And that is fine but you keep insisting that I've made some specific moral claim here and I haven't. The text you quoted was me talking about how others would perceive matters, it wasn't me making a moral claim. As I said, I wouldn't bother making a moral claim until I knew the impact of the diet on dogs. That is why I asked about research, a question that was met with hostility.esquizofrenico wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:10 am No offence, but I have no interest whatsoever in talking how this looks like to other people, you may very well be right. I'm interested in the morals of the topic.
Anybody can force themselves to make a choice between only two options but you're using it as an argument and in that case its a false dichotomy. Suggesting that having a dog and feeding it a non-vegan diet is some "moral evil" just begs the question, that is exactly the sort of issues that are being addressed here. Assuming away alternatives is a false dichotomy.esquizofrenico wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:10 am
So anyone can force himself to the dichotomy (if he wants to): "Either I don't have a dog or I have one under a vegan diet" and do no moral evil. I think you agree with me on this one, but you are just saying that if you force yourself to that moral dichotomy, you must not get a dog (since you briefly say in a message that you don't see how you could justify getting a dog if you are not willing to feed it meat).
And I never suggested that I don't see how you can justify a dog if you don't feed it meat. I did imply that I don't see how you could justify having a dog regardless of diet if your motivation is utilitarian in nature.
This is again a forced dichotomy and that is fine at the individual level but it doesn't address the general moral issue, it just assumes it away.esquizofrenico wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:10 am
Still, I can morally force myself to the dichotomy: "Either I will not have any child, or they will live in a normal flat".
But, fine, that's assume that someone already thinks that its wrong to have a dog and feed it a non-vegan diet so they are forcing the two options on themselves. You'd have to explore why they believe the situation to be wrong to explore the issue. Let's pick a common approach, namely, the reduction of suffering. Since a vegan diet isn't "cruelty free" (animals are harmed in plant agriculture) and also dogs are likely to harm animals when outdoors (how likely depends on the prey derive of the dog/breed). So even with just the first issue you'd reduce suffering more by just euthanizing the dog or preventing it from being born. The second issue you could deal with by confining the animal indoors but that may sacrifice its happiness.
That doesn't explain how you'd frame the issue in terms of interests. Farming it in terms of "suffering reduction" is somewhat clear, but not sure what it would mean in the case of "interests". So, as above, we'd need to explore the specific rational for the exclusion of the non-vegan option in order to evaluate the other options.esquizofrenico wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:10 am
So I think that the fact that this deals with a conflict of interests is almost a tautology.