What to do with leather, wool, etc. after becoming vegan

[Justin]

CF#5: Sorry for making jokes on sensitive issue. I think it was too much. Also I hate that I am so egotistic and it is often revealed unintentionally, like bad smell.

[Biscuit]

"like bad smell."

bahaha, you are a verbal klutz and obviously drunk about 50% of the time, but you make me giggle with it for some reason! =)

[Alusdra]

I see the main clash between animal rights and welfare as being just as you say, CF#5pig- that between the relativist and the absolutist. To me, someone saying that a certain concept is "right" is completely abhorrent. I don't think anything is absolutely right (and I'm aware that saying that is a contradiction, but haven't been able to find a better way to state it). It's utilitarianism versus individualism. Ever since I was a baby geek tearing up and nodding with Spock saying "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few" as he was dying of radiation poison- that's crystallized it for me. If people, animals, rocks- whatever- if they have to suffer in order for the many to live, thrive and do well- then sorry person, animal or rock. You have to go. That's what I see as being the welfare position. Versus the rights position where no harm is ever alright.

So I agree- the disagreement is purely "theoretical and philosophical, NOT practical". As such, perhaps it might never be resolved. And as a relativist utilitarian- I shrug and say "we're going the same place" while the rights people tend to gasp in horror.

Incidentally- I'm more disturbed by my body NOT being used productively after my death than the reverse. Though I do agree that legalizing such a thing would lead to a market for dead bodies (such as there was in the past for medical students) and thus serve a detrimental purpose. But I'm a registered organ donor and give blood and hair as often as I can.

Thanks for pointing me towards Haidt Weatherlight! Interesting stuff. And the morality quizzes were a fun break from studying.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Alusdra

market for dead bodies (such as there was in the past

I thought the market is much greater now. I removed donation sticker on my driver's license when I found out that horror.

Anyway, my last wish is that my ashes spread out to the pacific ocean with strong wind. I know it is selfish and illogical, but it gives me so much happiness that I need during hard times.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Alusdra

To me, someone saying that a certain concept is "right" is completely abhorrent.

Yet gets really old putting "to me" after every opinion I offer.

[CF#5]

Originally Posted by Alusdra

So I agree- the disagreement is purely "theoretical and philosophical, NOT practical". As such, perhaps it might never be resolved. And as a relativist utilitarian- I shrug and say "we're going the same place" while the rights people tend to gasp in horror.

You're mixing up my statements. As soon as you began agreeing with me, I realized I must have said something confusing.

The argument between AR and AW is a philosophical one that deserves to be discussed, because unfortunately, too few people have a relevant understanding of either one, and therefore, can't possibly understand the tremendous differences between the two.

Where wires sometimes gets crossed is because welfare and incremental (as opposed to all-encompassing, immediate) rights can occasionally appear similar, and someone who hasn't studied and analyzed the significant differences likely won't be able to tell them apart.

To be clear, the main responsibility that anyone has is "do no harm." If everyone would follow those three simple words, we'd have those all-encompassing, immediate animal rights that some of us favor.

The view that welfarists actually cause harm by their actions is a legitimate one. That being said, it's still possible for welfarists to accomplish very real, practical feats that are consistent with the rights view, and these accomplishments shouldn't be belittled by rights advocates simply because of the welfarists' philosophical or theoretical positions. This is the area where a lot of unnecessary fighting occurs and is detrimental to the cause of helping animals.

So I wasn't saying AW people should never fight with AR people or vice versa. What I was saying is this debate (or "fight") should always be held at a philosophical and intellectual level, and never personal.

It's easy to say there are too many people who don't care about animals in any respect whatsoever to waste time debating over AR vs. AW, but maybe in a practical sense, the benefits of converting an AW supporter to AR can be equally or more beneficial than converting a totally unconcerned person to AW. There's no real way to measure the actual impact of anything.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by CF#5

this debate (or "fight") should always be held at a philosophical and intellectual level, and never personal.

I have seldom seen a friendly and heated debate. Effective argument tactics often involve logical traps. When successful, they often causes resentments, which usually bring up personal attacks.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Justin

I have seldom seen a friendly and heated debate

You've been dating the wrong women!

Originally Posted by Justin

Effective argument tactics often involve logical traps.

You've been dating the right women!

Originally Posted by Justin

When successful, they often causes resentments, which usually bring up personal attacks.

You've been dating the wrong women!

[Justin]

By "trap" I meant premeditated and dirty ones, actively inviting your enemy to fall in there, and biting viciously when they fall. Kinds of traps that make you win when even yourself secretly think your enemy's argument has merit too.

Biscuit: BTW, I really liked your comment!

[Weatherlight]

We need more people like you.

Like me in what way? o.o

one's only true individual responsibility is to not cause or condone any type of injustice

I see no objective moral difference, or even any clear line of definition, between action and inaction. If I see a drowning child and ignore her, when she dies she's just as dead as if I had pushed her in the water myself. So if we're into quotes, may I add this (probably fake) one?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

much of what they do is actually incremental rights

How so?

No one should gain ego from influencing me...

What is a valid reason for gaining ego, then?

Seeing that one's existence, efforts, expression, or whatever, is acknowledged, hasn't been in vain, is validated, did something, or whatever, contributes to selfefficacy. I don't see any way around it. Note that this isn't the same as being arrogant or exaggerating the impact one's actions had, or removing credit that goes to other people.

The site I read a bit at the age of 14 :P Naturalism_Org

Nah, not like that!

Sorry, I didn't mean exactly like. Those just had the most contrast, were the most dramatic, maybe? It gives you an idea of my posting style, perhaps ;) There were some people who hated my ideas like that, and others who just read and considered them, and at no point had anything against me (those were pretty rare too...).

It's always nice to hear about people opening their minds for the better in response to...something, anything, really. Being partially credited can be flattering. And while part of me resents what it judges as excessive ego, honestly, this sort of reinforcement is what keeps behaviors strong. If you feel good, and that encourages you to continue, all the better!

I think utilitarianism is bad, because every individual is important and has value, and never should one individual be prioritized over another

Or many individuals prioritized over another? Painism is one moral standard (or whatever) with a basis on the subjective universe thing of sentient beings. Minds do not "stack." It's interesting.

That's what I see as being the welfare position. Versus the rights position where no harm is ever alright.

I think you're confusing it with the utilitarian position vs the absolute rights position. Welfarists are often NOT utilitarian. If a utilitarian reasoned strictly logically, they'd be out of the AW camp and in...the AL camp? *shrug*

And as a relativist utilitarian- I shrug and say "we're going the same place" while the rights people tend to gasp in horror.

Why trivialize the most important, or rather the only important, thing in existence? If it doesn't matter all that much, how much does it matter if ALL individuals are murdered, much less the smaller group?

I'm more disturbed by my body NOT being used productively after my death than the reverse.

I'm guessing you have some sort of personal standard on what counts as "productively"?

Thanks for pointing me towards Haidt Weatherlight! Interesting stuff.

Yw, and remember, my philosophy student friend's tail does wag the dog :P

I have seldom seen a friendly and heated debate. Effective argument tactics often involve logical traps. When successful, they often causes resentments, which usually bring up personal attacks.

If reasoning is fallacious, point it out. If statement is opinion or objective false, point it out. Stick to the point. Unless you don't mind flame-fests, though you can stick to the point and still add that.

[CF#5]

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

I see no objective moral difference, or even any clear line of definition, between action and inaction. If I see a drowning child and ignore her, when she dies she's just as dead as if I had pushed her in the water myself. So if we're into quotes, may I add this (probably fake) one?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

There's a huge distinction between injustices caused by humans and those caused by nature. Pain, fear, and suffering are inherent parts of life and of nature independent of atrocities committed by humans. Whether anyone should consider you morally responsible for the drowning death depends on your proximity to it and the ease or difficulty you'd face in trying to make the rescue. Not everyone has the desire or capacity to be a hero. Being the witness to a tragic accident doesn't make you automatically responsible for the outcome. On the other hand, if you're the only witness to some murderous necrophiliac pedophile intentionally drowning a young girl so he can use her dead body for unspeakable things and you turn a blind eye to it, that's in effect condoning the injustice of the crime being committed, and in that case, you would be responsible in my opinion. But you can't be blamed for a random accident that was caused by factors having nothing to do with you, even if you miss an opportunity to prevent the tragic outcome by intervening after the event has started.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

How so?

One example I can think off from the top of my head goes back to the AR vs. AW debate in the now-locked thread from last year. John4216 wrote letters and managed to get the promoters to stop giving away goldfish as prizes at the local fair. Based on his posts, he's clearly in the AW camp, but the ELIMINATION of using goldfish as a means to generate revenue is clearly an AR behavior or philosophy. The AW argument would have been more along the lines of putting the fish in bigger bowls or something inane and virtually meaningless like that.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

I think you're confusing it with the utilitarian position vs the absolute rights position. Welfarists are often NOT utilitarian. If a utilitarian reasoned strictly logically, they'd be out of the AW camp and in...the AL camp? *shrug*

You mean animal liberation? I'm not sure I see a huge distinction between AR and AL.

I thought about this for a while, and I realized it applies to something else. In this Q&A blog entry, and in the essay that Biscuit linked a few weeks ago, Jo Stepaniak discusses "all-encompassing and sincere reverence for life" and the "undercurrent of anger among many vegans and animal activists" that has damaged the cause (she doesn't specify AR or AW I don't think, but I could be mistaken) and has negatively defined vegans as a group to outsiders.

And the reason I'm bringing this up and why I think it's relevant to your comment is because I realized that when it comes to animals, I very much believe in rights, and when it comes to people (separate and apart from animals altogether), I very much believe in rights, but when it comes to humans' interactions with animals, I'm guilty of speciesism against humans. I ALWAYS favor the animal. Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but when people die in accidents and I hear about it on the radio, I think to myself, "at least there's one less meat eater in the world." Of course, I'm assuming the deceased was not veg*n, which is yet another fallacy in my thinking, but not the one I'm trying to address here. The point is I have a hypocritical double standard in my thinking, because I can be very utilitarian when it comes to humans, but that's not good enough for animals as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with one human getting hurt if many animals can benefit, but I strongly oppose hurting a single animal to help many humans.

So besides the obvious hypocrisy, the next question that comes to mind is whether this can be justified as a legitimate philosophical set of beliefs. By holding the entire human species accountable for the injustices committed by *most* but *not all* people, I'm generalizing against people in a way that I condemn others for generalizing against animals. I suppose this can be viewed as a form of affirmative action, but is it right or wrong?

And right or wrong, I think my feelings are representative of many vegans, whether they're willing to admit it or not, and this specific sentiment is a major source of the "damage" Stepaniak is talking about. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong; I'm just trying to identify it more specifically to make it easier to understand it better and more in-depth. People who eat meat tend to harbor resentment because they're victims of this discrimination on the part of vegans.

[Susan9608]

I'm guilty of speciesism against humans. I ALWAYS favor the animal.

Humans are animals.

Like me in what way?

Animal rights oriented.

[CF#5]

Originally Posted by Susan9608

Humans are animals.

Thanks for the news bulletin.

[Susan9608]

You're welcome, smart-ass. But honestly, whenever I hear people saying things like you're statement -

I'm guilty of speciesism against humans. I ALWAYS favor the animal.

I think people must forget that human beings are simply another species of animal. Perhaps more despicable on many levels, than other species, but still an animal.

[Weatherlight]

There's a huge distinction between injustices caused by humans and those caused by nature.

Where did you get this attitude? Humans were created by God in His own image and therefore all their minds, thoughts, and actions are inherently specialer? Humans are of the supernatural world, not the natural?

So it's quite moral if it's out of sight, out of mind, and you're off the hook if you think it's not very easy to do the right thing? How, then, is anyone responsible for, uh, most things?

What if I'm on the other side of the street from the pond in which Mr. Pedophile is drowning the girl? Is that far enough for me to be judged clean? Or perhaps should I be 20 feet away, or 25? What if I'm late for work, so it would be difficult for me to deal with everything if I interfere? Or if I'm tired and my feet hurt, the nearest phone is quite out of my way--is that difficult enough for it to be ok for me to ignore?

And really, what does it matter for what purpose he's drowning her for, or who is drowning her at all? She's still drowning, isn't she? Try telling her corpse "It's fine that I didn't want to bother to pull you out earlier, because I figured no one would use your dead body for something like that," you think it can hear you?

I think it would be a lot more difficult to stop a murderer by yourself than to just pull out a drowning child.

The AW argument would have been more along the lines of putting the fish in bigger bowls or something inane and virtually meaningless like that.

Haha, I like it, good example.

You mean animal liberation? I'm not sure I see a huge distinction between AR and AL.

Rights theory assigns, well, rights to individuals that would be immoral to violate. I have the right to not be harvested for my organs. I also don't have the right to harvest others for their organs; everyone has the same right as I do. All else being equal, utilitarianism would say that there are no such rights, there is only the conclusion based on consequence, which would be that I ought to be harvested if each kidney and lung, liver, heart, etc saved the lives of many other people and made them happy.

By holding the entire human species accountable for the injustices committed by *most* but *not all* people, I'm generalizing against people in a way that I condemn others for generalizing against animals. I suppose this can be viewed as a form of affirmative action, but is it right or wrong?

I thought affirmative action was about giving extra help to those most likely to need it, in a simplistic but efficient way, not punishing people for being grouped with those who cause harm. Oh, I'd love the reaction if laws were passed directly taxing only Caucasian-Americans so the money could go to African-Americans. Even more if the former group were to all be lynched. Ahem...

I think my feelings are representative of many vegans, whether they're willing to admit it or not

Also of non-vegans. In some circles, it almost seems like it's "cool" for the "superior kids" to be speciesist against humans. Oooo. Easy to indulge in oversimplified, irrational blaming and hatred, perhaps requiring a bit more thought to look at reality a bit more objectively. No offense to any individual in particular :P

Humans are animals.

True and irrelevant, taken literally. I'm thinking the meaning was more like "Humans are sentient beings like the others"? I don't know about "despicable," since that's a subjective view I used to hold and no longer do, but many humans do end up causing a lot of harm.

So do wolves, bluejays, and African wild cats.

You can't have it both ways. Humans are biological beings, like all the others, just existing as themselves, watery sacks of chemicals, and they live and die. Or humans are superior and unique, in that they have souls, free will, and the image of God, unlike all the others, and they can be righteous or sinful and they get judged and sent to heaven or hell.

There is no inherent difference between the joy of a child, an adult, a dog, or a walrus. There is no inherent difference between the tool use of a human, an otter, a chimpanzee, or a vulture. There is no inherent difference between the pain of a wild rabbit, a captive wild rabbit, a domestic rabbit, or a feral domestic rabbit.

It can help with many things to accept your feelings and still think rationally, to think of how to change harmful behaviors without hoping that some deity tortures the guy who kicked his dog to death, the child who ordered a burger, the dog who bit your daughter, or the wolf who killed a rabbit.

[CF#5]

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

Humans were created by God in His own image and therefore all their minds, thoughts, and actions are inherently specialer? Humans are of the supernatural world, not the natural?

Nothing to do with that. My presence somewhere doesn't obligate me to police that place. If something bad was going to happen independent of my presence, and I do nothing to contribute to the event, I can't be held responsible for it. Not all that complicated I don't think.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

So it's quite moral if it's out of sight, out of mind, and you're off the hook if you think it's not very easy to do the right thing? How, then, is anyone responsible for, uh, most things?

I didn't say it's moral. Where does the actual perpetrator begin facing responsibility?

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

What if I'm on the other side of the street from the pond in which Mr. Pedophile is drowning the girl? Is that far enough for me to be judged clean? Or perhaps should I be 20 feet away, or 25? What if I'm late for work, so it would be difficult for me to deal with everything if I interfere? Or if I'm tired and my feet hurt, the nearest phone is quite out of my way--is that difficult enough for it to be ok for me to ignore?

Again, these types of definitions only complicate the matter. The simple responsibility is to not cause or cooperate with any act of injustice. Where you want to draw the line between action and inaction is not directly relevant. You can define the point at which inaction becomes complicity or argue over it all day long. It has no bearing on the simple responsibility as defined above. And again, the actual murderer is the one who is truly responsible - not any witnesses who played no role in the crime other than inaction.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

Where did you get this attitude?

Probably the leftover remnants of the American ideals I lost a long time ago.

[Weatherlight]

What does policing the location you're in have to do with humans vs nature? *confused*

Hmm I'd like to know your results for Morality Play

Physically, it's highly unlikely that your existence, and things leading up to it, don't affect everything else on the planet.

So how do you define "responsibility" for immoral results? Accountability? Valid target for suffering punishment?

Have you seen "Peter Singer's Solution to World Poverty," New York Times Sunday Magazine ?

I didn't say it's moral.

Amoral, then?

Where does the actual perpetrator begin facing responsibility?

Facing how?

It has no bearing on the simple responsibility as defined above.

Actually, it IS the "simple responsibility as defined above."

And again, the actual murderer is the one who is truly responsible - not any witnesses who played no role in the crime other than inaction.

How do you reconcile that with this?

that's in effect condoning the injustice of the crime being committed, and in that case, you would be responsible in my opinion

Who is the actual murderer of the veal calf that someone ate? The slaughterhouse employee? How about the dog being killed in a pound run by greedy and callous management, a dog who went through a series of owners--some abusive, some hiring abusive "professionals," some neglecting nutritional needs, all of which contributed to more "unadoptability"--and was part of an accidental litter sired by a dog who was allowed to roam or was abandoned? Just the tech with the needle? Obviously, people who buy from breeders and pet stores, people who are puppy millers and BYBs and pet store owners themselves, none of them are directly "responsible," except perhaps the ones who created and handled the individual dog, right?

[Susan9608]

Hmm I'd like to know your results for Morality Play

Weatherlight, if you don't mind sharing, what were your results?

[Weatherlight]

100%. I took it more than once over the years. Switched around a lot of my positions on things. Answered very differently. Still always 100%.

When I had fun getting people to show me their scores back in '03 (I'd first taken it much earlier, I was just reminded of it one day and at the time I decided bugging people with it would be a good way to pass the time), the only other people who had 100%, out of 33 other people, were my brother and a moral nihilist.

My father even indulged me by taking it (he could be nice sometimes), his was 38%. If our differences of philosophy and morality could be summed up with numbers, those are as good as any. Racist, speciesist, sexist, ageist, moneyist, countryist *******...um yeah.

[CF#5]

[FONT=Verdana]Your Moral Parsimony Score is 84%[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Geographical Distance[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]100%

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Family Relatedness[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]100%

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Acts and Omissions[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]35%

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Scale[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]100%[/FONT][FONT=Verdana][/FONT]