"ar" - an absolutist belief

"ar" is an absolutist belief (not a philosophy). Its
adherents believe that it is absolutely wrong to harm
or kill animals. They attempt to carve out exceptions,
mostly to excuse their own ACTIVE, KNOWING, VOLUNTARY
but entirely UNNECESSARY participation in processes
that lead to grievous harm or death to animals, but
these exceptions are actually entirely different
circumstances. One of these exceptions is fatuous and
ridiculous, and will be dealt with explicitly.

WITHIN the context of those harms or killings that
"aras" feel are wrong, they consider them to be
*absolutely* wrong. "aras" don't feel that raising
livestock animals for meat consumption is "mostly" or
"somewhat" or "pretty much" wrong; they consider it to
be *absolutely* wrong, full stop. They consider the
presence of packaged meat in the typical North American
supermarket to be wrong, without qualification:
absolute. They consider leather garments for sale in
Macy's or Nordstrom to be an absolute wrong; no
mitigation whatever. They consider the slaughter of
harp seals in Newfoundland to be *absolutely* wrong.

The harms to and killings of animals that "aras"
consider mitigated are, fundamentally, different events
from the ones they consider absolutely wrong. In fact,
they are so different that "aras" are forced to
consider them absolutely *right*. It simply is not in
dispute, for example, that I have the right - the duty,
even - to shoot a rabid dog loose on the street, à la
Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird". Karen
Winter, an idiot, wouldn't shoot the dog - the morally
just outcome would be that she is bitten and then dies
because she refuses the animal-tested treatment - but
any rational and responsible person would shoot it in
an instant, if able to do so. This is not in dispute.

Such an act is fundamentally different from rupie
mccallum torturing the neighbor's dog to death for his
amusement. This fundamental, basic difference means
that attempting to label the killing of the rabid dog
an "exception" is an utter failure. It is a different
event entirely. An "exception" to the rule against
killing dogs for amusement would be that some
amusement-oriented dog killings - Fuckwit David
Harrison's staged dog fights, for example - are
acceptable if there is some mitigating or compelling
purpose. Sane people can appreciate the distinction
between an exceptional event, and something that is so
qualitatively different that it is a different event.

The fatuous "ar" special case that demands special
attention is one often mentioned here: the "exception"
that oh-so-PC "aras" attempt to carve out for the
"Eskimo on the ice floe". This infamous bit of
sophistry concerns the "ara"-approved exemption they
want to grant to a hypothetical Eskimo adrift on an ice
floe in the Arctic who will die unless he kills some
sentient beast - walrus, seal, etc. - and eats it to
survive. The basis for the exemption granted by "ar"
sophists is "self defense".

This is absolutely ludicrous. In the criminal law, the
self-defense exception to criminal homicide is
available *only* when the person you kill was, in your
reasonable belief, going to kill or grievously injure
you, *and* there was no immediate avenue of escape:
kill or be killed by the one you kill. This is plainly
not the case with the Eskimo who kills a seal in order
to eat: in the hypothetical case, the seal does not
threaten the life, safety or well-being of the Eskimo
in any way. Killing the seal is not self-defense
*against the seal*, which is what the self-defense
exception to homicide requires. To see this more
plainly, consider there are *two* healthy Eskimos stuck
on the ice floe. At no point, in any legal or ethical
system, may one of them kill the other in order to eat
him and survive. IF one of them dies first, not at the
hands of the other, the surviving one obviously may
ethically eat his fellow; but no ethical philosophy
would permit one to kill the other, simply to avoid
starvation, and claim legitimate "self defense".

Conclusion: "ar" is an absolutist belief, and "aras"
are in blatant violation of their absolutist supposed
beliefs by their ACTIVE, KNOWING, VOLUNTARY, and
ONGOING but, clearly, entirely UNNECESSARY
participation in processes that cause great harm or
death to animals.

On Wed, 03 May 2006, Goo wrote:

>"ar" is an absolutist belief (not a philosophy). Its
>adherents believe that it is absolutely wrong to harm
>or kill animals.

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo

"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

>They attempt to carve out exceptions,
>mostly to excuse their own ACTIVE, KNOWING, VOLUNTARY
>but entirely UNNECESSARY participation in processes
>that lead to grievous harm or death to animals,

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>but these exceptions are actually entirely different
>circumstances.

What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·