Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote:Words have meanings, and although there is some leeway in their definitions, it is NOT equally true to say "morality is not looking at hedgehogs by moonlight".
It's also not just based on popularity as ardent descriptivists would say (although popular usage IS very important).

Alright, but how do you determine the definition?

brimstoneSalad wrote: I think you misread him. He's saying he thinks diversity itself is good. Not that every vegan should be deontological, but that some should be Consequentialists, and others should be Deontologists.

Oh, yes, I see that now.

zeello wrote:Because abolitionism is right and makes sense.

You're not explaining why vegan abolitionism makes sense.

zeello wrote:That is what we believe about veganism. It's not a narrow specific doctrine.

Deontology is, because it says that things are inherently evil.

zeello wrote:If someone rejects an entire viewpoint or an entire moral stance entirely all because of a bad first impression, that's their problem.

It's the suffering animals' problem too, so we need to make good first impressions.

zeello wrote:Humane cow milk is immoral according to deontology, but so long as cow milk is unnecessary to our diet then it certainly is immoral since it is a serious threat to the cow's rights.

Humane things are immoral? That's a contradiction.

Their rights? What do you mean by that?

zeello wrote:Animals being treated better over time is not part of the system. Its a direct contradiction of the system.

The animal abuse is just a consequence of the caring only about money. The goal of the meat industry is not to torture animals.

I agree that without regulations that they will, because it is more profitable. But I am talking about the system of creating regulations.

zeello wrote:]Sure its better than doing nothing, but for every leak you patch another leak will have sprung, or the patch will eventually break, and you will probably be doing it forever.

How have you come to these conclusions?

zeello wrote:I was not aware of any temporary vegans and I don't believe there are any. Not counting former vegans, since initially it was intended to be permanent. And not counting people who go vegan for a week/month just to try it out. I mean specifically vegans who are holding their breath until the say meat becomes humane and they can start eating it again.

I wasn't aware there were any people who care about animal welfare on factory farms who continue to eat meat, because one day, it will be more humane.

And yeah, of course there are vegans who don't eat dairy and eggs solely because of animal treatment. Not all vegans are abolitionists. Maybe they aren't *holding their breath*, but there are welfarist vegans. I'm pretty much one, except I wouldn't eat dairy and eggs for health reasons even if they didn't cause harm to animals and the environment.

As for meat becoming humane, that's different, because a sentient animal had to unnecessarily die for it (assuming it's not lab grown meat).

zeello wrote:but I'm not saying all vegans must adhere to the same moral system. Rather, you are. I'm saying that as long as they are vegan then they are on the same side as us regardless, so why not let people find veganism using whatever moral code that brought them to that conclusion.

Ah, yes, I misread.

I'm not saying that the adhering to one moral system is necessarily bad for a movement. If the moral system is good, it is obviously a good thing, because it makes the movement more logical and therefore more people will join it.

They're on the same side in that they are vegan, but their moral system could easily be used to justify harm, and will likely put people off from going vegan.

zeello wrote:I could argue that a movement based on any one ideology is not as strong as a movement that encompasses multiple ideologies. We are trying to normalize veganism and make it seem inclusive.

We shouldn't want to make veganism seem inclusive of illogical dogma. That'll hurt the movement.

If something is bound to result in evil, can't it be argued that thing is inherently evil? (Well, I guess not *inherently*) But this sounds to me like the basis for the deontological viewpoint and I don't see what's so bad about that.

I agree that it's important to make a good first impression. I can see where you're coming from. I'm not saying you guys are wrong on that count--PETA is a perfect example. Maybe I just fail to see what's so damaging about deontology. On top of that we're talking about Francione here, people are likely to be more receptive to a viewpoint if its expressed by someone with his status. In fact I'll just go ahead and say that his work is definitely doing massive favors to the movement.

Anyway..

Capitalist system is designed to maximize efficiency in business operations. In that sense it maximizes the suffering of animals. This is a fact. Regulations achieve minimal improvement, because regulations are only good if they are enforced. Also, the regulations are handed down by and enforced by the government. But the government couldn't care less. (If we're feeling especially cynical, and believe that our government is designed to uphold corporate interests as Chomsky preaches to be the case, then the animals are royally screwed. And indeed, we have ag-gag legislation passed in several states.)

Ultimately, the business will do whatever it takes to avoid penalty and at no point the animal's best interests are in mind. The animals may even be jeopardized by the very regulations designed to help them since now the company has incentive to disguise their atrocities, steps taken which might result in even crueler conditions and handling. Even if the company gets busted, the penalties will hardly do them in, instead they are offered chance after chance to mend their ways, as is indicated by the countless supply of leaked videos, and knowledge of repeatedly failed inspections.

"I dont know of any people who continue to eat meat because one day it will be more humane"
Well, I was under the impression that everyone who eats meat even after knowing the situation, is basically doing that.
I could be wrong, but all the excuses seem to fall under
- it wasn't always like this / isnt supposed to or shouldnt be like this ("I'm entitled to my idealized Disney version of slaughter and I shouldn't have to change just because that isn't what I got." The meat companies should change, not us)
- it isn't inhumane all the time (the "isolated instance" logic to defending atrocities) or the classic "well they weren't supposed to do that"
- it won't be inhumane forever, aka the government should/will/might step in and magically solve everything

Even Penn & Teller sort of use this line of reasoning, when they show black and footage of animal abuse and say basically "yea its ugly, but that's what the _____ committee are for!" So in effect the ____ is there to make us feel better, and apparently don't even have to do anything. It seems that the problem of animal abuse is always by default considered to be a solved issue. It seems to me that everyone has managed to separate in their mind the use of animals from the abuse of animals.

Has a meat eater ever argued to you the idea of scientists growing non-sentient meat? It makes you wonder why would they even bring that up, seeing as that technology does not exist yet or is not offered publicly. It seems that the argument is always drawn back to the theoretical, the what-ifs, as an attempt to downplay the reality.

EquALLity wrote: Alright, but how do you determine the definition?

In a way that is useful, and I don't mean useful to a particular ideology, but useful as a coherent and meaningful concept.

For example, morality does NOT simply mean being selfish, as egoists may claim, because selfish behavior is the default behavior of all living things -- or all genes even. If morality meant that, it would become essentially trivial. Whatever you feel like doing happens to be moral because you're going with your whims and selfish impulses. Or however you support your family and immediate loved ones, because they're part of your network and it benefits you, or you relate to them (as genetic relatives) as extensions of yourself.

Morality is a concept that transcends the defaults of innate selfish behavior.
There are many ways to examine it, but you really determine what morality is by breaking it down, and learning about what it is not. Process of elimination, you know?

When you find that it must inherently be about concern for others, you have to examine what that means, and where and when it is relevant.

You can't be concerned for a rock, for example. Why? Because there's no rational basis to qualify that concern. Are you concerned for its position? Are you concerned that it be facing north because it might be magnetic? Are you trying to 'help' that rock fall, as rocks do? Are you trying to keep it dry? Keep it wet? Prevent it from eroding? Help it erode faster? What?
The rock wants nothing, so it just doesn't make sense to be concerned for it, since it has no quality or preference to be concerned about.

Morality means what it means, not arbitrarily, but by necessity, otherwise it means nothing at all -- and a word that means nothing is not really a word, is it?

It's a deeply semantic argument in a sense, but thus are all arguments over definitions.
See the thread on "literally" for my thoughts on that.

The same issue can be broached with the word "god", and that's a very interesting discussion.

EquALLity wrote: As for meat becoming humane, that's different, because a sentient animal had to unnecessarily die for it (assuming it's not lab grown meat).

It would probably have to be freegan meat, in the sense of scavenging. Keep the animals healthy and happy until they reach the end of their natural lives, and then you can eat their corpses if you really want, since they don't need them anymore and probably don't particularly care.

Would you mind terribly if somebody made use of your dead body when you're done with it, as long as they didn't kill you short of your natural lifespan, by eating it?
Most people who would mind, mind for religious reasons. And I would submit that most non-human animals are unlikely to have such hangups.

It's gross and literally ghoulish, but I'm not sure I'd be in any position to judge it as immoral.

brimstoneSalad wrote:In a way that is useful, and I don't mean useful to a particular ideology, but useful as a coherent and meaningful concept.

For example, morality does NOT simply mean being selfish, as egoists may claim, because selfish behavior is the default behavior of all living things -- or all genes even. If morality meant that, it would become essentially trivial. Whatever you feel like doing happens to be moral because you're going with your whims and selfish impulses. Or however you support your family and immediate loved ones, because they're part of your network and it benefits you, or you relate to them (as genetic relatives) as extensions of yourself.

Morality is a concept that transcends the defaults of innate selfish behavior.
There are many ways to examine it, but you really determine what morality is by breaking it down, and learning about what it is not. Process of elimination, you know?

When you find that it must inherently be about concern for others, you have to examine what that means, and where and when it is relevant.

You can't be concerned for a rock, for example. Why? Because there's no rational basis to qualify that concern. Are you concerned for its position? Are you concerned that it be facing north because it might be magnetic? Are you trying to 'help' that rock fall, as rocks do? Are you trying to keep it dry? Keep it wet? Prevent it from eroding? Help it erode faster? What?
The rock wants nothing, so it just doesn't make sense to be concerned for it, since it has no quality or preference to be concerned about.

Morality means what it means, not arbitrarily, but by necessity, otherwise it means nothing at all -- and a word that means nothing is not really a word, is it?

It's a deeply semantic argument in a sense, but thus are all arguments over definitions.
See the thread on "literally" for my thoughts on that.

The same issue can be broached with the word "god", and that's a very interesting discussion.

I see, ok.

zeello wrote:But this sounds to me like the basis for the deontological viewpoint and I don't see what's so bad about that.

It makes veganism look dogmatic by asserting some things are inherently evil, and in turn puts people off from veganism.

The system can also be used to justify actual evil.

zeello wrote:Capitalist system is designed to maximize efficiency in business operations. In that sense it maximizes the suffering of animals.

Ok, but the system still isn't "designed" to maximize animal suffering. That is just a consequence of the system, and we can work around it with regulations.

zeello wrote:Regulations achieve minimal improvement, because regulations are only good if they are enforced.

They're supposed to be enforced by the law. If they aren't because the government isn't doing its job, that's a different issue.

I think my real/major issue is the idea that if they were enforced, it would be wrong, because it isn't full abolitionism, and therefore promotes non-veganism. And then also to say that it is definitely bad for animals, when I don't see legitimate reason to say so.

zeello wrote:Ultimately, the business will do whatever it takes to avoid penalty and at no point the animal's best interests are in mind. The animals may even be jeopardized by the very regulations designed to help them since now the company has incentive to disguise their atrocities, steps taken which might result in even crueler conditions and handling

How will it put them in more danger? The businesses already have a lot of incentive to cover up, and if the regulations are enforced, they won't be able to get away with it.

zeello wrote:Even if the company gets busted, the penalties will hardly do them in, instead they are offered chance after chance to mend their ways, as is indicated by the countless supply of leaked videos, and knowledge of repeatedly failed inspections.

This is a different issue. In those videos though, I was under the impression that things done were typically legal, and that there was therefore systematic abuse, and that that's a major issue.

zeello wrote:Well, I was under the impression that everyone who eats meat even after knowing the situation, is basically doing that.
I could be wrong, but all the excuses seem to fall under
- it wasn't always like this / isnt supposed to or shouldnt be like this ("I'm entitled to my idealized Disney version of slaughter and I shouldn't have to change just because that isn't what I got." The meat companies should change, not us)

They're not eating it then because the meat industry will one day will be fixed, but because they don't want to change, and so are shifting all blame off of themselves.

zeello wrote:- it isn't inhumane all the time (the "isolated instance" logic to defending atrocities) or the classic "well they weren't supposed to do that"

Isn't that a different issue? I don't see how that connects to hypothetical futures.

zeello wrote:- it won't be inhumane forever, aka the government should/will/might step in and magically solve everything

Maybe some people say this, though I've never come across it. Some people do say to me, "If it was that bad, the government would do something about it." But that's a different issue.

Meat eaters say a lot more stupid shit to justify funding animal abuse, though, at least from my experience. Have you seen the thread on that? https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5

zeello wrote:Even Penn & Teller sort of use this line of reasoning, when they show black and footage of animal abuse and say basically "yea its ugly, but that's what the _____ committee are for!" So in effect the ____ is there to make us feel better, and apparently don't even have to do anything. It seems that the problem of animal abuse is always by default considered to be a solved issue.

That sounds to me like they are just shifting the blame to another party.

zeello wrote:It seems to me that everyone has managed to separate in their mind the use of animals from the abuse of animals.

Yeah, because they are separate. What is wrong with milking a cow if the cow is treated ethically?

zeello wrote:Has a meat eater ever argued to you the idea of scientists growing non-sentient meat? It makes you wonder why would they even bring that up, seeing as that technology does not exist yet or is not offered publicly. It seems that the argument is always drawn back to the theoretical, the what-ifs, as an attempt to downplay the reality.

Nope, but I agree it would be that.

Your system can be used to justify evil too.
What if some things ARE intrinsically evil, such as selfishness and exploitation. A moral system that empowers everyone to rationalize these acts is not necessarily superior to a moral system that doesn't.
Anyway, I think we are going in circles here. We've already stated our respective viewpoints and now we are just restating them over and over.

The system is unintentionally designed to maximize animal suffering. I guess since it is not the primary motive, then design is not the correct word, although the system is set up to so efficiently abuse animals and in such a systematic way that it might as well have been designed for that purpose. I sometimes wonder if people care too much about whether something was intentional or not when in many cases it doesn't matter at all, or in fact the unintentionalness makes it drastically worse and, since it allows the excuse that it wasnt intended, people excuse it.

There is a video I was going to link to earlier, but decided not to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKXrL5syc_s
In this video, which went viral, the restaurant hid their meat by the dumpster, to avoid the health inspector.
I didn't post it before because it makes it sound like I'm against health codes. Because I'm not against health codes, necessarily, I guess that means I'm contradicting myself. (Because if health codes are good, then why not animal welfare regulation?) But it is nonetheless an example of a regulation leading to behavior that goes against what the regulation was trying to solve.

Animal abuse is typical. At no point is it reasonable to assume that it won't happen.

"If it was that bad, the government would do something about it". Yes, exactly. It almost makes me wanna slam into head into the wall how naive and delusional people can be. We are hopeless.

If 99.9 percent of the time the use of animals and abuse of animals are hand in hand, what does it mean to say they are separate? And more importantly, so what? I can't help but wonder if maybe the deontological viewpoint is actually the more rational one and not the other way around. Call it a sneaking suspicion. To say that animal use could be ethical is almost sounding like dogmatic assertion at this point and it requires some degree of denial.

Even in your moral system, the only way animals won't be abused is if they have rights. But says who that animals have the right not to be cruelly treated? If one vegan thinks animals shouldn't be used or abused, while another thinks animals shouldn't be abused, but using them is ok, then both individials are still making the "irrational" and dogmatic assertion that animals have rights at all. This is the nature of morality.

EquALLity wrote:

zeello wrote:Capitalist system is designed to maximize efficiency in business operations. In that sense it maximizes the suffering of animals.

Ok, but the system still isn't "designed" to maximize animal suffering. That is just a consequence of the system, and we can work around it with regulations.

It doesn't actually maximize suffering. Think about it for a while, how the process of rearing and slaughter work. Could you imagine a way to make it worse? It doesn't take much imagination.

Instead of a bolt gun which often hits but sometimes misses, they could use a cheap neuromuscular blocking agent to render the animal mostly paralyzed but fully conscious and capable of feeling everything that happens.
They would be "locked in", feeling themselves slowly suffocate as they wait in line, and then all of the pain of having their throats slit over the bleeding floor, bleeding out until they finally lose consciousness.
They could also make the line longer, and use a smaller dose, so the animals slowly suffocate through fatigue, which is how victims of crucifixion die.
Just for fun, they could mix in a little nerve pain stimulating venom, like platypus venom, or that of some spiders, insects, jellyfish and snakes. There are many chemical agents reported to create pain so agonizing that human victims beg to be killed. Or it could just be a simple stimulant to cause hypersensitivity and more acute awareness... can't have their minds wandering, right?
And for good measure, how about occasional electric shocks? Variable rate torture is usually understood to be much worse, because you can't "zone out" or get accustomed to what's happening to you.
They could also have the track move up and down, into ice-cold or hot water, dunking the animals' heads and creating the effect of repeated water-boarding as they move through the line.
None of these measures would be particularly expensive. Some of them would cost about the same as what is done now, others might add a fraction of a cent to the cost of each kilogram of meat.

I could list some other still very practical changes that could be made that would be even more disturbing, but I think that's enough nightmare fuel for today.

EquALLity wrote:

zeello wrote:- it isn't inhumane all the time (the "isolated instance" logic to defending atrocities) or the classic "well they weren't supposed to do that"

Isn't that a different issue? I don't see how that connects to hypothetical futures.

This argument goes against zeello's claims. It is the belief some people have that the only moral action is a moral intent. Much like collateral damage in war is ignored, the farmers didn't mean to cause the suffering -- it wasn't intentional -- therefore it's OK.

This is why it's important to understand the consequences of actions, not the intent.
People making these arguments are not being rational.

zeello wrote:Your system can be used to justify evil too.

Give me an example.

zeello wrote:What if some things ARE intrinsically evil, such as selfishness and exploitation.

What's the evidence?

zeello wrote: The system is unintentionally designed to maximize animal suffering. I guess since it is not the primary motive, then design is not the correct word, although the system is set up to so efficiently abuse animals and in such a systematic way that it might as well have been designed for that purpose.

I think brimstone made a good point with that.

Ok, of course the conditions are terrible, but what's your point in saying so?

zeello wrote: But it is nonetheless an example of a regulation leading to behavior that goes against what the regulation was trying to solve.

How would that work with animal welfare? What's a situation where animals would be abused more by businesses so that businesses don't get busted for violating regulations?

zeello wrote:Animal abuse is typical. At no point is it reasonable to assume that it won't happen.

Obviously it will still happen. Murder is illegal, and it still happens. But do you just reject that regulations against animal abuse will decrease it?

zeello wrote:If 99.9 percent of the time the use of animals and abuse of animals are hand in hand, what does it mean to say they are separate? And more importantly, so what? I can't help but wonder if maybe the deontological viewpoint is actually the more rational one and not the other way around. Call it a sneaking suspicion.

It means that they are separate .1% of the time, and that you therefore can't say that because there is use that there must be abuse, and that therefore animal use is inherently evil.
If there is more harm than good produced from animal use 99.9% of the time, then vegan consequentialism would say it is wrong that percent of the time. Deontology would say it is always wrong, making it less accurate and therefore less rational.

zeello wrote:To say that animal use could be ethical is almost sounding like dogmatic assertion at this point and it requires some degree of denial.

Denial? Of what?

zeello wrote:Even in your moral system, the only way animals won't be abused is if they have rights. But says who that animals have the right not to be cruelly treated? If one vegan thinks animals shouldn't be used or abused, while another thinks animals shouldn't be abused, but using them is ok, then both individials are still making the "irrational" and dogmatic assertion that animals have rights at all. This is the nature of morality.

Abusing animals is wrong because it causes harm. That's not dogmatic; it's taking in context and consequence, unlike deontology.

I just saw a web page that reminded me of this thread.
The page, translated from French to English (using Google Translate) says:
"Furthermore, this law could go against the empowerment of supermarkets and hypermarkets (GMS) by giving them the illusion that they no longer waste, explains Guillaume Garot, former Minister for the Agri current parliamentary mission on food waste. "

It's some sort of anti-food-waste activist group that, for some reason, opposes a new law in France that says supermarkets cannot throw away unsold food, and must give it to charity instead.
It seems like very much my attitude toward regulation, but this attitude does seem somewhat irrational in this particular situation.
They're basically saying, any steps toward making the situation better, is a bad thing because it makes it seem like the situation is solved.
It seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

Here's more info the whole France thing if you're curious:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/m ... to-charity

EquALLity wrote:

zeello wrote:Your system can be used to justify evil too.

Give me an example.

According to your system, it's okay to exploit the animal if the moral benefits outweigh the moral harm.
However, the oppressor is the sole judge of the moral benefits and the moral harm. So you can begin to see the problem here. At best, he will be hopelessly biased in his assessment of how much he is harming the animal and how much moral good he is getting in exchange. It is the same with every moral issue. The victims must be the ability to resist abuse or else they are hopelessly at the mercy of the oppressor's "morality".

How would that work with animal welfare? What's a situation where animals would be abused more by businesses so that businesses don't get busted for violating regulations?

Companies have buried animals alive in large numbers in order to contain diseases. So it should be easy to imagine the same thing being done to a mistreated or sick animal just so the inspector doesn't see it.

Obviously it will still happen. Murder is illegal, and it still happens. But do you just reject that regulations against animal abuse will decrease it?

Murder is fought not only by making a law against it, but by giving the victims leverage. Animals have no leverage so it is useless to suppose that they won't be abused. The fact they have no rights effectively means they are begging to be abused. And if you make it legally allowable to buy and sell animals for the express purpose of production/exploitation, then you are practically begging for them to be abused, regardless of whether that was your intention.

It means that they are separate .1% of the time, and that you therefore can't say that because there is use that there must be abuse, and that therefore animal use is inherently evil.

Something is inherently evil if it results in abuse 99.9 percent of the time.
If someone doesn't understand this, then that person probably doesn't deserve to decide for himself whether to exploit the animal or not.
To commit an act that often results in evil, you must at least understand the danger of it, and be constantly aware of the fact that if you do something that is evil 99% of the time it is done, then it is overwhelmingly likely that you are part of that 99 percent. (and even if you were the 1% who were moral, you are still in solidarity with the 99 percent by doing it at all)
I believe this is looking at morality from a practical standpoint rather than a theoretical. Is it really deontology?
You can exploit an animal and not abuse it, but that does not automatically mean you should permit yourself to. An immoral person would certainly permit himself to, and he would 100 percent of the time, so why would you imitate him even 0.01 percent of the time?

Also, if someone is wrong 99.9 percent of the time, it makes more logical sense to allow nobody to do it than it is to allow everybody to do it.

Below is a quote from a book, Eugenics and Other Evils by G. K. Chesterton. He writes:

"Each man promises to be about a thousand policemen. If you ask them how this or that will work, they will answer, “Oh, I would certainly insist on this”; or “I would never go so far as that”; as if they could return to this earth and do what no ghost has ever done quite successfully—force men to forsake their sins. Of these it is enough to say that they do not understand the nature of a law any more than the nature of a dog. If you let loose a law, it will do as a dog does. It will obey its own nature, not yours."

[quote="zeello"]According to your system, it's okay to exploit the animal if the moral benefits outweigh the moral harm.
However, the oppressor is the sole judge of the moral benefits and the moral harm. So you can begin to see the problem here. At best, he will be hopelessly biased in his assessment of how much he is harming the animal and how much moral good he is getting in exchange./quote]

It would have been far more unlikely for the oppresssor to become an oppressor in the first place had he been born a consequentialist. The reason someone becomes, for example, a butcher is usually on the deontological level, either:

1. God gave Man dominion over animals.
2. It's ok to kill animals since they don't have souls.
3. Eating animals is not morally wrong. All my friends do it, and my family has done it for many generations.

However, let's say your local butcher suddenly decides to become a consequentialist. Even though he is likely to, as you write, be biased in his pleasure to suffering assessment, don't you think you would have a better chance of convincing him that his actions are immoral (compared to if he were still a deontologist)? In my opinion, it would still be difficult although no longer impossible.

Jebus wrote:Even though he is likely to, as you write, be biased in his pleasure to suffering assessment, don't you think you would have a better chance of convincing him that his actions are immoral (compared to if he were still a deontologist)? In my opinion, it would still be difficult although no longer impossible.

Excellent point.

Indeed, the first step to change the the views of a carnist who uses deontological defenses isn't to engage in a futile back-and forth of nuh-uh;uh-huh playing by the same rules of unsubstantiated assertion, but to dismantle the credibility of deontology itself.
Knock down the entire house of cards, then you can direct the carnist to something more credible.

A consequentialist can still be an idiot, but that idiocy is usually based on ignorance rather than dogma. Ignorance can be addressed with information, provided the person is willing to listen.


I find it particularly ironic that he's trying to challenge the credibility of consequentialism and support deontology by using a consequentialist argument.
'Consequentialism is wrong because of the consequences of consequentialism.'


Also, the misuse of the word "inherently"

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

inherent
[in-heer-uh nt, -her-]
adjective
1.
existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute;

inherent
/ɪnˈhɪərənt; -ˈhɛr-/
adjective
1.
existing as an inseparable part; intrinsic
Derived Forms
inherently, adverb

Zeello, continuing to argue your point using the wrong word isn't doing your argument any favors.
Also, you can't make a consequentialist argument against consequentialism... it doesn't work that way.

What you seem to be trying to advocate is a form of Rule Consequentialism, which is consequentialism and not deontology.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conse ... lism-rule/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_utilitarianism

You may also want to see virtue ethics, which is similar.