Why vegans are simply better people

[ConspiRaider]

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.

Oh, I'd improvise, Big D, because in the scenario - I'm no trained firefighter. Just a person who might be able to rescue another person within a contracting time window (the building's impending total involvement in flames). I'd try, and it would have nothing to do with being noble. I'd have no such thoughts beforehand.

Please recall my emphasis that my posit is hypothetical, is "all things being equal", is on-paper. I've seen real fire aboard my aircraft carrier - it's messy. Regardless, we're bright enough to discuss within the limited framework of scenario projection.

In your additions to the scenario, I can only answer that knowing me - I'd be more reckless in attempts to get the person. I'd improvise as best I could and then go. It might be foolhardy. Yet if I didn't even try, but my quick assessment concluded that there was a shot at success? I'd go. Not going would bother me greatly - perhaps haunt me.

In the same scenario, if the woman stated ONLY that her pet dog was in the house? I would be less reckless. That would automatically become, in my mind, a more conditional rescue attempt, much more cautiously executed. I'd stop, think a bit, do more recon work from safe vantage points. I'd now be inserting more concern for my own safety and would lessen the risk.

This is not noble thinking. I'm betting it's mainstream.

Speaking of the aircraft carrier, they show you the USS Forrestal fire during orientation when you report for duty. A lot of that action was the kind I've hinted at - reckless, and from untrained personnel. Some men were saved by reckless acts of rescue; some rescuers died as a result of their recklessness. As we agree upon: Real life is decidedly messy.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Oh, let me AGAIN explain why your obvious, "silly" (your label, not mine) characterizations of your opponents' arguments mischaracterize the arguments, as opposed to just showing you, which I just did, and which you whined away.

But I've learned something rock solid here, folks. That is pointing out glaring logical fallacies are "labels."

Gotcha!

/his point was that they were silly logical fallacies. lulz. He just typed that, that is *********** hilarious.

 

[RandFan]

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.

I'd love to have a discussion with you but you seem quite invested in this. I'm trying, real hard, to avoid strong willed debate where one or both sides know the truth and they need to convince the other at any cost.

If you will commit to the principle of charity then we can discuss the matter. It's quite easy to be skeptical of beleifs we don't hold and we find offensive. Skepticism requires being skeptical of our own bias.

1. While suspending our own beliefs, we seek a sympathetic understanding of the new idea or ideas.
2. We assume for the moment the new ideas are true even though our initial reaction is to disagree; we seek to tolerate ambiguity for the larger aim of understanding ideas which might prove useful and helpful..
3. Emphasis is placed on seeking to understand rather than on seeking contradictions or difficulties.
4. We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears the most cogent.

If you can do that then let me know. I promise to treat you in kind.

 

[varwoche]

Cain, there's something I've wanted to get your take on ever since that old Rob Lister thread.

I often take a hike in a nearby forest*. It's impossible not to wipe out lots of spider webs that cross the trails, especially when one is the first hiker of the morning. I assume that some (all?) of those spiders are killed by my actions. Whereas I could choose to walk on the street and not kill spiders.

Do you see this as a similar ethical situation as eating animals? (I do. A little worse actually, because my DNA isn't driving my behavior.)

* During which time, I'm almost invariably pondering, what would Cain think? (True, despite the wink.)

 

[citizenzen]

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.

I'm Buddhist and I've studied in monasteries that had vegetable gardens. So it sounds as if your Buddhist mileage may vary.

But I will tell you a story (a true story) ...

I was studying in the Zen Center of Los Angeles's mountain monastery, located in the San Jacinto Mountains, south east of L.A. It was my duty for a time to collect the meal's serving bowls and to take them from the zendo to the kitchen. One evening, after dinner, with my hands and arms full carrying these bowls, a deer fly was buzzing around me, I'm guessing attracted to the smell of leftover food (though with deer flies, you didn't need food to attract them as they were often present, looking to take a painful bite out of any exposed skin).

As I was walking along the forest path I watched as the fly circled through and around my arms. And I watched when—without any intent on my part—the fly, a metal bowl and my arm all met in one place. The fly popped and in that instant was crushed, falling dead to the ground.

That moment has always stayed with me, because I imagine that for many beings their end of life is like that: a coincidental moments where forces join and without any any intention take their life. And I think it shows the fallibility behind your friends depiction of Buddhists. A Buddhist who doesn't feed himself could just as easily kill something on the way to obtaining food.

In the end, Buddhists minimize their killing by acting with compassion to all sentient beings and removing any intent to take a life. But accidents cannot be avoided entirely. And the Buddhist who doesn't garden simply trades another scenario where that accident could occur. The Buddhists I know and have practiced with would prefer to help feed themselves and deal with the consequences of that choice.

 

[bit_pattern]

Cain, there's something I've wanted to get your take on ever since that old Rob Lister thread.

I often take a hike in a nearby forest*. It's impossible not to wipe out lots of spider webs that cross the trails, especially when one is the first hiker of the morning. I assume that some (all?) of those spiders are killed by my actions. Whereas I could choose to walk on the street and not kill spiders.

Do you see this as a similar ethical situation as eating animals? (I do. A little worse actually, because my DNA isn't driving my behavior.)

* During which time, I'm almost invariably pondering, what would Cain think? (True, despite the wink.)

I take Buddhist approach myself (I know, hell of a thing to admit to on a sceptics forum), all life involves causing death, it is an inextricable part of life, the middle way though is to consciously try to avoid causing death, harm or suffering but that when you do to be fully mindful of the experience. So, in you situation, my ethical choice would be to try and minimise the impact my hiking caused on the spiders and spider-webs I encountered, but when harm is inadvertently caused to say a little prayer and continue on my way, mindful of the suffering I have caused.

 

[citizenzen]

So, in you situation, my ethical choice would be to try and minimise the impact my hiking caused on the spiders and spider-webs I encountered, but when harm is inadvertently caused to say a little prayer and continue on my way, mindful of the suffering I have caused.

I'm with you.

Though I'd probably skip the little prayer.

 

[myowninvention]

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?

Here's my issue with this hypothetical though- I'm still human in it. I don't really think i place a higher value on human life because we're better, smarter, or higher on the food chain then other animals. (I can only speak for myself here.) I value human life more because I am human. I have greater empathy for other humans because they, like me, are human- I can put myself in the shoes ofanother human in a way I simply cannot with another species.

It would be a different story, perhaps, if I were one of the aliens in this hypothetical...

 

[citizenzen]

I value human life more because I am human. I have greater empathy for other humans because they, like me, are human- I can put myself in the shoes ofanother human in a way I simply cannot with another species.

And I agree with you. Speciesism is a very powerful force. But it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean it's the only choice we all need to make.

IMO, all the outrage over Dessi's "flip a coin" remark is as fallacious as a duck thinking it's moral to fly south for the winter.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Oh, let me AGAIN explain why your obvious, "silly" (your label, not mine) characterizations of your opponents' arguments mischaracterize the arguments, as opposed to just showing you, which I just did, and which you whined away.

But I've learned something rock solid here, folks. That is pointing out glaring logical fallacies are "labels."

Gotcha!

/his point was that they were silly logical fallacies. lulz. He just typed that, that is *********** hilarious.

Oookay then.

 

[Stomatopoda]

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?

(If aliens bother putting the time and resources into crossing the vast empty void of space just to dominate some primitive sapient meat, then they aren't very advanced. Digesting the entire planet wouldn't come close to justifying the energy expenditure.)

What if the aliens were so advanced that they viewed us as we view vegetables? Would it be okay then? If not, then how dare you kill those poor little vegetables?

What if they saw us as we see bacteria?

 

[Furcifer]

snip neat story...

In the end, Buddhists minimize their killing by acting with compassion to all sentient beings and removing any intent to take a life. But accidents cannot be avoided entirely. And the Buddhist who doesn't garden simply trades another scenario where that accident could occur. The Buddhists I know and have practiced with would prefer to help feed themselves and deal with the consequences of that choice.

Is it worth pointing out I've never killed a cow?

 

[ConspiRaider]

And I agree with you. Speciesism is a very powerful force. But it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean it's the only choice we all need to make.

IMO, all the outrage over Dessi's "flip a coin" remark is as fallacious as a duck thinking it's moral to fly south for the winter.

Wow.

Your 1st statement:
Every single species on this planet, without exception, is hardwired to survive via replication or procreation - of itself. No species "thinks" about it - the fact simply exists. The activities performed during the lifetime of an organism are designed to favor its own survival. Yet for us, that's not "right"? What are you talking about? We're now supposed to rewire our brains to somehow act in the best interests of millions of other species - all at the same time? Really? And just how are we to do that, assuming we had the mental capacity? At this very moment, a shark is starving. Should we feed one of us to that shark to act in its best interest? Hey, there are 7 billion of us, surely we can spare someone?

Your 2nd statement:
Please expound on that with more clarity, because I don't see the corollary.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oookay then.

Just another silly post, sport?

me: nice straw men
You: what straw men
me: these: "quotes"
you: I wuz jest bein' "silly"
me: oh, you were being "silly."
you: Oookay then.

Worthless thread is more worthless than I could have imagined.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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.

Yeah, the farming rule is one that also splits different lineages. Traditionally monks can't, but later schools began accepting it.

The weirdness about having the monk have a lay person do something against their rules comes up quite often. For meat eating one of the spelled-out rules was that the monk could not suspect or know that the animal was slain for them. But generally they were expected to eat what was given. I recall there was a debate about picking the meat out of a dish, but I do not remember the final decision off hand.

 

[myowninvention]

And I agree with you. Speciesism is a very powerful force. But it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean it's the only choice we all need to make.

IMO, all the outrage over Dessi's "flip a coin" remark is as fallacious as a duck thinking it's moral to fly south for the winter.

I don't know if I can argue that my affinity for other humans is moral, all I can argue is that it exists, and is such an intrinsic part of my world view that I find it hard to relate to a value system that says a human life is not more valuable than that of another species. Further, I don't think one has to think that in order to find cruelty to animals or eating animal products immoral. I place a very high value on life, especially the life of beings who can feel pain. I was vegan for years. Now, however, one of my kids has severe allergies to nuts, soy and wheat- and a pretty bad reaction even to beans. There is no doubt he could survive without eating meat, but he would be either malnourished , or sick all the time. I made the choice that his right to quality of life- not just survival- is greater then the right of the animals that nourish him to live. I don't think my choice was immoral. Perhaps some would disagree.

 

[citizenzen]

Yet for us, that's not "right"?

Instinct alone doesn't make something "right" or "moral". Repeating behavior over millions of years doesn't make something "right' or "moral".

I would hope that one of the lessons we've learned as humans is that we don't have to simply repeat the behaviors that organisms have repeated, but that we can use our brains to dig mere deeply into what is "right".

A duck might be outraged over the immorality of not flying south. A human might be outraged over not valuing human life other all else.

But both IMO, are simply animal instinct and not an indicator of morality.

 

[qayak]

I'm Buddhist and I've studied in monasteries that had vegetable gardens. So it sounds as if your Buddhist mileage may vary.

No doubt, I have little if any Buddhist mileage.

I was studying in the Zen Center of Los Angeles's mountain monastery, located in the San Jacinto Mountains, south east of L.A.

I think I have seen pictures of this place. My wife's friend and her husband are frequent visitors there. In fact, they will be in Vancouver staying with my wife for much of January. They arrive tomorrow.

That moment has always stayed with me, because I imagine that for many beings their end of life is like that: a coincidental moments where forces join and without any any intention take their life. And I think it shows the fallibility behind your friends depiction of Buddhists. A Buddhist who doesn't feed himself could just as easily kill something on the way to obtaining food.

I agree. I think he was very wrong for many reasons. I just assumed, as we mostly do, that what he was relating had some truth to it.

In the end, Buddhists minimize their killing by acting with compassion to all sentient beings and removing any intent to take a life. But accidents cannot be avoided entirely. And the Buddhist who doesn't garden simply trades another scenario where that accident could occur. The Buddhists I know and have practiced with would prefer to help feed themselves and deal with the consequences of that choice.

I think everybody does this to. I don't know too many people, trophy hunters excepted, who wantonly kill other living things.

 

[qayak]

IMO, all the outrage over Dessi's "flip a coin" remark is as fallacious as a duck thinking it's moral to fly south for the winter.

Of course, it is no less fallacious to think that flying south is immoral.

 

[qayak]

A human might be outraged over not valuing human life other all else.

But both IMO, are simply animal instinct and not an indicator of morality.

Valuing human life over animal live is not just instinctual. It is universally cultural and societal. As culture/society has a big say in morality, I tend to disagree with your assessment.