On Jul 6, 7:04=A0am, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
wrote:
> Rupert hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> Thunder crashed, Rupert laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 6, 5:43=A0am, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
wrote:
> >> Dutch hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> >> Thunder crashed, Dutch laughed madly, then wrote:
>
> >> >Rupert wrote:
> >> >> Veganism is a perfectly reasonable strategy
> >> >> for reducing suffering,
>
> >> >It may be a fairly effective strategy but "perfectly reasonable"
woul=
d
> >> >be an overstatement.
>
> >> Existence is suffering. =A0There is no "fairly effective strategy" to
> >> reduce suffering.
>
> >That's stupid. If a few million people go vegan and fewer factory-
> >farms are built and fewer animals are brought into existence to lead
> >horrible lives, then something has been done. If Henry Spira managed
> >to get major cosmetics companies to develop an alternative to the
> >Draize test, then something has been done. If a few million dollars
> >are donated to UNICEF and a few thousand under-five deaths are
> >prevented, then something has been done. Preventing an under-five
> >death, or getting a company to stop dripping cosmetics into the eyes
> >of millions of conscious rabbits and holding them in shackles for two
> >weeks while they go blind, is not a trivial accomplishment.
>
> >You might as well say "Why should I bother to get out of bed in the
> >morning?"
>
> >If you want to reduce suffering, there's plenty you can do. It may not
> >be high on your list of priorities, that's fine. But you shouldn't
> >pretend it's not one of your options.
>
> What are you going to do for those poor animals in the wild, torn to
> shreds in terror and agony by wild predators, dying of horrible
> diseases and starvation?
>
That's a good question, we should look into what we can do for them.
I'm afraid I have to specialise a bit when it comes to the problems I
can address.
I've made some effort to reduce the extent to which I financially
sup****t processes that cause harm, and to encourage awareness in other
members of the public of some of the animal suffering that goes on and
what they can do about it. I've written letters to various people at
various levels of government about various things. I've volunteered my
time and effort to Animal Liberation NSW to help them with various
things. Also UNICEF. And I've joined a new organisation called "Giving
What We Can" set up by Toby Ord and I intend to make a pledge to
donate everything I earn above a certain amount to charities which I
believe effectively reduce suffering in the developing world (we'll be
doing research to see which charities are most effectively). I'm
making career choices based on a desire to improve my capacity to
donate money, I'd really rather get paid to do research in maths and
philosophy but I'll try to get into mathematical finance instead. At
the moment I'm teaching maths and trying to finish a Ph.D..
Ball says it's all just tokenism. Well, maybe it is. I don't know, I
hope I manage to achieve a little bit with my life. If not then at
least I'll have had fun trying.
There's a limit to what I can achieve but I'm making some effort.
> If you can find alternatives to existing ways of handling animals by
> humans that are less painful to the animal, by all means go for it.
>
> And if you personally want to try to live a Buddhist monk's life by
> refusing to cause any suffering to any sentient being, I respect that
> to some extent. =A0I live by that standard, to some extent, because I
> think it's the only really logical basis for morality.
>
Okay. Well, when there's a cockroach in my flat I trap him in a
container and take him outside. It's a bit hard not to financially
sup****t processes that cause suffering, because, as they'll always
point out to you round here, plant-based agriculture harms animals and
electricity production kills trillions of fish. Also unfortunately I
have to take an antipsychotic medication that was tested on animals.
Quite interested in Buddhism, I'd like to find out more about it.
> But thinking you are going to "reduce suffering" on a global level by
> going vegan is getting a little absurd to me. =A0Things live and die and
> in doing so they suffer. =A0Reducing suffering for all sentient beings
> is an idea that comes from Buddhism, but westerners want to pick and
> choose the bits of Buddhism they like, so what you end up with suits
> your lifestyle and makes you feel more moral but doesn't hold together
> as a coherent meaningful whole.
>
Well, my charitable donations definitely reduce suffering. As far as
trying to reduce the amount of harm caused in order to produce your
food, I guess that's more a feeling of "I'd rather my money didn't
sup****t processes like these". If all the population of Australia went
vegan, one by one, every so often there would be a "threshold vegan"
and his or her decision would cause a significant reduction in
suffering. I might be one of the "threshold vegans", you never know.
You're saying I'm not making it part of a coherent meaningful whole,
well, I'm making an effort, I welcome suggestions for what more I
could do...
> You personally going vegan might very well reduce some suffering of
> some animals. =A0Personally I think the degree of it is very tiny, not
> only on the scale of humans eating meat in general but on a world-wide
> scale. =A0Doing it to make yourself feel better about yourself, or to
> give yourself a better karma if you believe in that kind of thing,
> makes perfect sense.
>
> But thinking you have a "strategy to reduce suffering" by not
> personally eating meat is ridiculous.
>
I don't think so, no.
> Which is why, inevitably, veganism as a way of "reducing suffering",
> or going fur-free, or whatever, becomes something that everybody
> should do. =A0That's why there are protests. =A0Because it only makes
> SENSE if it's global. =A0Then, I guess, you will "reduce suffering" in a
> largish way.
>
> I still think it would not be very substantial,
Of course it would be substantial. Even saving just one animal from
having a horrible life is worth doing.
> because I think
> suffering is inherent in life,
Irrelevant.
> but imposing that morality on others is
> the logical extension of the idea of a "strategy to reduce suffering".
>
Well, I advocate it to others, I don't impose it. I would be in favour
of some forms of agriculture being banned, but who wouldn't?
> It's not that I'm criticising veganism as a personal moral choice,
> although I think it's illogical except as, as I said, a way of making
> yourself feel better about yourself, or of improving karma if you
> believe in karma. *
>
Well, for me it's about doing your bit to make the world better, and I
obviously haven't convinced you on that one.
> But it's inherent in the idea of is as a "strategy" that it is not
> about a personal choice. =A0That there are ANY kind of protestors proves
> that. =A0That there is even a hint of activism or even moral lecturing
> proves that.
>
There's nothing wrong with talking to others about the reasoning that
leads you to your personal choices. One of the things I've done is
give a talk to some students who were about to do animal research
projects about animal rights philosophy. The Director of Laboratory
Services at the University of Sydney actually wanted me to do that and
indeed paid me, he thought it was im****tant for them to hear about it.
There's also nothing wrong with trying to stop people from being cruel
to animals.
> And it is really just a kind of lifestyle choice. =A0You can go vegan,
> and say to yourself at night, "I have not inflicted any suffering on
> any animal",
Which is not true, as is always pointed out here...
> and still eat well enough.
>
Indeed you can.
> How far would you really take it though? =A0There were monks in the
> middle ages who refused to swat fleas off of them, because fleas are
> God's creatures, and it was wrong to deny them their meal (which does
> cause them suffering). =A0Do you take it that far? =A0Those poor fleas
ar=
e
> suffering from hunger. =A0If you want to completely reduce suffering,
> it's not enough to just not kill a flea. =A0There are fleas out there
> starving. =A0You should seek them out and bring them into your home.
> And every wild animal out there suffering, you should bring them home,
> make them beds, and feed them. =A0And what about people? =A0You are, of
> course, as part of your "strategy to reduce suffering", actively
> seeking out the winos in the gutters and bringing them home to eat and
> sleep in a nice warm bed? =A0And alchohol withdrawals are a form of
> suffering, you should really get them nice and liqoured up while
> you're at it.
>
I don't see your point here. Everyone can always ask themselves the
question "Why this far, and not further?", this applies to every
position. I've told you what I do and what I plan to do. There's a
limit to what I can do, I've made some effort. I'd consider doing
volunteer work for the Salvation Army helping homeless alcoholics,
yes, but it may be at least as good a use of my time to work as a
quantitative analyst for a bank and donate the money I make to UNICEF.
> That is, if your "strategy to reduce suffering" is real, and not just
> a convenient lifestyle choice that makes you feel good about yourself.
>
Well, Ball says it's the latter, he's entitled to that view. Maybe it
is, anyway at least there's a chance I may be able to help a few
people and animals in my life, which I suppose is better than
nothing...
> * Or as seeing that other living thing and thinking "what's inside
> there is the same as me"; =A0which, personally, I think is a profound
> realization.
>
> --
> Zapanaz
> International Satanic Conspiracy
> Customer Sup****t Specialisthttp://joecosby.com/
> "Am I retarded or am I just overjoyed?"
>
> =A0- Green Day
>
> :: Currently listening to Fantasia para un gentilhombre - IV: Canario,
19=
54, by Rodrigo/Manuel Barrueco, from "Rodrigo - Concertos - Songs With
Guit=
ar"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
