Re: Some Hard Truths for Ethical Vegetarians

"usual suspect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Derek wrote:
> >>>Do these animals die to feed them, or is the real hard
> >>>truth something different to that? The real hard truth is
> >>>that animals killed in agriculture aren't killed to ensure
> >>>people can continue eating veg, because other methods
> >>>can be and are used which doesn't kill any at all. The
> >>>hard truth is that they are intentionally killed to maximize
> >>>profits, so to claim they are killed for any other reason
> >>>is false.
> >>
> >>Your justification
> >
> > 'Justification'? For what?
>
> For your personal choices and their consequences for animals.
>
I'm not talking of my personal choices, but rather
 the farmer's actions, and that he is responsible for
them. The hard truth is that they are killed by the
farmer for profit, not for our food, as Michael
claims.

> >>is valid *only* if you buy produce which is grown and
> >>harvested in a more humane manner.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> No, it does follow.
>
I was talking of the the farmer's actions, not my
choices, so your comment on my choices was
indeed a non sequitur.

> > The hard truth is that animals are intentionally
> > killed for financial gain, not to feed the farmer's consumers
> > as Michael claims.
>
> No

Yes.
>
> >>>The truth is that no animals die to feed me, as you
> >>>claim. They die to increase the farmer's profits.
> >>
> >>No, they die because you're (a) too lazy to grow your own food, and/or
> >>(b) too cheap to pay the full price of what humanely-grown food costs to
> >>produce.
> >
> > I pay farmers in the same way I pay any other
> > employee, and if my employees cause damage
> > while going about their business, then they are
> > fully responsible for any blame.
>
> Regarding employer/employee liability issues, if you'd mis-wired a car
> and it caught fire, whom would the car's owner sue?

Me, you fool.

> You hire the farmer
> to grow cheap food rather than humane food.

False. I hire him to grow food, period. If his methods
are inhumane, then he is blameworthy.

> You have plenty other options

Irrelevant. My change of grower will make no difference
to him being culpable for the deaths he causes.

> yet you've selected the method with the highest amount of CDs.

Unsupported speculation and false.

> You're not willing to put your own money where your own mouth is.

Unsupported speculation and false.

> You're the culpable person in the CD chain.
>
There is no 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 reponsible 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. How many times must I repeat that before
it finally sinks in?

> >>>>Anyone who eats food that is grown
> >>>>using mechanical plows and harvesting machines must
> >>>>accept partial responsibility for the large numbers (no
> >>>>hard figures are available) of animals who die beneath or
> >>>>within these machines, or who die from pesticide and
> >>>>chemical fertilizer poisoning.
> >>>
> >>>While accepting responsibility for the deaths of these
> >>>animals caused by farmers, would you also accept
> >>>responsibility in the same casual manner and continue
> >>>to buy from producers if it were other rights bearers,
> >>>namely children, being killed to produce your food, or
> >>>would your indignation at such mass rights violations
> >>>morally compel you to find other another source for
> >>>your food?
> >>
> >>It hasn't stopped you, killer.
> >
> > I don't believe I'm responsible for them,
>
> Irrelevant.

My belief in not being responsible for the deaths
caused by others is very relevant to my other
beliefs in rights generally, for if I truly believed I
was responsible for the deaths caused by farmers,
I wouldn't buy from them. Likewise, if I were
knowingly buying goods with a history of human
collateral deaths, AND held a belief that I was
responsible for them, I wouldn't buy from that
source either. How does one hold a moral belief
in being responsible and causal to the deaths of
animals and humans while continuing to claim that
THEIR victims have a right not to be THEIR
victims?

> Responsibility/culpability isn't a function of personal belief.
>
I agree, so why do you *believe* I am culpable
for the deaths of animals which were certainly
killed by another's hand? Physical evidence tells
you who is culpable for them, so for you to then
claim that the responsibility for them segues from
him to me through thin air is merely a belief on your
part.

> > but if I did
> > hold such a belief, how would I be able to continue
> > buying from such a source while still claiming they
> > have a right not to be intentionally killed for my
> > personal gain?
>
> You have other options. Put your money where your big mouth is.
>
Non sequitur, so I'll repeat my comment again;
"I don't believe I'm responsible for them, but if I did
 hold such a belief, how would I be able to continue
 buying from such a source while still claiming they
 have a right not to be intentionally killed for my
 personal gain?"

> > If children were being killed for our food in the same
> > way, and in the same numbers as vermin around
> > farmsteads, would those who accept responsibility
> > for animal collateral deaths be as willing to accept the
> > responsibility for the deaths of these children too,
> > or would they blame the slavers who drive them?
> >
> > Also would these same people insist others "must"
> > accept responsibility for animal collateral death be
> > insisting we must accept the responsibility for what
> > slavers do?
>
> I'll say that consistency counts, even though such hypothetical
> questions are irrelevant.
>
These hypothetical questions are not irrelevant if
one's consistency is to be measured. If you found
that all your clothes were in fact made from the
sweat and tears of forced child labour, would you
blame yourself or the slaver who profited from
his inhumane methods of production? Likewise,
if I should find that some food I ate came at the
expense of animal's lives, why should I blame
myself and not the farmer who profited from his
inhumane methods of production?