Hey, I am thankful just for the thoughtful response!
>> My answer above (including the parts from my message not quoted)
>> addresses this. Housing (or office space) in many cases (exceptions
>> noted above) is a necessity for human survival.
>
> You say that killing for meat is not ethical because it is not
> justifiable because it is not necessary. Isn't this begging the
> question?
>
That's a fair criticism/question. I am not sure I see question-begging here, but just possible plain confusion or avoidance on my part i.e., though I am quick to throw killing for housing (of a particular kind) in the ethically permissible category, I am not as honest about killing for meat. I favour vegetarianism as an ethically derived position while simultaneously attempting to avoid calling non- vegetarianism an ethically unjustifiable position. The reason for that is that (as well as my statement below, as quoted by you, that I think it is the more humane option) I believe is that it too (like housing) is an issue with details that need working out.
As I noted earlier, the trivial cases are nomads wandering the forests and their choices. Ten or twenty years ago, I suspect someone walking the grocery store aisles in the USA was in a situation not that dissimilar in terms of his or her choices. Today, you have the choice of free range (or whatever fairness to animals would demand), etc. But if you in fact choose a free range animal that lived a decent life and was quickly and mercifully killed, it seems to me you are in fact accepting the ethical framework and the consequent prescriptions that I employ. In such a case, if it is shown that these animals are still subjected to a great amount of suffering as I suspect, my guess is that you would choose a product that is more considerate, if available. One such available product is vegetarianism or veganism, and arguably the surest and safest way to meet our shared goal. As already noted, and should be obvious from the above argument, I think this is a matter of practical ethics and the answers lie on some continuous line.
I admit I have also gone beyond this argument: I have held (or least hinted that) the loss of life of an animal can be a form of suffering or injustice, and if it is avoidable, it should be avoided. Again, I think there is enough evidence that this belief is widespread. We have laws against cruelty or killing animals, we frown upon such activities (though hunting as a sport: where does society stand on that?) in general, permitting only certain exceptions: threat to our survival, and more arguably impediment to our free movement and enjoyment. Practically speaking, in a Western nation, I do not believe this is avoidable when it comes to food.
There are those who are outright offended by such arguments because in the very act of debate, they find an assertion of superiority. To avoid reverse accusations regarding their own prescriptions they hold that theirs are amoral and therefore do not make a statement about individuals and their "preferences". I don't buy this sleight of hand.
If an action is suggested, it is (and should be) suggested because the proponent believes he or she has sound arguments in its favour for reaching a chosen goal -- and no, I do not believe that goals can be achieved through just some sort of spontaneous consciousness that arises and propels the populace forward. And how are these goals arrived at and universalised? I see no alternative but (a) appeal to narrow self-interest, (b) use of some form of moral reasoning. I have argued against (a) in many posts on LBO and offered minor summaries on both points in my response to Bill.
> This is why I avoid labeling those who approve of killing animals (in
> ways I do not) as participating in "suffering and torture".
I am not labelling people. I am describing the act. It doesn't matter what any of us approve of. This is what is done to animals. Now you could argue that torture and suffering are terms that are applicable only to human beings, and we are back to square one. But that's a different argument.
>> Look, my posts are littered with the subtle gradations of the
>> recommended actions in favour of my goals of animal welfare. But it
>> would be wrong of me to give you the idea that I think that adoption
>> of a vegetarian (or some would argue, vegan) diet is not the more
>> humane thing to do. Again, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The
>> arguments against my position are I think more guilty of the jumps
>> and
>> hand-waving that worry you so. They vascillate between personal
>> animosity towards vegetarians (their attitude) to radical doubt.
>
> I don't recall making an argument against a position, or displaying
> personal animosity.
Not you. In my statement above I was pointing you to other responses. And the animosity is not towards me (though perhaps there is that too, which I would prefer not to know, except in the case of those who have made it explicit), but towards vegetarians. I don't care particularly about that in an emotional sense. Perhaps Ingrid Newkirk deserves it for her "fruitcake" expressions.
> But this little nugget:
>
>> Support something better than yourself ;-)
>
> which is a Ha-Ha-Only-Serious bit if there ever was, is asking to be
> mocked. Smug Alert!
That's not the signature I started out with(*) here or on PEN-L, so your analysis is bit in reverse. But IMHO you are off track here: I point to mockery etc to buttress my comment that it is my opponents who are hand-waving (your term). Whatever be the cathartic value of it, it certainly does not constitute an attempt at reasoning.
--ravi
(*) I did have a funny bit in my .sig from Alasdair MacIntyre about man as a rational animal, but that was not in aid of animal rights, but to mock the old idea that ... well ... man is "the" rational animal.
-- Support something better than me ;-) PeTA => http://peta.org/ Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/