or Connect
VeggieBoards › Forums › Activist Forums › Animal Rights and Welfare › The shifting moral baseline
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The shifting moral baseline - Page 2

post #31 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh James xVx View Post

I'd say my moral baseline would be attempting to do the least harm and do the most good for the animals - to a realistic and feasible degree. How many animals does being 99.9% vegan realistically spare over being 99.1% vegan? We have to assume that 100% is a pipe dream.

you are ignoring what is probably rather common amongst dash-vegetarians, and that is the cave in and surrender once or twice a year to that proffered piece of dairy and cruelty laden cake, pie or too yummy for words desert. so yeah it does make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh James xVx View Post

Shouldn't the moral baseline be something tangible like that?

you answered your own question ;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh James xVx View Post

If veganism itself lacks the moral baseline of empathy and compassion we all felt from childhood - even those of us who were not raised vegan - then it's just an elitist title and a glorified spear waving contest.

but it doesn't, the moral baseline should get us closer to a world built of non-violence and good intentions.. and honestly labels can sometimes do that to a person, but the bottom line is moral baseline good, closing your eyes and hiding behind ingredient lists bad.
post #32 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post

I would think that the whole point of advocating a moral baseline is that it would be a demarcation which would be clearly delineated. If it is something subjective, and we each get to decide for ourselves where it is, then it wouldn't be much of a moral baseline.

I think it's clear enough in the sense that he's distinguishing between veganism and lacto ovo vegetarianism or so called ethical eaters (locavores, humane slaughter advocates, free range advocates). That's the point he's trying to make. And note that veganism is the moral baseline is for animal rights. You can't talk about rights and think that it's okay to kill animals (either factory raised or "free range") or buy animal products like dairy or eggs. Both of these are in contradiction with a basic definition of rights and so veganism is the only sensible stance. Yes, there is some debate among vegans about some of the details of a vegan lifestyle, but to focus on them too much would cause us to miss the point, which is distinguishing between veganism and other approaches animal advocates might take.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticalVegan View Post

yeah i think veganism as a moral baseline is flawed. I also dont think it should be a "baseline", veganism is not a value in itself, its a means to expresses our values (such as autonomy for other sentient life or reduction of suffer depending on ur philosophical approach)
Veganism might be a good rule in terms of rule utilitarianism (depending on how its practiced), but its by no means a universal baseline.

Yeah, that's an interesting point. I'd like to know why explicitly you consider it to be flawed, but to me it's a principle that's highly contextualized. There's nothing fundamentally unethical about eating an egg or a carcass (say, if one stumbled upon a carcass in the woods). I don't have ethical objections to freeganism or to a woman I know who has several rescue hens and eats the eggs they produce. And yet, these things are incompatible with veganism and so veganism exists as a kind of protest in a culture where animal abuse is a commodity. I think a lot of ethical vegans would have trouble damning certain non-intrusive forms of animal use and resort to consequentialist arguments about "sending the wrong message".
post #33 of 35
Quote:
You can't talk about rights and think that it's okay to kill animals

But that is indeed the view taken by many (probably most, actually) deontologists. Even those that agree that animals posses rights in theory often claim a right not to be eaten is not a valid claim.

Dave in MPLS / DISCLAIMER: I am not an actual rooster.
my blog - Vintage Veg
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"

Dave's cookbooks
(43 items)
  
Reply

Dave in MPLS / DISCLAIMER: I am not an actual rooster.
my blog - Vintage Veg
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"

Dave's cookbooks
(43 items)
  
Reply
post #34 of 35
I don't know what you mean. I consider myself a deontologist, but don't see how one could be a rights holder and not have a legitimate claim to not be killed. If having rights means anything it means having the right not to be harmed or killed.
post #35 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post

However, what Gary left out in his eloquent articulation of the need for a moral baseline is precisely where the baseline needs to be. Gary admitted in this podcast that it is not possible to eliminate all animal products from our lives (computers, cars, etc.)

that's what he meant when he said veganism is the moral baseline.
Quote:
So, suppose someone avoids all easily recognizable animal products in their food, but does not check, for example, if the Vitamin D in their groceries is of animal origin? Are they vegan enough for his moral baseline? Are they vegan enough to be a vegan?

yes of course. if they are vegan as a consequence of a logical and ethical choice, then that should be no problem.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Animal Rights and Welfare
VeggieBoards › Forums › Activist Forums › Animal Rights and Welfare › The shifting moral baseline