions.
>
>You remain a very indiscriminate consumer. 

Unsupported speculation and false. 

>You seek out produce on the 
>basis of price rather than humane practices. 

Unsupported speculation and false. 

>Produce grown humanely is 
>available from farmers, 

Evidence please, otherwise, like the rest of your
rebuttal so far, your claim is unsupported and false.

>and it's alternatively possible to grow your own 
>humane produce. You choose to ignore and avoid the more expensive (in 
>money or your personal time) humane alternatives. You're the reason the 
>farmers whose produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical corners. 

The farmer cannot claim that anything or anyone else are 
the reasons for why he does what he does.

[The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to
spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate
to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for
some particular action or trait. His general proposal  is
that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and
only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary.

According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two
distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the
action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it
must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally.]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/

The consumer cannot be held accountable for another's
autonomous actions. It must be up to the agent (farmer
in this case) whether to perform that action or trait. The
farmer cannot claim his actions are compelled externally.

[snipped ad hominem of the abusive kind]