Why vegans are simply better people

[Skeptical Greg]

• For me, yes.
• I would also accept the every day parlance of "Dessi equated humans with animals", if it isn't used as an equivocation. I would not be pedantic if the word wasn't used to accuse Dessi of something untoward.

Do you think Dessi was serious when she said " flip a coin ' ?


If so, what would that say about her equating humans with other animals ?

 

[qayak]

I still put humans first...

Same. And I wouldn't hang out with anyone who stated they would put animals first, or flip a coin. In fact, if someone I knew said that I wouldn't risk anything to help/save them should they need it. I know they would understand.

 

[lionking]

Do you think Dessi was serious when she said " flip a coin ' ?

She has not refuted it, just said it was a difficult dilemma. Which it isn't.

 

[Dessi]

She has not refuted it, just said it was a difficult dilemma. Which it isn't.

I can think of half a dozen ways to criticize my answer, none of them having to do with the "child" preference being so obvious that it needs no justification.

Really, think about it. You're a firefighter, you storm into a building, you find a child in a room, you need to get the hell out right now. Do you sit and think, "hmmmm, what if there's two children in a room down the hall? Do I sacrifice one to save the other two? What would Jesus do?" NO! You grab the kid and get the hell out. What if you find the dog first? You grab the dog and get the hell out. What if you find both? You hold the dog in one arm in the kid in the other and you get the hell out.

There are all kinds of ways this scenario would be handled, and I bet none of them would involve flipping a coin or the speciesist view that requires leaving behind a dog if you find it first, but -- and this may sound crazy -- but preferring whichever person or animal is closer to the entrypoint or whichever one is found first.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Seriously, because this entire thread is irritating enough already.

Here is a great definition of the fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of it.

Here is a silly straw man argument:

"1. Survival: A grandma gets in my way at the grocery store so I pepper spray her. But see, those sausages are food which is necessary for my survival!"

Then later you made some silly comparison about "I have to biological capability to sire children. Therefore I am entitled to rape this woman." which is a straw man, an appeal to emotion, false analogy etc.

But I have wasted more than enough time on your defensiveness about what you obviously thought was a clever post. You don't think they were straw man, good for you, sport!

Your condescension is duly noted, but I'm afraid I would have preferred you actually explaining why you think the scenarios mischaracterise the arguments. Of course they are silly, but that is rather the point. Throwing out more labels is just dull.

 

[RandFan]

Do you think Dessi was serious when she said " flip a coin ' ?

I think it likely. How do you solve moral dilemma (I know you don't think this is a dilemma)? What if you had to make a Sophie's Choice?

If so, what would that say about her equating humans with other animals ?

I've maintained from the start that she drew a comparison regarding moral consideration. But let's accept for arguments sake that Dessi believes there is not a dimes worth of difference between humans and animals. I would point you to Earthborn's quote, Dessi isn't degrading humans she is elevating animals. Now I don't agree with Dessi on that point. And at first hearing it's shocking but how much of my visceral feelings are reasoned and how much is intuitive? Is it evidence that Dessi would harm another on purpose or be indifferent or cruel to others? I don't think so at all.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think it likely. How do you solve moral dilemma (I know you don't think this is a dilemma)? What if you had to make a Sophie's Choice?

Why would you even entertain the idea ( in defense of Dessi ) that choosing between the life of a dog and a human infant is a moral dilemma ?

If Dessi was serious about the " coin flip ", she falls clearly into the camp of the OP, with nothing to say that I have reason to take seriously.

However, her comments have resulted in worthwhile comments from other contributors to the discussion.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I can think of half a dozen ways to criticize my answer, none of them having to do with the "child" preference being so obvious that it needs no justification.

Really, think about it. You're a firefighter, you storm into a building, you find a child in a room, you need to get the hell out right now. Do you sit and think, "hmmmm, what if there's two children in a room down the hall? Do I sacrifice one to save the other two? What would Jesus do?" NO! You grab the kid and get the hell out. What if you find the dog first? You grab the dog and get the hell out. What if you find both? You hold the dog in one arm in the kid in the other and you get the hell out.

There are all kinds of ways this scenario would be handled, and I bet none of them would involve flipping a coin or the speciesist view that requires leaving behind a dog if you find it first, but -- and this may sound crazy -- but preferring whichever person or animal is closer to the entrypoint or whichever one is found first.

Nice try waffle, but that wasn't the scenario that was presented to you when you said " flip a coin " ..

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Buddha said that one should adopt any simple diet that suits you. Good advice.

Actually, what he said on the matter is up for debate. For Theravada, we have the rules for monks, and those for lay persons. The rules for monks were often not moral rules, and were usually to a strict and specific standard. Here we have the Buddha giving specific rules about when meat can and cannot be eaten, but this is in the context of begging for alms. For laypeople he didn't really touch the issue, but he did list meat industry as wrong livelihood. There seems to have been some conflict on the issue during his life, but he tried to stay neutral overall.

For Mahayana the texts clearly have the Buddha promoting veganism.

The real debate is in Theravada. If it is morally wrong to kill living being and to be a butcher, is it alright to buy and eat that meat? And if not, why did the Buddha not say so?

 

[Dessi]

Nice try waffle, but that wasn't the scenario that was presented to you when you said " flip a coin " ..

Let me get this straight: you guys spend the last week and a half challenging my opinions on animal rights -- and the last 20 posts absolutely bashing me on a rather personal level -- because you want me to change the answers I give to some really fundamental ethical question. But I can't change my answer to this question because of the unspoken rule of NO TAKESY BACKSIES!

Guess what? I refine my thoughts over time, I change my opinions about a lot of stuff, sometimes I need a good night of sleep to look at things with a fresh perspective. Forgive me actually responding to criticism.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I can think of half a dozen ways to criticize my answer, none of them having to do with the "child" preference being so obvious that it needs no justification.

Really, think about it. You're a firefighter, you storm into a building, you find a child in a room, you need to get the hell out right now. Do you sit and think, "hmmmm, what if there's two children in a room down the hall? Do I sacrifice one to save the other two? What would Jesus do?" NO! You grab the kid and get the hell out. What if you find the dog first? You grab the dog and get the hell out. What if you find both? You hold the dog in one arm in the kid in the other and you get the hell out.

There are all kinds of ways this scenario would be handled, and I bet none of them would involve flipping a coin or the speciesist view that requires leaving behind a dog if you find it first, but -- and this may sound crazy -- but preferring whichever person or animal is closer to the entrypoint or whichever one is found first.

Funny thing, D, I was not thinking of the fire scenario on the posit. Probably for the very reason you mentioned here: Firefighters. I wanted to steer away from that because firefighters are highly trained in such matters - trained to the nth degree. Rescuing life and property is a primary focus of their job. Therefore, it seems a reasonable assumption they'll respond according to training rather than instinctively, as would you or I.

Of course my posit was oversimplified, by design, and assumes things such as "all things being equal". Naturally you're correct in stating that seldom in real life are all things equal in a life-or-death situation. Yet in pure hypotheticals - you do get to set the table how you wish.

Maybe to make the fire scenario more realistic: The firefighters haven't shown up yet, but there I am. The house is moments from being fully consumed and I assess that I've got one quick in and exit chance, that I can do. The woman who lives in the house is out on the sidewalk (let's assume she's injured and not mobile at the time) and screams: "My 1-year-old son is in there!" Anyone else? "Our pet cocker spaniel is still in there too!" My next question will ALWAYS be: "Where should I look for your son?" Now in that scenario - I run in, look where she told me and grab the kiddie. Even if the dog is closer. The dog is automatically relegated to Second-Banana status by me, as if it was Ed McMahon. If, upon coming back to the exit the dog is accessible without endangering the baby or me - I'll grab Fido too. But the kiddie is Top Priority the entire time I'm inside the building.

 

[Furcifer]

Let me get this straight: you guys spend the last week and a half challenging my opinions on animal rights -- and the last 20 posts absolutely bashing me on a rather personal level -- because you want me to change the answers I give to some really fundamental ethical question. But I can't change my answer to this question because of the unspoken rule of NO TAKESY BACKSIES!

Guess what? I refine my thoughts over time, I change my opinions about a lot of stuff, sometimes I need a good night of sleep to look at things with a fresh perspective. Forgive me actually responding to criticism.

So it was a falsehood, all things being equal you would save the child. I knew it was a "flippant" response.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let me get this straight: you guys spend the last week and a half challenging my opinions on animal rights -- and the last 20 posts absolutely bashing me on a rather personal level -- because you want me to change the answers I give to some really fundamental ethical question. But I can't change my answer to this question because of the unspoken rule of NO TAKESY BACKSIES!

Guess what? I refine my thoughts over time, I change my opinions about a lot of stuff, sometimes I need a good night of sleep to look at things with a fresh perspective. Forgive me actually responding to criticism.

Not sure what that was all about....
I don't see where you have been bashed about anything ..

Are you saying you weren't serious about " flip a coin ", or that with some thought you would most likely choose to save an infant human over a dog, all else being equal ?

 

[Cain]

I'm scrolling past nonsense, more nonsense, and I see certain words popping up again and again. First it was the "equate" non-controversy and now some "flip a coin" in a hypothetical. And no Dessi, you're not allowed to revise your answer because this is not a place where you can restate, where you can hone your argument. They gotcha! So BURN!

Burning building scenarios are infamously controversial. One of the most well-known asks if, given the choice, would you save your mother or the Archbishop of Canterbury (believed at the time to be a force for good). A morally "objective" person would choose the latter because, while you may love your dear mudder, she's probably not unlike any otter mudder. (In all future editions the author changed "mother" to "father," which I guess is more acceptable. Since I love my dear mudder more than my father, I'd have to agree.)

Or there's a fire at your child's preschool. The school's divided into two rooms, one large and one small. At this time of day your kid's in the smaller room, which usually has four or five people. The larger room has about two dozen. You have the key. Time is wasting. Which do you open? It's difficult to fault anyone for choosing the smaller room, but the "correct" answer, what we would expect a neutral/objective person to do under these circumstances, is to save the most lives possible (a parent who has no idea where his kid is supports this because there's a better chance he's in the main room).

But in this thread we're talking primarily about balancing the interests of animals against humans. Is an animal's life so relatively trivial that it should live and die so that you (and maybe a few others) should have a tasty meal?

And it's not obvious that we always favor humans over animals. People spend hundreds of dollars on "pet food" while other humans starve to death (think of 'lil Unbutu in Afreeka). Moreover, we say that it should be illegal to abuse animals, even if you bought'em and raised'em fair n' square. A high percentage of people -- the vast majority of whom are non-vegan -- refuse to wear fur on ethical grounds.

It seems rather obvious to me why people would choose those stances: they're relatively easy positions to take. Don't hit animals, don't wear fur. Food is difficult.

The typical person probably spends more time trying to look more attractive than trying to be more moral, yet struggles with maintaining a healthy diet. You know those cookies aren't good for you; you know you're gonna feel like **** if you eat the entire row in one sitting. But people do. They lack discipline (in part for the understandable reason that our diet is maladaptive: things that were scarce in a state of nature are all too plentiful today).

Little wonder that when it comes to morality, they don't stand a chance. They're going to first hit from the health-angle. Who doesn't want to eat what they want AND be healthy? You're going to limit yourself and arguably put your own health at risk in order to save nameless, faceless animals who may or may not have suffered? It's a topic that turns otherwise decent people into quasi-Randians.

 

[Dessi]

Not sure what that was all about....
I don't see where you have been bashed about anything ..

I also take back my earlier statement that you made a "sane argument" if this is your honest answer.

So much for the "vegans are better people" claim.

I'm sorry to say that this is one of the saddest and disturbing post I've read on this forum.

#988 is pretty damn close. Tossing a coin before deciding whether to rescue a dog or a baby shows contempt for the baby's life in my opinion.

Believe what you wish. I seriously feel sorry for people who even think for a microsecond about whether to save a dog or a baby. As someone said earlier, this one comment negates the OP about vegans being better people.

Furcifer's response was actually pretty mellow.

Are you saying you weren't serious about " flip a coin ", or that with some thought you would most likely choose to save an infant human over a dog, all else being equal ?

I'm saying I didn't like my first answer, it was an O(n^2) answer to an O(lg n) problem.

 

[citizenzen]

I asked earlier and was dismissed for putting forth the following scenario. But if we can play with "all thing being equal" hypotheticals, then I think we can stretch our minds to this point ...

If aliens, more advanced than humans, were to land on this Earth, would the fact that they were more intelligent and capable of dominating us make it okay for them to use us as we use animals? Who here would to say that is morally right? That human beings would have no more value than the livestock, simply because another species had the power to dominate us?

I think Dessi, myself and others have a morality and value system that doesn't equate hierarchy and domination with value. We're trying to defend the worth or creatures who aren't as smart as humans, aren't as capable as humans. We're defending their value as living beings who are only by degree less than we are ... just as we might be by degree less than many other races that inhabit this universe.

If you can't extend that value system to "lesser" creatures than yourself, by what right could you ever hope for it if you found yourself on the other end of things?

 

[Dessi]

Of course my posit was oversimplified, by design, and assumes things such as "all things being equal". Naturally you're correct in stating that seldom in real life are all things equal in a life-or-death situation. Yet in pure hypotheticals - you do get to set the table how you wish.

Maybe to make the fire scenario more realistic: The firefighters haven't shown up yet, but there I am. The house is moments from being fully consumed and I assess that I've got one quick in and exit chance, that I can do. The woman who lives in the house is out on the sidewalk and screams: "My 1-year-old son is in there!" Anyone else? "Our pet cocker spaniel is still in there too!" My next question will ALWAYS be: "Where should I look for your son?" Now in that scenario - I run in, look where she told me and grab the kiddie. Even if the dog is closer. The dog is automatically relegated to Second-Banana status by me, as if it was Ed McMahon. If, upon coming back to the exit the dog is accessible without endangering the baby or me - I'll grab Fido too. But the kiddie is Top Priority the entire time I'm inside the building.

Well if you want to make the analogy as literal as possible, suppose we have a 3-alarm fire. Are you in good shape? Do you have rescue training? Are you wearing flame retardant clothing? How long do you think it takes to find a person in a fire? Is there a time limit you put, maybe 2 or 3 minutes, before you'd have to run out of the building without serious risk to your own safety? How exactly do you open doors when the door knobs will cauterize every capillary in your hands instantaneously? Are you carrying a fireaxe? Oxygen to put over the face of a child? A fire blanket to carry the child out? Can you reach windows? What about elevators? What's in your inventory to carry out this job safely?

All things being equal, no matter how great it sounds on paper, no matter how noble you believe you're acting, literally rushing into a burning building with no protective gear, no fire extinguisher, no water hose, no oxygen, nothing but the clothes on your back is involuntary suicide. I wouldn't recommend it. There are times when we can take these analogies too far.

 

[qayak]

Furcifer's response was actually pretty mellow.


I'm saying I didn't like my first answer, it was an O(n^2) answer to an O(lg n) problem.

I disagree with your assessment of my statement. I didn't bash YOU. I bashed your argument. An important difference on a forum priding itself on reason.

When you extend the equating of animals and humans to the point that you: put a dog or cat life above that of another human being, or that you will be flipping a coin to decide, the argument is not a sane one.

 

[qayak]

Let me get this straight: you guys spend the last week and a half challenging my opinions on animal rights -- and the last 20 posts absolutely bashing me on a rather personal level -- because you want me to change the answers I give to some really fundamental ethical question. But I can't change my answer to this question because of the unspoken rule of NO TAKESY BACKSIES!

Unspoken rule? Never seen it myself. Is that why Randfan couldn't just admit he was wrong and change his opinion?

Guess what? I refine my thoughts over time, I change my opinions about a lot of stuff, sometimes I need a good night of sleep to look at things with a fresh perspective. Forgive me actually responding to criticism.

So, what you are saying is that despite all your pontificating on your well thought out, morally superior, vegan position you haven't really thought anything out and are just winging it.

Well, that solves that then.

 

[qayak]

Actually, what he said on the matter is up for debate. For Theravada, we have the rules for monks, and those for lay persons. The rules for monks were often not moral rules, and were usually to a strict and specific standard. Here we have the Buddha giving specific rules about when meat can and cannot be eaten, but this is in the context of begging for alms. For laypeople he didn't really touch the issue, but he did list meat industry as wrong livelihood. There seems to have been some conflict on the issue during his life, but he tried to stay neutral overall.

For Mahayana the texts clearly have the Buddha promoting veganism.

The real debate is in Theravada. If it is morally wrong to kill living being and to be a butcher, is it alright to buy and eat that meat? And if not, why did the Buddha not say so?

I have a friend who is into Buddhism. He informed me that Buddhist monks can't farm their own food for fear of killing a worm or other living crawly thing. They eat vegetarian though which means they buy food that others have grown.

Is it morally better to kill the worm yourself in the farming of food or to have someone else do it and you just enjoy the fruits of the killing?

Seems a no brainer to me especially when both your future lives are at stack. Allowing someone else to take the punishment for you being fed is very much morally inferior.