> "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > [..] > > > > > > If these animals are being killed, then it would be wise > > > > > > to focus on who's actually killing them. Don't you agree?
> > > > > That depends on what one is doing. I am tracing the whole > > > > > process, so I am naturally interested in what motivates the > > > > > farmer, which it turns out is your hunger.
> > > > Money is what motivates the farmer. Do you think he would > > > > give up his wares without payment? My hunger doesn't drive > > > > him.
> > > It drives you to pay the farmer money, which allows him to > > > continue killing.
> > So, he kills these animals for money. That's a fair assessment.
> Thank you, YOUR money, which you pay willingly
So, we've established and agreed upon the farmers motivation for killing these animals; it's for money. He doesn't have to farm to earn money so he is not forced to do it. There is no compulsion from anyone that he farms or any outside influence from me on the methods he uses. His actions are entirely voluntary and under his own control.
[The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. His general proposal is that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary. According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait --* it cannot be compelled externally. * Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about.] *my emphasis* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/#2
According to Aristotle's concepts of moral responsibility, the farmer is definitely our agent for blame for the CD he causes.
Some say I must also share in this blame because of my trade with him. I have looked high and low for concepts of shared moral responsibility that allows me to share in this blame but to no avail. In fact;
[ Moral responsibility is a personal, individual matter, and we should never be expected to bear responsibility for the wrongdoings of another (unless we have agreed to do so voluntarily, as when we take responsibility for the actions of our child, our subordinate, or our senile parent). Moral responsibility is not something which can somehow spread spontaneously through a whole group of people; it is confined to each individual exactly in proportion to what the individual has done or failed to do.] http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
Blame the farmer!
-- What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! Hamlet
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:59:26 -0000, "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>According to Aristotle's concepts of moral responsibility, >the farmer is definitely our agent for blame for the CD he >causes.
>Some say I must also share in this blame because of my >trade with him. I have looked high and low for concepts >of shared moral responsibility that allows me to share in >this blame but to no avail. In fact;
>[ Moral responsibility is a personal, individual matter, and >we should never be expected to bear responsibility for the >wrongdoings of another (unless we have agreed to do so >voluntarily, as when we take responsibility for the actions >of our child, our subordinate, or our senile parent). Moral >responsibility is not something which can somehow spread >spontaneously through a whole group of people; it is >confined to each individual exactly in proportion to what the >individual has done or failed to do.] >http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
>Blame the farmer!
So meat eaters aren't responsible for the lives or deaths of the animals we eat either.
> [...] > >According to Aristotle's concepts of moral responsibility, > >the farmer is definitely our agent for blame for the CD he > >causes.
> >Some say I must also share in this blame because of my > >trade with him. I have looked high and low for concepts > >of shared moral responsibility that allows me to share in > >this blame but to no avail. In fact;
> >[ Moral responsibility is a personal, individual matter, and > >we should never be expected to bear responsibility for the > >wrongdoings of another (unless we have agreed to do so > >voluntarily, as when we take responsibility for the actions > >of our child, our subordinate, or our senile parent). Moral > >responsibility is not something which can somehow spread > >spontaneously through a whole group of people; it is > >confined to each individual exactly in proportion to what the > >individual has done or failed to do.] > >http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
> >Blame the farmer!
> So meat eaters aren't responsible for the lives or deaths > of the animals we eat either.
They aren't responsible for the CD caused by the farmer, but they are very much responsible for the deaths of the animals they have killed for them on their behalf.
> > So meat eaters aren't responsible for the lives or deaths > > of the animals we eat either.
> They aren't responsible for the CD caused by the farmer, but they > are very much responsible for the deaths of the animals they have > killed for them on their behalf.
-------------------------- Not at all, I don't pay him to kill the animals, I only pay him for a nice juicy steak. Whatever he does to obtain that is none of my moral responsibility.(the world according to 1stoftwits)
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > [..] > > > > > > > If these animals are being killed, then it would be wise > > > > > > > to focus on who's actually killing them. Don't you agree?
> > > > > > That depends on what one is doing. I am tracing the whole > > > > > > process, so I am naturally interested in what motivates the > > > > > > farmer, which it turns out is your hunger.
> > > > > Money is what motivates the farmer. Do you think he would > > > > > give up his wares without payment? My hunger doesn't drive > > > > > him.
> > > > It drives you to pay the farmer money, which allows him to > > > > continue killing.
> > > So, he kills these animals for money. That's a fair assessment.
> > Thank you, YOUR money, which you pay willingly
> So, we've established and agreed upon the farmers > motivation for killing these animals; it's for money. He > doesn't have to farm to earn money so he is not forced > to do it. There is no compulsion from anyone that he > farms or any outside influence from me on the methods > he uses. His actions are entirely voluntary and under his > own control.
Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize evil farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
[....]
> According to Aristotle's concepts of moral responsibility, > the farmer is definitely our agent for blame for the CD he > causes.
> Some say I must also share in this blame because of my > trade with him. I have looked high and low for concepts > of shared moral responsibility that allows me to share in > this blame but to no avail. In fact;
You don't share the blame for HIS actions, your bear the responsibility for your own, knowingly buying cd tainted foods.
> [ Moral responsibility is a personal, individual matter, and > we should never be expected to bear responsibility for the > wrongdoings of another (unless we have agreed to do so > voluntarily, as when we take responsibility for the actions > of our child, our subordinate, or our senile parent). Moral > responsibility is not something which can somehow spread > spontaneously through a whole group of people; it is > confined to each individual exactly in proportion to what the > individual has done or failed to do.] > http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
> Blame the farmer!
Right, for what HE does. He is not responsible for YOUR actions, knowingly buying the wares of killers.
> "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > If these animals are being killed, then it would be wise > > > > > > > > to focus on who's actually killing them. Don't you agree?
> > > > > > > That depends on what one is doing. I am tracing the whole > > > > > > > process, so I am naturally interested in what motivates the > > > > > > > farmer, which it turns out is your hunger.
> > > > > > Money is what motivates the farmer. Do you think he would > > > > > > give up his wares without payment? My hunger doesn't drive > > > > > > him.
> > > > > It drives you to pay the farmer money, which allows him to > > > > > continue killing.
> > > > So, he kills these animals for money. That's a fair assessment.
> > > Thank you, YOUR money, which you pay willingly
> > So, we've established and agreed upon the farmers > > motivation for killing these animals; it's for money. He > > doesn't have to farm to earn money so he is not forced > > to do it. There is no compulsion from anyone that he > > farms or any outside influence from me on the methods > > he uses. His actions are entirely voluntary and under his > > own control.
> Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize evil > farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are > harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
These animals aren't killed "as a result" of my payment to him. These animals are killed "as a result" of his actions, not mine. There's the difference.
> [....] > > According to Aristotle's concepts of moral responsibility, > > the farmer is definitely our agent for blame for the CD he > > causes.
> > Some say I must also share in this blame because of my > > trade with him. I have looked high and low for concepts > > of shared moral responsibility that allows me to share in > > this blame but to no avail. In fact;
> You don't share the blame for HIS actions, your bear the responsibility > for your own, knowingly buying cd tainted foods.
I knowingly pay my taxes to the ploice who I know run down pedestrians while chasing car thieves. I'm not responsible or blameworthy for paying them to do so. I pay farmers through my taxes too, and I'm not responsible or blameworthy for what they do to provide me with food either. You're completely wrong to conclude that paying into a system such as these two implies any causal connection.
> > [ Moral responsibility is a personal, individual matter, and > > we should never be expected to bear responsibility for the > > wrongdoings of another (unless we have agreed to do so > > voluntarily, as when we take responsibility for the actions > > of our child, our subordinate, or our senile parent). Moral > > responsibility is not something which can somehow spread > > spontaneously through a whole group of people; it is > > confined to each individual exactly in proportion to what the > > individual has done or failed to do.] > > http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
> > Blame the farmer!
> Right, for what HE does. He is not responsible for YOUR actions, > knowingly buying the wares of killers.
Neither am I. We're only responsible for what we do. I'm not responsible for CD and he's not responsible for what I spend my money on.
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message [..] > > > So, we've established and agreed upon the farmers > > > motivation for killing these animals; it's for money. He > > > doesn't have to farm to earn money so he is not forced > > > to do it. There is no compulsion from anyone that he > > > farms or any outside influence from me on the methods > > > he uses. His actions are entirely voluntary and under his > > > own control.
> > Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize evil > > farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are > > harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
> These animals aren't killed "as a result" of my payment to him. > These animals are killed "as a result" of his actions, not mine. > There's the difference.
It's like a domino toppling game Derek. The first domino doesn't touch the last one, which may be a good distance away, yet toppling the first one results in the last one falling. If I topple the first one, am I not responsible for the last one falling, since I know they are all in a row?
> > [....] > > > According to Aristotle's concepts of moral responsibility, > > > the farmer is definitely our agent for blame for the CD he > > > causes.
> > > Some say I must also share in this blame because of my > > > trade with him. I have looked high and low for concepts > > > of shared moral responsibility that allows me to share in > > > this blame but to no avail. In fact;
> > You don't share the blame for HIS actions, your bear the responsibility > > for your own, knowingly buying cd tainted foods.
> I knowingly pay my taxes to the ploice who I know run > down pedestrians while chasing car thieves. I'm not > responsible or blameworthy for paying them to do so.
Do you have any choice in that matter? No, taxes are extracted from your paycheque without your consent. Do you protest against high-speed police chases? I do.
> I pay farmers through my taxes too, and I'm not > responsible or blameworthy for what they do to > provide me with food either. You're completely wrong > to conclude that paying into a system such as these two > implies any causal connection.
Those were your examples, not mine. Your examples are not so clear cut because taxes are not a matter of choice, they are imposed on us, and the manner in which they are spent is a matter of democratic (and other) processes in which you have some say, but in general you are far removed from, and no reasonable person can connect you causally to every outcome. Your aquisition of food is not controlled in this way, you have personal free choice in the matter. Your personal free choice is what links you directly to the outcome.
[..]
> > > Blame the farmer!
> > Right, for what HE does. He is not responsible for YOUR actions, > > knowingly buying the wares of killers.
> Neither am I. We're only responsible for what we do. I'm > not responsible for CD and he's not responsible for what > I spend my money on.
Are you denying that you knowingly buy the wares of killers?
firstoftwins wrote: > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > news:0jxa8.3228$5R2.303377913@news1.van.metronet.ca... [...] >>Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize evil >>farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are >>harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
> These animals aren't killed "as a result" of my payment to him. > These animals are killed "as a result" of his actions, not mine. > There's the difference.
You're trying to split hairs here, play a dirty lawyer's game; sleazily focusing attention on matters of timing, because having attention focused on your moral involvement is too painful. It's the whole activity, from start to finish, that is - in your view - morally tainted. You are a party, an ONGOING party, to the transaction.
Go back to my stolen goods analogy - an excellent analogy. If you are arrested for buying stolen property, you might be able to escape prosecution, once, by arguing you didn't know the goods were stolen, and you didn't know the seller was a thief. But when you repeatedly go back to the same thief and buy goods from him, then you clearly share in the moral blame. The only reason he keeps stealing is because you and others keep buying. If no one, ever, bought the stolen merchandise, then theft as a way of earning a living would stop.
The importance of this for you is that you could conceivably be forgiven for contributing to the deaths of animals killed during vegetable farming back when the thought hadn't occurred to you, and before it was pointed out to you here. But, NOW YOU KNOW! And you have known for a long time. If you *really* believed that animals have or ought to have rights against being killed for human convenience, you would be morally compelled to take drastic, and I do mean drastic, action to avoid being involved in their deaths in any way. You do not do so.
You are in precisely the same moral situation as the repeat buyer of stolen merchandise.
We do not "only" blame the thief. The buyer of his stolen goods is correctly seen as morally, and legally, culpable. That's why knowingly buying stolen property is also a crime, a separate crime from the theft itself.
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > news:0jxa8.3228$5R2.303377913@news1.van.metronet.ca... > [...] > >>Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize evil > >>farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are > >>harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
> > These animals aren't killed "as a result" of my payment to him. > > These animals are killed "as a result" of his actions, not mine. > > There's the difference.
> You're trying to split hairs here, play a dirty > lawyer's game; sleazily focusing attention on matters > of timing, because having attention focused on your > moral involvement is too painful. It's the whole > activity, from start to finish, that is - in your view > - morally tainted. You are a party, an ONGOING party, > to the transaction.
I have no moral involvement at any stage of the ongoing process.
> Go back to my stolen goods analogy - an excellent > analogy.
It's a flawed analogy because you are supposing the stolen goods are the property of the crook who stole them.
> If you are arrested for buying stolen > property, you might be able to escape prosecution, > once, by arguing you didn't know the goods were stolen, > and you didn't know the seller was a thief. But when > you repeatedly go back to the same thief and buy goods > from him, then you clearly share in the moral blame.
That would be because I would be paying for his illegal endeavours, not the goods that he stole. The courts don't like the people who wage the crooks.
> The only reason he keeps stealing is because you and > others keep buying.
You can't buy something that is not for sale by its rightful owner. If you buy a car stolen from my drive, I can get it back for nothing because it wasn't sold to you. Your money paid the crooks wages, nothing more.
> If no one, ever, bought the stolen > merchandise, then theft as a way of earning a living > would stop.
No one can buy stolen goods. You can pay someone for doing something illegal easily enough though. When I pay a farmer I pay for his goods, not his labours in getting me those goods. When I pay a crook I pay for his labours, not his goods because they're not his. Your analogy is flawed because it is focusing on two separate commodities.
> The importance of this for you is that you could > conceivably be forgiven for contributing to the deaths > of animals killed during vegetable farming back when > the thought hadn't occurred to you, and before it was > pointed out to you here. But, NOW YOU KNOW! And you > have known for a long time. If you *really* believed > that animals have or ought to have rights against being > killed for human convenience, you would be morally > compelled to take drastic, and I do mean drastic, > action to avoid being involved in their deaths in any > way. You do not do so.
Not so fast, Jon. What I do KNOW is that CD are caused by the farmer to fatten his profits and are not a prerequisite to producing food. He can produce my veg without causing CD but voluntarily chooses to make a higher profit instead. His voluntary actions make him morally responsible for the deaths he causes. My trade with him has no moral implication for me as I do not have any control over his actions.
> You are in precisely the same moral situation as the > repeat buyer of stolen merchandise.
Not at all. Your analogy is a joke.
> We do not "only" blame the thief. The buyer of his > stolen goods is correctly seen as morally, and legally, > culpable. That's why knowingly buying stolen property > is also a crime, a separate crime from the theft itself.
We blame the thief for stealing goods that don't belong to him. We blame the recipient for paying the thief to commit the theft.
> "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > [..] > > > > So, we've established and agreed upon the farmers > > > > motivation for killing these animals; it's for money. He > > > > doesn't have to farm to earn money so he is not forced > > > > to do it. There is no compulsion from anyone that he > > > > farms or any outside influence from me on the methods > > > > he uses. His actions are entirely voluntary and under his > > > > own control.
> > > Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize evil > > > farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are > > > harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
> > These animals aren't killed "as a result" of my payment to him. > > These animals are killed "as a result" of his actions, not mine. > > There's the difference.
> It's like a domino toppling game Derek. The first domino doesn't touch the > last one, which may be a good distance away, yet toppling the first one > results in the last one falling. If I topple the first one, am I not > responsible for the last one falling, since I know they are all in a row?
What! > > > [....] > > > > According to Aristotle's concepts of moral responsibility, > > > > the farmer is definitely our agent for blame for the CD he > > > > causes.
> > > > Some say I must also share in this blame because of my > > > > trade with him. I have looked high and low for concepts > > > > of shared moral responsibility that allows me to share in > > > > this blame but to no avail. In fact;
> > > You don't share the blame for HIS actions, your bear the responsibility > > > for your own, knowingly buying cd tainted foods.
> > I knowingly pay my taxes to the ploice who I know run > > down pedestrians while chasing car thieves. I'm not > > responsible or blameworthy for paying them to do so.
> Do you have any choice in that matter? No, taxes are extracted from your > paycheque without your consent. Do you protest against high-speed police > chases? I do.
Irrelevant. The point is; I'm not responsible for what happens in a system merely because I trade with that system.
> > I pay farmers through my taxes too, and I'm not > > responsible or blameworthy for what they do to > > provide me with food either. You're completely wrong > > to conclude that paying into a system such as these two > > implies any causal connection.
> Those were your examples, not mine. Your examples are not so clear cut > because taxes are not a matter of choice, they are imposed on us, and the > manner in which they are spent is a matter of democratic (and other) > processes in which you have some say, but in general you are far removed > from, and no reasonable person can connect you causally to every outcome. > Your aquisition of food is not controlled in this way, you have personal > free choice in the matter. Your personal free choice is what links you > directly to the outcome.
No it doesn't. My choice doesn't affect the methods of farming. The only person with a control on CD is the farmer who causes them.
> [..] > > > > Blame the farmer!
> > > Right, for what HE does. He is not responsible for YOUR actions, > > > knowingly buying the wares of killers.
> > Neither am I. We're only responsible for what we do. I'm > > not responsible for CD and he's not responsible for what > > I spend my money on.
> Are you denying that you knowingly buy the wares of killers?
firstoftwins wrote: > "Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message > news:3C6ACC49.1030507@mindspring.NS.com... >>>>Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize evil >>>>farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are >>>>harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
>>>These animals aren't killed "as a result" of my payment to him. >>>These animals are killed "as a result" of his actions, not mine. >>>There's the difference.
>>You're trying to split hairs here, play a dirty >>lawyer's game; sleazily focusing attention on matters >>of timing, because having attention focused on your >>moral involvement is too painful. It's the whole >>activity, from start to finish, that is - in your view >>- morally tainted. You are a party, an ONGOING party, >>to the transaction.
> I have no moral involvement at any stage of the ongoing > process.
You can deny it all you want, but it's quite clear you do. You have an ongoing relationship with "the market", and you know what goes on. If there is any moral stain to *the transaction* you share in it.
>>Go back to my stolen goods analogy - an excellent >>analogy.
> It's a flawed analogy because you are supposing the stolen > goods are the property of the crook who stole them.
No, I'm not. I'm supposing the buyer knows that they are stolen. But the buyer isn't going to get them from the thief unless he pays the thief for them.
They're not the thief's rightful property to sell, *and the buyer knows it*. But he pays him anyway, because if he didn't, he'd have to pay more money to buy them from someone who does rightfully own them. Stolen goods are always sold at a discount from their legal price.
The analogy fits like a glove. In your view, the farmer has "stolen" the lives of the animals he has killed, and the theft is INEXTRICABLY bound up in the merchandise he sells you.
>>If you are arrested for buying stolen >>property, you might be able to escape prosecution, >>once, by arguing you didn't know the goods were stolen, >>and you didn't know the seller was a thief. But when >>you repeatedly go back to the same thief and buy goods >>from him, then you clearly share in the moral blame.
> That would be because I would be paying for his illegal > endeavours, not the goods that he stole. The courts don't > like the people who wage the crooks.
No, you're paying for the goods. No money, no goods, as far as the buyer is concerned.
>>The only reason he keeps stealing is because you and >>others keep buying.
> You can't buy something that is not for sale by its rightful > owner.
Of course you can, you idiot. As far as the transaction between you and the thief goes, he "owns" the goods: he has them, and he's not giving them to you unless you pay him for them. You're not paying him for his criminal efforts; you're paying for the goods. You won't give him the money UNLESS he gives you the goods.
You've lost, Derek.
> If you buy a car stolen from my drive, I can get it > back for nothing because it wasn't sold to you. Your money > paid the crooks wages, nothing more.
You can get it back for nothing because the transaction between the crook and the buyer was queered. In effect, the thief has now stolen from the buyer.
But if the goods are never recovered, the buyer enjoys them until they are discarded or he in turn sells them.
>>If no one, ever, bought the stolen >>merchandise, then theft as a way of earning a living >>would stop.
> No one can buy stolen goods.
You're trying, unsuccessfully, to redefine your way out of a problem. It doesn't work.
Of course you can "buy" the goods. The illegality of the transaction doesn't change the essence of it: that one person has goods in his possession, the other has money, and they trade them. That is a purchase, any way you look at it.
[snip remaining sophism about stolen property]
I'm not arguing this with you any more, Derek. You've lost. You cannot *legally* buy stolen merchandise, but you *can* buy it. And people do, knowingly. It is their knowledge of the provenance of the goods that gets them in trouble; it's what makes their participation in the purchase a separate crime from the theft itself.
>>The importance of this for you is that you could >>conceivably be forgiven for contributing to the deaths >>of animals killed during vegetable farming back when >>the thought hadn't occurred to you, and before it was >>pointed out to you here. But, NOW YOU KNOW! And you >>have known for a long time. If you *really* believed >>that animals have or ought to have rights against being >>killed for human convenience, you would be morally >>compelled to take drastic, and I do mean drastic, >>action to avoid being involved in their deaths in any >>way. You do not do so.
> Not so fast, Jon. What I do KNOW is that CD are caused > by the farmer to fatten his profits
No, not to "fatten" his profits. It's just the current way of farming.
> and are not a prerequisite > to producing food.
They are unavoidable if he is going to farm *and* provide you your food cheaply. It would be enormously, probably prohibitively, expensive to change farming methodology so that animal deaths and injury got down to the levels at which human death and injury occur in industry.
You are unwilling to pay that much for food.
> He can produce my veg without causing > CD but voluntarily chooses to make a higher profit instead.
Derek, you would be paying AT LEAST many hundreds of times what you currently pay, if farmers all took steps to reduce animal CDs down to the level at which human industrial accidents occur. For one thing, simply the cost of monitoring would put most farming operations out of business.
You simply couldn't afford it.
> His voluntary actions make him morally responsible for the > deaths he causes. My trade with him has no moral implication > for me as I do not have any control over his actions.
You are buying stolen lives, Derek.
You've lost.
>>You are in precisely the same moral situation as the >>repeat buyer of stolen merchandise.
> Not at all. Your analogy is a joke.
The analogy is superb. It fits you and your shitty, sanctimonious moral stance like a glove.
>>We do not "only" blame the thief. The buyer of his >>stolen goods is correctly seen as morally, and legally, >>culpable. That's why knowingly buying stolen property >>is also a crime, a separate crime from the theft itself.
> We blame the thief for stealing goods that don't belong to him. > We blame the recipient for paying the thief to commit the theft.
He didn't pay the thief to commit the crime. He bought the goods from the thief. He wants the goods, and he knows they're stolen. But he doesn't simply steal them from the thief. He gives the thief money for them.
If he pays the thief to commit the crime, that's a separate offense still.
> >>>>Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize evil > >>>>farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are > >>>>harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
> >>>These animals aren't killed "as a result" of my payment to him. > >>>These animals are killed "as a result" of his actions, not mine. > >>>There's the difference.
> >>You're trying to split hairs here, play a dirty > >>lawyer's game; sleazily focusing attention on matters > >>of timing, because having attention focused on your > >>moral involvement is too painful. It's the whole > >>activity, from start to finish, that is - in your view > >>- morally tainted. You are a party, an ONGOING party, > >>to the transaction.
> > I have no moral involvement at any stage of the ongoing > > process.
> You can deny it all you want, but it's quite clear you > do.
Only according to your obvious ignorance on the concepts of moral responsibility.
> You have an ongoing relationship with "the > market", and you know what goes on. If there is any > moral stain to *the transaction* you share in it.
No I don't. Moral responsibility isn't your strong point in the discussions here. You need to study the subject before making any silly uneducated statements like that.
> >>Go back to my stolen goods analogy - an excellent > >>analogy.
> > It's a flawed analogy because you are supposing the stolen > > goods are the property of the crook who stole them.
> No, I'm not. I'm supposing the buyer knows that they > are stolen. But the buyer isn't going to get them from > the thief unless he pays the thief for them.
He doesn't pay for *them.* How can a buyer buy something that isn't for sale? He pays the crook for his risk in nicking *them.*
> They're not the thief's rightful property to sell, *and > the buyer knows it*. But he pays him anyway, because > if he didn't, he'd have to pay more money to buy them > from someone who does rightfully own them. Stolen > goods are always sold at a discount from their legal price.
Stolen goods aren't sold. They are passed to his employer for "what it's werf." You try telling the real owner you bought them and he'll quickly tell you they were never for sale. That's why your er analogy stinks like a tramps crotch.
> The analogy fits like a glove.
It stinks.
> In your view, the > farmer has "stolen" the lives of the animals he has > killed, and the theft is INEXTRICABLY bound up in the > merchandise he sells you.
He hasn't stolen the lives because they weren't for sale.
> >>If you are arrested for buying stolen > >>property, you might be able to escape prosecution, > >>once, by arguing you didn't know the goods were stolen, > >>and you didn't know the seller was a thief. But when > >>you repeatedly go back to the same thief and buy goods > >>from him, then you clearly share in the moral blame.
> > That would be because I would be paying for his illegal > > endeavours, not the goods that he stole. The courts don't > > like the people who wage the crooks.
> No, you're paying for the goods. No money, no goods, > as far as the buyer is concerned.
That's true. I only pay for the goods. Thanks for coming round to my way of thinking, at last.
> >>The only reason he keeps stealing is because you and > >>others keep buying.
> > You can't buy something that is not for sale by its rightful > > owner.
> Of course you can, you idiot. As far as the > transaction between you and the thief goes, he "owns" > the goods: he has them, and he's not giving them to > you unless you pay him for them. You're not paying him > for his criminal efforts; you're paying for the goods. > You won't give him the money UNLESS he gives you the > goods.
Wrong. As far as the transaction goes, he doesn't own the goods and I'll pay for the risk he took in getting them. Just because these goods are in his possesion doesn't mean he "owns" them. If I want them bad enough I'll simply take them from him by force and he'll have no legal right for them to be returned to him.
> You've lost, Derek.
I'm gaining speed and you know it, Jon. You're scared stiff.
> > If you buy a car stolen from my drive, I can get it > > back for nothing because it wasn't sold to you. Your money > > paid the crooks wages, nothing more.
> You can get it back for nothing because the transaction > between the crook and the buyer was queered. In > effect, the thief has now stolen from the buyer.
A very good point! BUT. If the thief "sells" to an unwary buyer then he has indeed stolen his money too, which is why the courts are lenient on this victim. However if the "buyer" learns the goods were stolen, the transaction can and often is re-examined by the "buyer" and a new price is settled to cover the crooks wages because the goods are not part of the transaction anymore. Nice try though.
> But if the goods are never recovered, the buyer enjoys > them until they are discarded or he in turn sells them.
He cannot sell what does not belong to him. He can only pass them on at a considerably lower price because the goods themselves are worthless.
> >>If no one, ever, bought the stolen > >>merchandise, then theft as a way of earning a living > >>would stop.
> > No one can buy stolen goods.
> You're trying, unsuccessfully, to redefine your way out > of a problem. It doesn't work.
There is no problem.
> Of course you can "buy" the goods.
No you can't. You're talking like a ciminal yourself now; a person without ethics or in a position to offer moral teaching.
> The illegality of > the transaction doesn't change the essence of it: that > one person has goods in his possession, the other has > money, and they trade them. That is a purchase, any > way you look at it.
Wrong. An illegal transaction has a completely different essence to it. The only purchase from such a transaction is in the form of a wage to the crook.
> [snip remaining sophism about stolen property]
> I'm not arguing this with you any more, Derek.
Thanks for the easy win, Jon. Hah! I've not even got my second wind yet. What a lightweight you are.
> You've > lost.
I've just started. You haven't the stamina for this sort of thing anymore, Jon. Don't make me bully you anymore.
> You cannot *legally* buy stolen merchandise, but > you *can* buy it.
No you can't. You can hire a thief for his labour and pay for his derring do, but you can't buy something that doesen't belong to him. tch tch tch
> And people do, knowingly. It is > their knowledge of the provenance of the goods that > gets them in trouble; it's what makes their > participation in the purchase a separate crime from the > theft itself.
It's their knowledge of the risks involved that sets the wage payable to the crook, not the value of what he stole.
> >>The importance of this for you is that you could > >>conceivably be forgiven for contributing to the deaths > >>of animals killed during vegetable farming back when > >>the thought hadn't occurred to you, and before it was > >>pointed out to you here. But, NOW YOU KNOW! And you > >>have known for a long time. If you *really* believed > >>that animals have or ought to have rights against being > >>killed for human convenience, you would be morally > >>compelled to take drastic, and I do mean drastic, > >>action to avoid being involved in their deaths in any > >>way. You do not do so.
> > Not so fast, Jon. What I do KNOW is that CD are caused > > by the farmer to fatten his profits
> No, not to "fatten" his profits. It's just the current > way of farming.
If he didn't kill the vermin they will eat into his profits.
> > and are not a prerequisite > > to producing food.
> They are unavoidable if he is going to farm *and* > provide you your food cheaply.
So it is all down to his profits after all. You're not being very consistant here, Jon.
> It would be enormously, > probably prohibitively, expensive to change farming > methodology so that animal deaths and injury got down > to the levels at which human death and injury occur in > industry.
So what?
> You are unwilling to pay that much for food.
Irrelevant.
> > He can produce my veg without causing > > CD but voluntarily chooses to make a higher profit instead.
> Derek, you would be paying AT LEAST many hundreds of > times what you currently pay, if farmers all took steps > to reduce animal CDs down to the level at which human > industrial accidents occur. For one thing, simply the > cost of monitoring would put most farming operations > out of business.
> You simply couldn't afford it.
Irrelevant. The cost of his food has no moral importance.
> > His voluntary actions make him morally responsible for the > > deaths he causes. My trade with him has no moral implication > > for me as I do not have any control over his actions.
> You are buying stolen lives, Derek.
Those lives are not for sale. Only his food is. The lives he takes are only morally significant to him and have no moral importance to me whatsoever. What is the moral importance in CD to me, fuckwit?
> You've lost.
I won a long time ago.
> >>You are in precisely the same moral situation as the > >>repeat buyer of stolen merchandise.
> > Not at all. Your analogy is a joke.
> The analogy is superb. It fits you and your shitty, > sanctimonious moral stance like a glove.
I have no moral obligation for the farmers CD. I have no control over his actions or traits and am completely seperate from them.
> >>We do not "only" blame the thief. The buyer of his > >>stolen goods is correctly seen as morally, and legally,
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > [..] > > > > > So, we've established and agreed upon the farmers > > > > > motivation for killing these animals; it's for money. He > > > > > doesn't have to farm to earn money so he is not forced > > > > > to do it. There is no compulsion from anyone that he > > > > > farms or any outside influence from me on the methods > > > > > he uses. His actions are entirely voluntary and under his > > > > > own control.
> > > > Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize evil > > > > farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are > > > > harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
> > > These animals aren't killed "as a result" of my payment to him. > > > These animals are killed "as a result" of his actions, not mine. > > > There's the difference.
> > It's like a domino toppling game Derek. The first domino doesn't touch the > > last one, which may be a good distance away, yet toppling the first one > > results in the last one falling. If I topple the first one, am I not > > responsible for the last one falling, since I know they are all in a row?
> What!
Have you never seen domino toppling on the tube? You tip the first one over causing thousands of others to fall. You are tipping the first domino when you buy food.
> > > > [....] > > > > > According to Aristotle's concepts of moral responsibility, > > > > > the farmer is definitely our agent for blame for the CD he > > > > > causes.
> > > > > Some say I must also share in this blame because of my > > > > > trade with him. I have looked high and low for concepts > > > > > of shared moral responsibility that allows me to share in > > > > > this blame but to no avail. In fact;
> > > > You don't share the blame for HIS actions, your bear the responsibility > > > > for your own, knowingly buying cd tainted foods.
> > > I knowingly pay my taxes to the ploice who I know run > > > down pedestrians while chasing car thieves. I'm not > > > responsible or blameworthy for paying them to do so.
> > Do you have any choice in that matter? No, taxes are extracted from your > > paycheque without your consent. Do you protest against high-speed police > > chases? I do.
> Irrelevant. The point is; I'm not responsible for what happens > in a system merely because I trade with that system.
That is true, such a generalization would be incorrect, but that's not what I said. If you buy goods which you know are stolen you become an accessory after the fact to the crime of theft. You again are reduced to using strawmen arguments. Thank you for constantly reinforcing my knowledge that I am on the better side of this argument.
> > > I pay farmers through my taxes too, and I'm not > > > responsible or blameworthy for what they do to > > > provide me with food either. You're completely wrong > > > to conclude that paying into a system such as these two > > > implies any causal connection.
> > Those were your examples, not mine. Your examples are not so clear cut > > because taxes are not a matter of choice, they are imposed on us, and the > > manner in which they are spent is a matter of democratic (and other) > > processes in which you have some say, but in general you are far removed > > from, and no reasonable person can connect you causally to every outcome. > > Your aquisition of food is not controlled in this way, you have personal > > free choice in the matter. Your personal free choice is what links you > > directly to the outcome.
> No it doesn't. My choice doesn't affect the methods of farming. > The only person with a control on CD is the farmer who causes > them.
But you control him.
> > [..] > > > > > Blame the farmer!
> > > > Right, for what HE does. He is not responsible for YOUR actions, > > > > knowingly buying the wares of killers.
> > > Neither am I. We're only responsible for what we do. I'm > > > not responsible for CD and he's not responsible for what > > > I spend my money on.
> > Are you denying that you knowingly buy the wares of killers?
> No.
That makes you an accessory after the fact to murder under the law.
> "Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message > > firstoftwins wrote: > > > "Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote
[..]
> > >>Go back to my stolen goods analogy - an excellent > > >>analogy. > > > It's a flawed analogy because you are supposing the stolen > > > goods are the property of the crook who stole them.
No it doesn't, it only assumes he has possession of them and is willing to sell them.
> > No, I'm not. I'm supposing the buyer knows that they > > are stolen. But the buyer isn't going to get them from > > the thief unless he pays the thief for them.
> He doesn't pay for *them.* How can a buyer buy something > that isn't for sale? He pays the crook for his risk in nicking > *them.*
If you look at it that way, by analogy you are even closer to the farmer's murderous acts. At any rate, you are wrong, to buy means to give currency in exchange for some goods, ownership does not come into it like you are saying at all. The term buy is used in reference to stolen goods as well. As usual you are making a fool of yourself.
We'll blame you, Derek. You are in the same moral stance as the buyer of stolen goods. You can try sleazily to redefine terms all you want; that won't work with plain speakers and competent readers.
You share the moral responsibility for the animal CDs that occur in the course of the production of the food you eat. There is simply no question. Your flimsy protests are those of the convicted criminal.
Your attempt to explain away the purchase of stolen goods is laughable in the extreme. Of course you can buy stolen goods. A purchase isn't *defined* as being only a legal transaction; not in the law, not in economics, not in logic. That's your own juvenile belief, and it's flatly wrong. A purchase is simply a voluntary exchange of value between two consenting parties. In this case, it's between you and the thief (unless you're the thief, in which case it's between you and someone else; that can't be ruled out.) It doesn't matter if one of the parties to the transaction has come by his thing of value by illegal means; in terms of the two transactors, it's a purchase or a sale, no question about it.
It's simply bizarre that you think you're paying the thief for his thievery, rather than the goods. If you have bought, say, a stolen CD player, what you took home with you was a CD player, not some abstraction called "theft". You did not pay the thief for his thievery.
In fact, the value of the thievery, to you, lies in what you did NOT pay: the differential between what you paid the thief for the ghetto blaster, and what you would have had to pay for it in the high street. Thieves sell at a discount compared to the high street; that's why you buy from them.
Just like why you buy from conventional farmers. Compared to what you would have to pay if they undertook to reduce animal CD and injury to a level comparable to what is found in human industry, you save a fortune. But this comes at the cost of animal lives, lives you claim to believe should not be taken from them. These lives are inseparable from the merchandise, once they've been taken. The difference is, you goddamned thief at heart, that you know you'll never have to give them back, even though they weren't the farmer's to sell to you.
And you won't lift a finger to try to reduce the toll. You are just as interested in fattening *your* profits, in the form of ease and cheap food, as you unjustly accuse the farmer of being.
I don't have any expectation of reducing you to a quivering, sobbing heap, like ~~ratsleaze's~~ annual, but understand, thief, that everyone here, including those on your Side, sees you for what you are: not only a thief, but sociopath who blames his thievery on others.
> "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message > > > firstoftwins wrote: > > > > "Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote
> [..]
> > > >>Go back to my stolen goods analogy - an excellent > > > >>analogy.
> > > > It's a flawed analogy because you are supposing the stolen > > > > goods are the property of the crook who stole them.
> No it doesn't, it only assumes he has possession of them and is willing to > sell them.
You are forgetting; you can't sell something that doesn't belong to you.
> > > No, I'm not. I'm supposing the buyer knows that they > > > are stolen. But the buyer isn't going to get them from > > > the thief unless he pays the thief for them.
> > He doesn't pay for *them.* How can a buyer buy something > > that isn't for sale? He pays the crook for his risk in nicking > > *them.*
> If you look at it that way, by analogy you are even closer to the farmer's > murderous acts.
Not at all. You're just supposing without giving any reason for me any reasons to accept that claim.
> At any rate, you are wrong, to buy means to give currency in > exchange for some goods, ownership does not come into it like you are saying > at all. The term buy is used in reference to stolen goods as well. As usual > you are making a fool of yourself.
I'm merely pointing out to you where the flaw is in the analogy. You can't liken a farmer to a car thief in the hope of gaining acceptance to your argument that I am responsible for CD. You and Jon are using an analogy that just doesn't work.
[From: Jonathan Ball (jonb...@earthlink.NS.net) Subject: Re: The meaning of Animal Rights. Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, free.uk.politics.animal-rights, talk.politics.animals, uk.politics.animals Date: 2001-08-09 12:08:25 PST
The point is not to "blame" vegans. It's to show that they can't blame others while remaining free of blame themselves.] You're not very consistent lately.
> You are in the same moral > stance as the buyer of stolen goods.
I've just proved you wrong on that point.
> You can try > sleazily to redefine terms all you want; that won't > work with plain speakers and competent readers.
What if your analogy was credible? How would equating CD with theft suggest I am responsible for CD? You've spent so long trying to convince me the two are inseparable that you've lost the plot altogether.
> You share the moral responsibility for the animal CDs > that occur in the course of the production of the food > you eat. There is simply no question. Your flimsy > protests are those of the convicted criminal.
You're the one talking like a criminal if you think you can "buy" stolen goods. You walked right into that one.
[Some philosophers, such as H.D. Lewis, find the whole idea of collective responsibility utterly repugnant and oppose all efforts to portray it as philosophically respectable. To Lewis's way of thinking it is, in all of its manifestations, something barbaric and out of place in the thinking of people in the twentieth century. Thus, some find an extreme individualist approach to their liking, and they will regard as utter nonsense claims typified by the correspondent for National Public Radio to the effect that vast groups of people can be collectively responsible for various problems in the world.] http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
[ Moral responsibility is a personal, individual matter, and we should never be expected to bear responsibility for the wrongdoings of another (unless we have agreed to do so voluntarily, as when we take responsibility for the actions of our child, our subordinate, or our senile parent). Moral responsibility is not something which can somehow spread spontaneously through a whole group of people; it is confined to each individual exactly in proportion to what the individual has done or failed to do.] http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
Why should I believe in your concepts of shared moral responsibility when the concepts have already been addressed in a better form elsewhere? You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
I've been very thorough in producing plenty of evidence to show shared moral responsibility doesn't exist and all you've brought is a pathetic analogy of a car thief and a farmer. You're an idiot.
> Your attempt to explain away the purchase of stolen > goods is laughable in the extreme. Of course you can > buy stolen goods.
No you can't.
[Bull dykes usual effort to equate a car thief to a farmer]
> I don't have any expectation of reducing you to a > quivering, sobbing heap, like ~~ratsleaze's~~ annual, > but understand, thief, that everyone here, including > those on your Side, sees you for what you are: not > only a thief, but sociopath who blames his thievery on > others.
I'm always willing to listen to anyone's view on why I should hold myself responsible for CD, but their tacit approval should tell you you're on your own on this one. But, if there are posters of my own side who could offer something from their own perspective to show me where I'm mistaken, no one need think they would be arguing against their own side in putting me right, and they could certainly count on my best behaviour.
> "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > [..] > > > > > > So, we've established and agreed upon the farmers > > > > > > motivation for killing these animals; it's for money. He > > > > > > doesn't have to farm to earn money so he is not forced > > > > > > to do it. There is no compulsion from anyone that he > > > > > > farms or any outside influence from me on the methods > > > > > > he uses. His actions are entirely voluntary and under his > > > > > > own control.
> > > > > Exactly right, and so are yours. Nobody is forcing you to patronize > evil > > > > > farmers, you do that of your own volition. As a result, animals are > > > > > harmed, displaced and killed, you know it, and you carry on anyway.
> > > > These animals aren't killed "as a result" of my payment to him. > > > > These animals are killed "as a result" of his actions, not mine. > > > > There's the difference.
> > > It's like a domino toppling game Derek. The first domino doesn't touch > the > > > last one, which may be a good distance away, yet toppling the first one > > > results in the last one falling. If I topple the first one, am I not > > > responsible for the last one falling, since I know they are all in a > row?
> > What!
> Have you never seen domino toppling on the tube?
No.
> You tip the first one over > causing thousands of others to fall.
Other what? What are you talking about.? You're not talking sense.
> You are tipping the first domino when > you buy food.
Are you trying to form an analogy with the domino principle?
[..]
> > > Do you have any choice in that matter? No, taxes are extracted from your > > > paycheque without your consent. Do you protest against high-speed police > > > chases? I do.
> > Irrelevant. The point is; I'm not responsible for what happens > > in a system merely because I trade with that system.
> That is true, such a generalization would be incorrect, but that's not what > I said. If you buy goods which you know are stolen you become an accessory > after the fact to the crime of theft. You again are reduced to using > strawmen arguments. Thank you for constantly reinforcing my knowledge that I > am on the better side of this argument.
Were you in doubt at some recent time then, Dutch?
[..] > > No it doesn't. My choice doesn't affect the methods of farming. > > The only person with a control on CD is the farmer who causes > > them.
> But you control him.
A candidate for blame cannot be excused because of a notional external compulsion. Aristotle backs me up on this, which is nice. [..]
> > > Are you denying that you knowingly buy the wares of killers?
> > No.
> That makes you an accessory after the fact to murder under the law.
You'll have to explain how, because I'm not about to take your word over those of Aristotle.
It isn't, really. But you keep coming back to the word. It'll serve as a synonym for "hold responsible".
>>You are in the same moral >>stance as the buyer of stolen goods.
> I've just proved you wrong on that point.
No, you definitely have not.
>>You can try >>sleazily to redefine terms all you want; that won't >>work with plain speakers and competent readers.
> What if your analogy was credible? How would equating CD with > theft suggest I am responsible for CD? You've spent so long trying > to convince me the two are inseparable that you've lost the plot > altogether.
I haven't lost it at all. You have. You have a short attention span.
You are responsible for animal CDs, as the buyer of stolen property is responsible for the theft of the property, in the sense that if you don't buy, the original perpetrator has to stop his criminal behavior.
>>You share the moral responsibility for the animal CDs >>that occur in the course of the production of the food >>you eat. There is simply no question. Your flimsy >>protests are those of the convicted criminal.
> You're the one talking like a criminal if you think you can > "buy" stolen goods. You walked right into that one.
You can buy them, Derek. The fact of "purchase" is not negated by the fact that the things of value changing hands might be ill-gotten. The thief has goods that you want; you have money that he wants. You exchange them, each considering yourself better off after having made the exchange.
That's all a purchase is. You can't introduce some notion of the provenance of the goods and/or money, and say that if one or both are ill-gotten, then it wasn't "really" a purchase.
It is a purchase; a buy, if you will. It is an illicit transaction, but a transaction all the same.
> [Some philosophers, such as H.D. Lewis, find the whole > idea of collective responsibility utterly repugnant and > oppose all efforts to portray it as philosophically respectable.
And some others don't.
> To Lewis's way of thinking it is, in all of its manifestations, > something barbaric and out of place in the thinking of > people in the twentieth century. Thus, some find an extreme > individualist approach to their liking, and they will regard as > utter nonsense claims typified by the correspondent for > National Public Radio to the effect that vast groups of people > can be collectively responsible for various problems in the > world.] > http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
> [ Moral responsibility is a personal, individual matter, and > we should never be expected to bear responsibility for the > wrongdoings of another (unless we have agreed to do so > voluntarily, as when we take responsibility for the actions > of our child, our subordinate, or our senile parent). Moral > responsibility is not something which can somehow spread > spontaneously through a whole group of people; it is > confined to each individual exactly in proportion to what the > individual has done or failed to do.] > http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
> Why should I believe in your concepts of shared moral > responsibility when the concepts have already been > addressed in a better form elsewhere? You haven't got > a clue what you're talking about.
I have an excellent clue. You don't. For example, you don't understand the difference between collective responsibility and shared responsibility. There is one, but you don't know what it is.
> I've been very thorough in producing plenty of evidence to > show shared moral responsibility doesn't exist
No, you haven't shown that it "doesn't exist". You have shown a couple of citations, only one of which named an actual philosopher, indicating they don't find the concept useful.
> and all you've > brought is a pathetic analogy of a car thief and a farmer. > You're an idiot.
No, you don't even believe that. You know I'm actually very smart; you even know I'm much smarter than you.
>>Your attempt to explain away the purchase of stolen >>goods is laughable in the extreme. Of course you can >>buy stolen goods.
> No you can't.
Yes, you can. You "buy" something when you exchange something of value for something else of value. The legality of the exchange doesn't change it from "buying" to "not buying".
> [Bull dykes usual effort to equate a car thief to a farmer]
>>I don't have any expectation of reducing you to a >>quivering, sobbing heap, like ~~ratsleaze's~~ annual, >>but understand, thief, that everyone here, including >>those on your Side, sees you for what you are: not >>only a thief, but sociopath who blames his thievery on >>others.
> I'm always willing to listen to anyone's view on why I should > hold myself responsible for CD, but their tacit approval should > tell you you're on your own on this one. But, if there are posters > of my own side who could offer something from their own > perspective to show me where I'm mistaken, no one need think > they would be arguing against their own side in putting me right, > and they could certainly count on my best behaviour.
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message
>>>>firstoftwins wrote:
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote
>>[..]
>>>>>>Go back to my stolen goods analogy - an excellent >>>>>>analogy.
>>>>>It's a flawed analogy because you are supposing the stolen >>>>>goods are the property of the crook who stole them.
>>No it doesn't, it only assumes he has possession of them and is willing to >>sell them.
> You are forgetting; you can't sell something that doesn't belong > to you.
You are ignoring: you can indeed sell it; it isn't a legal sale, but it is a sale. Things of value have changed hands. That's all a sale is. You're trying to redefine it to suit your sleazy, responsibility-shirking purposes, and it won't work.
>>>>No, I'm not. I'm supposing the buyer knows that they >>>>are stolen. But the buyer isn't going to get them from >>>>the thief unless he pays the thief for them.
>>>He doesn't pay for *them.* How can a buyer buy something >>>that isn't for sale? He pays the crook for his risk in nicking >>>*them.*
No, he doesn't. You don't take the "risk" home with you; you take home the merchandise. You are buying merchandise, at a deep discount because it was stolen.
>>If you look at it that way, by analogy you are even closer to the farmer's >>murderous acts.
> Not at all. You're just supposing without giving any reason for > me any reasons to accept that claim.
>>At any rate, you are wrong, to buy means to give currency in >>exchange for some goods, ownership does not come into it like you are saying >>at all. The term buy is used in reference to stolen goods as well. As usual >>you are making a fool of yourself.
> I'm merely pointing out to you where the flaw is in the analogy. > You can't liken a farmer to a car thief in the hope of gaining > acceptance to your argument that I am responsible for CD. > You and Jon are using an analogy that just doesn't work.
It works very well, for honest people who don't butcher the English language in order to try to win a rhetorical point.
You can buy stolen goods, Derek; just not legally.
> [Some philosophers, such as H.D. Lewis, find the whole > idea of collective responsibility utterly repugnant and > oppose all efforts to portray it as philosophically respectable. > To Lewis's way of thinking it is, in all of its manifestations, > something barbaric and out of place in the thinking of > people in the twentieth century. Thus, some find an extreme > individualist approach to their liking, and they will regard as > utter nonsense claims typified by the correspondent for > National Public Radio to the effect that vast groups of people > can be collectively responsible for various problems in the > world.] > http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/writings/crintro.htm
You're pulling a ~~Slutweed~~ here, Derek. Why am I not surprised?
You have quoted this material from Gregory Mellema very much out of context. Dr. Mellema has written a book, whose title is _Collective Responsibility_, in which he is advocating IN FAVOR of a notion of collective responsibility. But the passage you have cited from his introduction is one in which, as an honest academic, he points out that some of his professional peers disagree with him.
You, of course, being as dishonest and foul as ~~venerealdiseaseweed~~, have tried to portray the entire page as arguing against collective responsibility. I would like to think you did this out of incompetence and bad reading comprehension, but you are too well known here.
Here's more from Dr. Mellema himself, from the same page:
The discussion in this book is mainly concerned with the second of these senses of collective responsibility, and to avoid confusion I will follow the lead of most writers on this topic in not employing the term at all to refer to the first of these senses. Instead I employ the term "shared responsibility" to refer to situations in which several individuals are responsible for the same state of affairs. In an earlier book I focused upon the topic of shared responsibility (Mellema, 1988). In the present book, by contrast, I focus upon the topic of collective responsibility understood as the view that a collective consisting of two or more moral agents can bear responsibility for what happens. For the remainder of this discussion I will speak of collective responsibility strictly in reference to this view. . . . Recently the concept of moral taint has been introduced into discussions of collective responsibility. Roughly, the idea is that an agent can sometimes be tainted by the wrongdoing of others with whom the agent is significantly associated. One of the ideas which will be developed in this book is that if moral taint exists, then it can be regarded as corresponding to still another level of involvement in harm. Specifically, an agent who is tainted by the wrongdoing of another person through the agent's association with that person is involved in the events of the wrongdoing to a lesser extent than an agent who belongs to a collective which bears responsibility for this wrongdoing or its effects. This means that in and of itself the fact that an agent is tainted by evil is not sufficient to warrant the judgment that the agent is a member of a collective which is morally responsible for it. . . . Characterizing what it means for an individual to bear moral responsibility can be an enormously complex undertaking, and in the moral literature are many lengthy and detailed discussions and debates on the topic. Since this book deals with the group or collective dimension of moral responsibility, I shall not recount or comment upon these discussions and debates. Instead, I will rely upon an account proposed by Larry May which includes most of what is standardly considered to be the key components of moral responsibility (though, strictly speaking, it is not intended to be a definition). Those who participate in the details of the debates on moral responsibility may find this account unsophisticated or simplistic, but for the purposes of serving a discussion of the group dimensions of moral responsibility I will, following May's example, regard it as suitable.
May's characterization is as follows. A person is morally responsible for a given harm or character defect if the person's conduct played a significant causal role in that harm or defect, the person's conduct was blameworthy or it was morally faulty in some other way, and the aspect of the act that was faulty was also ***one of the aspects in virtue of which it was a cause of the harm*** (May, 1992, p. 15). Here the conduct or act in question might consist in the person's omitting to act, for often a person comes to bear moral responsibility for a harm by his or her not doing anything. Understood this way, the central components of the account are that harm results, it results because of a person's conduct, and this conduct is morally blameworthy or faulty. I will depart slightly from May by allowing that in some cases a person's contributing to harm may render the person responsible for the harm, ***even if the contribution is not strictly a causal contribution***. My reasons for relaxing this requirement will be made clear in subsequent portions of the discussion, and others have likewise explained why in general relaxing this requirement is advantageous (Ellin, 1981, p. 21). [emphasis added via '***'] . . . The view I defend states that a moral agent is a member of a collective which bears moral responsibility for a state of affairs only if the agent performs a "qualifying act," an act which qualifies an agent for membership in the collective [JB: like buying groceries from farmers who kill defenseless animals]. Since a moral agent bears moral responsibility for having performed this qualifying act, in some sense collective moral responsibility can be said to distribute to the moral responsibility of its constitutive members.
>> > So meat eaters aren't responsible for the lives or deaths >> > of the animals we eat either.
>> They aren't responsible for the CD caused by the farmer, but they >> are very much responsible for the deaths of the animals they have >> killed for them on their behalf. >-------------------------- >Not at all, I don't pay him to kill the animals, I only pay him for a >nice juicy steak.
And in most cases the farmer doesn't kill the animals he raises anyway, does he? If he did, it would spare the animals having to experience the cruelties of loading on and off the truck, and the journey to the slaughterhouse. IMO it would really be better for the animals if they were killed right there on the farm, but there are regulations which prevent that in most cases where the meat will be sold to the public, aren't there?
>Whatever he does to obtain that is none of my moral >responsibility.(the world according to 1stoftwits)
>>>> So meat eaters aren't responsible for the lives or deaths >>>>of the animals we eat either.
>>>They aren't responsible for the CD caused by the farmer, but they >>>are very much responsible for the deaths of the animals they have >>>killed for them on their behalf.
>>-------------------------- >>Not at all, I don't pay him to kill the animals, I only pay him for a >>nice juicy steak.
> And in most cases the farmer doesn't kill the animals he > raises anyway, does he? If he did, it would spare the animals > having to experience the cruelties of loading on and off the > truck, and the journey to the slaughterhouse. IMO it would > really be better for the animals if they were killed right there > on the farm, but there are regulations which prevent that in > most cases where the meat will be sold to the public, aren't > there?
Probably not. It's a matter of efficiency. Why should every ranching operation incur the cost of setting up an expensive slaughtering facility, when relatively few of them can handle tens of thousands of cattle?
It's called the benefits of specialization. It's the same reason we don't all do our own dry cleaning, nor our own car repair, nor a whole range of services. It's too expensive; specialists can do it cheaper.
>>Whatever he does to obtain that is none of my moral >>responsibility.(the world according to 1stoftwits)
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > "firstoftwins" <firstoftw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > > > > [..] > > Have you never seen domino toppling on the tube?
> No.
forget the analogy then..
> > You tip the first one over > > causing thousands of others to fall.
> Other what? What are you talking about.? You're not > talking sense.
> > You are tipping the first domino when > > you buy food.
> Are you trying to form an analogy with the domino principle?
Yes
> [..] > > > > Do you have any choice in that matter? No, taxes are extracted from your > > > > paycheque without your consent. Do you protest against high-speed police > > > > chases? I do.
> > > Irrelevant. The point is; I'm not responsible for what happens > > > in a system merely because I trade with that system.
> > That is true, such a generalization would be incorrect, but that's not what > > I said. If you buy goods which you know are stolen you become an accessory > > after the fact to the crime of theft. You again are reduced to using > > strawmen arguments. Thank you for constantly reinforcing my knowledge that I > > am on the better side of this argument.
> Were you in doubt at some recent time then, Dutch?
Yes, a year or so ago. And my point is valid, you are an accessory.
[..]
> > > No it doesn't. My choice doesn't affect the methods of farming. > > > The only person with a control on CD is the farmer who causes > > > them.
> > But you control him.
> A candidate for blame cannot be excused because of a notional > external compulsion. Aristotle backs me up on this, which is nice.
I'm not suggesting he be excused, I am telling you that your actions have consequences for which you are responsible. You are deliberately misconstruing my statements aren't you?
[..]
> > > > Are you denying that you knowingly buy the wares of killers?
> > > No.
> > That makes you an accessory after the fact to murder under the law.
> You'll have to explain how, because I'm not about to take your > word over those of Aristotle.
It's a basic legal principle, and Aristotle does not disagree with it. knowledge+action=culpability. Your efforts are all about misquotation and misinterpretation.
> A candidate for blame cannot be excused because of a notional > external compulsion.
======================== Exactly. You are the agent making your choices. Choices you know violate your so-called 'ethics'.
> Aristotle backs me up on this, which is nice.
------------------------ Nope, he tells you you are to blame for the actions you take. You are morally responsible for buying the death and suffering of animals because that is the product you *choose* to buy. You could make other choices, but since your 'ethics' are non-existent, you don't. ------------------------------
> [..] > > > > Are you denying that you knowingly buy the wares of killers?
> > > No.
> > That makes you an accessory after the fact to murder under the law.
> You'll have to explain how, because I'm not about to take your > word over those of Aristotle.
===================== Then read him again, this time for comprehension, not agenda.
|
