Whereas choosing to eat corpses is not ideologically based, it is not a moral-political movement, it is not irrational? Its logic is not purely anthropocentric? It is based on a coherent and intelligent analysis? Workers in the meat industry are not exploited and destroyed both physucally and psychologically by their work?
Anyway, what in tarnations does working in sweatshops have to do with choosing not to eat and utilise animal products???
Sorry Tobes, but the fancy and academic nature of your language does not sucessfully cover up the weakness of your arguments.
Mods - I hope you don't mind me responding to a post explictly addressed to me, even though I agree that we're in the wrong place for this conversation.
Greg k - I think it is well justified to say that "eating corpses", through most of the history of human evolution, has not been predicated on ethical reflection - and therefore, it could not in any coherent sense be called ideological or moral-political. This is not to endorse or deny it - merely to say that through a great deal of human history, humans just ate what they ate.
Incidently, these days, when ethical reflection on diet is
very prominent, I find that a lot of people deploy this evolutionary logic to justify a Paleolithic diet. They'll argue on 'this is natural' lines, Vegans will argue on 'this is morally consequential lines.'
I'm not trying to use fancy academic language - all I'm saying is that if there are strong ethical claims being made, we need to know what they are, and how they are being used to justify a position. Unfortunately, there's no way to do that without using the language of moral philosophy.
The sweatshop argument I made is as follows: 1/ A vegan does not eat honey because it is produced from an animal; because bees work hard to produce the honey, it is held that humans taking it is not morally justified.
2/The reasoning seems to be - the bees are exploited by the humans, in their production of honey.
3/ It follows that the moral problem is exploitation where production is concerned. (In this case, the bees themselves are not harmed or killed.)
My conclusion: If the moral problem is exploitation where production is concerned, all commodities
where there is exploitation in production ought to be abstained from.