LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #3   Report Post  
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: May 2010
Posts: 77
Default "Consideration for the lives of farm animals" - meaningless tripe

On 6/24/2010 8:58 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

All it means is wanting the animals to exist. If someone wants the
animals that ****wit wishes to eat to exist, then ****wit says the
person has "consideration for their lives". If someone doesn't want
those animals to exist, then ****wit shrieks they have "no consideration
for their lives", and he berates them for not wanting the animals to
exist.



He might not be expressing it convincingly,


You can say that again. Never mind, I will: He isn't presenting it
convincingly.


but he appears to be sincere


I think not. He blabbers quite often about animal welfare, but he has
written numerous things over the years indicating he doesn't really care
about animal welfare. I'll post those separately.



the gist of what he is trying say is LoL
that has support of several philosophers.

"The Logic of the Larder""(LL): We do animals a favor
by purchasing meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not
purchase these products, fewer animals would exist (Stephen, 1896).
LL results from the common notion that the supply of farm animals
roughly follows the demand for their products;
and the less common notion that the world is made better off
by having more animals in existence.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2005) 18:
GAVERICK MATHENY and KAI M. A. CHAN
HUMAN DIETS AND ANIMAL WELFA THE ILLOGIC OF THE LARDER


Matheny is *disputing* the LoL, you idiot.


It can be wrong,
but it does not appear to be nonsensical to me.


It is nonsensical. Coming into existence is not a benefit. The
fundamental premise of LoL is that coming into existence *is* a benefit,
and clearly it is not. A benefit is something that improves the welfare
of the beneficiary, and clearly existence does not improve an entity's
welfare - it establishes it. If I take some wood and build a table, I
have not "improved" a table. It is immaterial if you think I have
"improved" the wood; the entity that has come into existence is the
table, and it was not improved upon by being built.

LoL is nonsense.
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should be thepractical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give to animals'lives? Fred C. Dobbs General 146 June 10th 10 07:22 PM
What should be the practical consequence of the "consideration" Goowants us to give to animals' lives? Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] General 6 May 14th 10 03:54 PM
What should be the practical consequence of the "consideration" Goowants us to give to animals' lives? Fred C. Dobbs General 0 May 7th 10 08:09 PM
"Decent lives of positive value" - pure cracker gibberish (attn:Rob Epstein) Fred C. Dobbs General 0 May 7th 10 06:11 PM
What's up with "Cruise of our Lives" .. skip/lydia/deprssion/war on terrorism/ and cooking.. Sir Thomas of Cannondale Cruising 14 December 2nd 07 01:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017