[lbo-talk] Vegetarianism

[ravi]

Carrol Cox wrote:
> ravi wrote:
> 
>>>look, here's where you are indeed being facetious ;-). i think its
>>
>>because you believe, as in mathematics, that providing an alternate
>>scenario, however unlikely/unimaginable, disproves your opponent's thesis.
>>
>>but the reality is that in order to come up with rules and theories in
>>ethics, we have to start somewhere 
> 
> Yes, we have to start somewhere -- but in action (i.e., given social
> relations) NOT any principle. Principles emerge from social activity
> rather than exist prior to it. Suffering is a bad thing rather than a
> good thing ONLY because there has developed from our practice a rough
> and ready agreement on this.

 >

waitaminit! did you read my entire post? you are pretty much summarizing 
what i wrote (roughly) in over three or so posts. setting aside the 
bootstrapping problem for a second, let us follow this path of 
reasoning. what are the principles that have emerged from social 
activity? singer's point is that if you were to outline these principles 
(whose use can be discerned in the answers to the scenarios posed, such 
as the comatose-vs-ill problem) he can show that they can be equally 
applied to animals.


> What justifies it is our solidarity and work to make it happpen.

look, seriously, there is no presupposition of solidarity! what is it 
that should make me feel solidarity with you? and the rest of lbo? the 
fact that we are all on the same mailing list? unless i know what you 
stand for, what sort of actions you support, participate in, etc, i can 
have no pretense of solidarity.

	--ravi