On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:12:47 -0600, Lucky Whip Flip > wrote:

>The subject of ethics and the vegetarian diet came up on another list
>I'm on. The members were talking about vegetables having "feelings" as
>an argument in defence of meat eating. I responded that food
>production, regardless of whether one abstains from eating meat,
>involves animal deaths and that ethical eating involved more than simply
>abstaining from eating meat. I gave examples of one eating grass-fed
>beef, free-range chickens and produce that was locally grown as a means
>of reducing ones impact on animal deaths.
>
>This prompted the question of "How does a vegetarian diet contribute to
>animal deaths?". I responded with the collateral deaths associated with
>food production.
>
>That was followed by the response that collateral deaths are accidental
>and unavoidable. I say that CDs are not accidental and only avoidable
>if one were to hand-raise the food.
>
>I invited people to subscribe to this list in order to get other
>opinions on the matter, and in the event that some have subscribed, I
>thought I'd raise the subject for discussion.
>
>Are collateral deaths accidental? If so, why? If not, why?
>
>Thanks,
>Flip

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;

(Critic)
Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
still die for their food during crop production.

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food. Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves, and they
also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing our
oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.

A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
provided below.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.

Examples:
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
seat belts worthwhile?

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Hope this help, Jon.