Vegetarian Discussion: Obligation Vs. Supererogation

Obligation Vs. Supererogation
Posts: 15

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2009-12-30 17:40:41 EST
Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
was supererogatory but did at least serve a morally worthy goal, would
we continue to disagree?

Ex-PFC Wintergreen
2009-12-30 17:46:48 EST
Rupert wrote:
> Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
> was supererogatory

But it isn't. In and of itself, it cannot be.


> but did at least serve a morally worthy goal, would
> we continue to disagree?

Feeling good about yourself while not doing anything meaningful toward a
morally worthy goal is not, itself, a morally worthy goal.

Rupert
2009-12-30 19:42:35 EST
On Dec 31, 9:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
> > was supererogatory
>
> But it isn't.  In and of itself, it cannot be.
>

First let's make sure you understand the word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supererogatory

If you understand the word, great, feel free to explain why boycotting
animal agriculture cannot be supererogatory.

> > but did at least serve a morally worthy goal, would
> > we continue to disagree?
>
> Feeling good about yourself while not doing anything meaningful toward a
> morally worthy goal is not, itself, a morally worthy goal.

Indeed not, but I welcome any attempt to explain why reducing the
extent to which the processes you pay for inflict suffering and
premature death on other sentient beings is not a morally worthy goal.
You *seemed* to acknowledge that it was when you made an attempt to
defend your decisions about what sort of food to buy.

Ex-PFC Wintergreen
2009-12-30 20:28:30 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 31, 9:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
>>> was supererogatory
>> But it isn't. In and of itself, it cannot be.
>>
>
> First let's make sure you understand the word:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supererogatory
>
> If you understand the word, great, feel free to explain why boycotting
> animal agriculture cannot be supererogatory.

How could it be? What duty is owed that refraining from consuming
animal parts somehow goes beyond? It makes no sense.


>>> but did at least serve a morally worthy goal, would
>>> we continue to disagree?
>> Feeling good about yourself while not doing anything meaningful toward a
>> morally worthy goal is not, itself, a morally worthy goal.
>
> Indeed not, but I welcome any attempt to explain why reducing the
> extent to which the processes you pay for inflict suffering and
> premature death on other sentient beings is not a morally worthy goal.

You can't show that you achieve that.

Rupert
2009-12-30 20:42:37 EST
On Dec 31, 12:28 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 9:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
> >>> was supererogatory
> >> But it isn't.  In and of itself, it cannot be.
>
> > First let's make sure you understand the word:
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supererogatory
>
> > If you understand the word, great, feel free to explain why boycotting
> > animal agriculture cannot be supererogatory.
>
> How could it be?  What duty is owed that refraining from consuming
> animal parts somehow goes beyond?  

The duties that you actually have. Part of their function is the
reduce the role your activities play in causing suffering. When you
take further steps towards that goal you are going above and beyond
the call of duty (on the view we are now contemplating).

> It makes no sense.
>

You yourself appeared to acknowledge that there was something good
about making *some* effort to be selective about the farms from which
you buy meat. That must be a form of behaviour which is either
obligatory or supererogatory.

> >>> but did at least serve a morally worthy goal, would
> >>> we continue to disagree?
> >> Feeling good about yourself while not doing anything meaningful toward a
> >> morally worthy goal is not, itself, a morally worthy goal.
>
> > Indeed not, but I welcome any attempt to explain why reducing the
> > extent to which the processes you pay for inflict suffering and
> > premature death on other sentient beings is not a morally worthy goal.
>
> You can't show that you achieve that.

Would that be the only objection left, then, that you doubt that the
behaviour is actually rational with respect to the goal?

And do you really doubt that? Dutch said that no reasonable person
could doubt it, and I thought you yourself made remarks along those
lines once.

Ex-PFC Wintergreen
2009-12-30 21:04:03 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:28 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 9:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
>>>>> was supererogatory
>>>> But it isn't. In and of itself, it cannot be.
>>> First let's make sure you understand the word:
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supererogatory
>>> If you understand the word, great, feel free to explain why boycotting
>>> animal agriculture cannot be supererogatory.
>> How could it be? What duty is owed that refraining from consuming
>> animal parts somehow goes beyond?
>
> The duties that you actually have. Part of their function is the
> reduce the role your activities play in causing suffering. When you
> take further steps towards that goal

...which refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth doesn't
achieve...


> you are going above and beyond
> the call of duty (on the view we are now contemplating).

Try again.


>> It makes no sense.
>>
>
> You yourself appeared to acknowledge that there was something good
> about making *some* effort to be selective about the farms from which
> you buy meat. That must be a form of behaviour which is either
> obligatory or supererogatory.

Refraining from consuming animal parts doesn't do anything.

Mr.Smartypants
2009-12-31 12:48:46 EST
On Dec 30, 7:04 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 12:28 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Dec 31, 9:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
> >>>>> was supererogatory
> >>>> But it isn't.  In and of itself, it cannot be.
> >>> First let's make sure you understand the word:
> >>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supererogatory
> >>> If you understand the word, great, feel free to explain why boycotting
> >>> animal agriculture cannot be supererogatory.
> >> How could it be?  What duty is owed that refraining from consuming
> >> animal parts somehow goes beyond?  
>
> > The duties that you actually have. Part of their function is the
> > reduce the role your activities play in causing suffering. When you
> > take further steps towards that goal
>
> ...which refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth doesn't
> achieve...
>
> > you are going above and beyond
> > the call of duty (on the view we are now contemplating).
>
> Try again.
>
> >> It makes no sense.
>
> > You yourself appeared to acknowledge that there was something good
> > about making *some* effort to be selective about the farms from which
> > you buy meat. That must be a form of behaviour which is either
> > obligatory or supererogatory.
>
> Refraining from consuming animal parts doesn't do anything.-


It does though Goobs and you know very well it does.


Ex-PFC Wintergreen
2009-12-31 12:53:13 EST
Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Dec 30, 7:04 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 12:28 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 31, 9:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
>>>>>>> was supererogatory
>>>>>> But it isn't. In and of itself, it cannot be.
>>>>> First let's make sure you understand the word:
>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supererogatory
>>>>> If you understand the word, great, feel free to explain why boycotting
>>>>> animal agriculture cannot be supererogatory.
>>>> How could it be? What duty is owed that refraining from consuming
>>>> animal parts somehow goes beyond?
>>> The duties that you actually have. Part of their function is the
>>> reduce the role your activities play in causing suffering. When you
>>> take further steps towards that goal
>> ...which refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth doesn't
>> achieve...
>>
>>> you are going above and beyond
>>> the call of duty (on the view we are now contemplating).
>> Try again.
>>
>>>> It makes no sense.
>>> You yourself appeared to acknowledge that there was something good
>>> about making *some* effort to be selective about the farms from which
>>> you buy meat. That must be a form of behaviour which is either
>>> obligatory or supererogatory.
>> Refraining from consuming animal parts doesn't do anything.-
>
>
> It does though

It doesn't. It doesn't achieve any moral end.

Mr.Smartypants
2009-12-31 14:04:38 EST
On Dec 31, 10:53 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 7:04 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Dec 31, 12:28 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 31, 9:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
> >>>>>>> was supererogatory
> >>>>>> But it isn't.  In and of itself, it cannot be.
> >>>>> First let's make sure you understand the word:
> >>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supererogatory
> >>>>> If you understand the word, great, feel free to explain why boycotting
> >>>>> animal agriculture cannot be supererogatory.
> >>>> How could it be?  What duty is owed that refraining from consuming
> >>>> animal parts somehow goes beyond?  
> >>> The duties that you actually have. Part of their function is the
> >>> reduce the role your activities play in causing suffering. When you
> >>> take further steps towards that goal
> >> ...which refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth doesn't
> >> achieve...
>
> >>> you are going above and beyond
> >>> the call of duty (on the view we are now contemplating).
> >> Try again.
>
> >>>> It makes no sense.
> >>> You yourself appeared to acknowledge that there was something good
> >>> about making *some* effort to be selective about the farms from which
> >>> you buy meat. That must be a form of behaviour which is either
> >>> obligatory or supererogatory.
> >> Refraining from consuming animal parts doesn't do anything.-
>
> > It does though
>
> It doesn't.  It doesn't achieve any moral end.-


So refraining from killing people would achieve no moral end either?



Ex-PFC Wintergreen
2009-12-31 14:17:16 EST
Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Dec 31, 10:53 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 7:04 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 31, 12:28 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 9:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ball, if I moved to the position that boycotting animal agriculture
>>>>>>>>> was supererogatory
>>>>>>>> But it isn't. In and of itself, it cannot be.
>>>>>>> First let's make sure you understand the word:
>>>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supererogatory
>>>>>>> If you understand the word, great, feel free to explain why boycotting
>>>>>>> animal agriculture cannot be supererogatory.
>>>>>> How could it be? What duty is owed that refraining from consuming
>>>>>> animal parts somehow goes beyond?
>>>>> The duties that you actually have. Part of their function is the
>>>>> reduce the role your activities play in causing suffering. When you
>>>>> take further steps towards that goal
>>>> ...which refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth doesn't
>>>> achieve...
>>>>> you are going above and beyond
>>>>> the call of duty (on the view we are now contemplating).
>>>> Try again.
>>>>>> It makes no sense.
>>>>> You yourself appeared to acknowledge that there was something good
>>>>> about making *some* effort to be selective about the farms from which
>>>>> you buy meat. That must be a form of behaviour which is either
>>>>> obligatory or supererogatory.
>>>> Refraining from consuming animal parts doesn't do anything.-
>>> It does though
>> It doesn't. It doesn't achieve any moral end.-
>
>
> So refraining from killing people would achieve no moral end either?

Refraining from consuming animal parts doesn't mean you don't cause the
deaths of animals. This is elementary.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron