Are vegans being honest...?

[Toast]

It depends on how we do it. If we are rude or emotional, then we are probably better off not interacting with people. However, if done in the right way, then of course I want vegans to speak up. Though, people will disagree on what constitutes "the right way", and hence we have Veggieboards to hash this out.

If vegans don't interact with people I think that would be a difficult way to live!

But that is just precisely it. It is much easier to get total strangers to go veg*n than it is the people you know. The reason is one of statistics. When giving out pamphlets to a young audience, I estimate that I get a 2% conversion rate. However, I can give out over 1000 pamphlets in a day, hence at least 20 new vegetarians. However, with only a 2% success rate, and a 98% failure rate, the odds are against you when dealing with only the small handful of people in your immediate social circle. (Plus, young people are more open to change, so if the people in your immediate social circle happen to be older, the odds are against you even more.)

I agree with you! That is why I think Peta seems to reach such a lot of young people.

[das_nut]

Well be that as it may, what you mean is that people can eat what they want as long as it happens within the confines of your morality. I, too, think that people can eat whatever they want as long as it happens within the confines of my morality. We just have a different morality, the sphere of moral protection you believe in is narrower.

My sphere of moral protection isn't narrower.

But I've run out of room in my basement. And manacles are expensive.

[Pixelle]

^^

[Sevenseas]

But I've run out of room in my basement.

You could move all those stacks of He-Man porn elsewhere. Especially the Skeletor Gets Dirty tapes, don't they take like half of your storage space?

[Eugene]

I would agree that those scenarios provide a good counter-example to responsibility as a zero-sum game. They're not really analogous to the cases I was talking about, though, in that in those scenarios, there is no order or hierarchy between the actions: they each contribute, in the same way, to the outcome. In the case of victims not properly avoiding danger, and in the case of meanie vegans, the first act or omission is an enabling condition for the criminal's or omni's actions.

We could add a third, more analogous, scenario: in a room there is only one lever, and that lever will kill the innocent person. It is in the power of person A to open the locks to that room, which will enable person B to enter the room and then, if he/she so chooses, to pull the lever. In this scenario, where the actions are not "simultaneous" but clearly ordered, I would say the responsibility of B for the outcome is very different from the responsibility of A and necessarily primary or "greater", compared to A's.

What I think has been ignored in all this is that moral responsibility is not coextensive with causal responsibility. Assigning moral responsibility is a complex matter that involves our evaluation of not only an agent's causal powers but also the justifications, benefits and harms of his/her choices, and so on. So for instance, it matters to me a great deal in that third scenario what the reasons for A's actions are. Is he/she purposefully opening the locks because he/she wants a person killed and is just too timid to do it him/herself? Or does he/she need something of importance from the room and by getting it allow B entrance? Etc.

To me, that other agents are not rocks is one fact that has central relevance in my attributions of responsibility.

Suppose you are driving to work, and you see some pedestrians crossing the road. You know that if you hit your breaks to avoid them, you will be late to work. So you decide to just plow right over them. I would argue that killing the pedestrians in this manner is morally indistinguishable from killing them simply because you are sadistic and enjoy going out of your way to kill people.

So, in your example, it does not matter whether the person unlocking the door is doing so because he actively wants the victim to die, or simply because he is trying to get an object from the room.

The only valid excuse I can think of is that you genuinely don't know that the lever is connected to an electric chair. If you didn't know what the consequences of pulling the lever are, then you are not responsible. This is why a victim who is attacked is not responsible for his own predicament, since he genuinely didn't know that he was placing himself in danger.

By contrast, in your example of unlocking the door, would anyone unlock the door if they knew that they themselves would be the ones who would be strapped into the electric chair later that day?

Just as in the scenario with the car and the pedestrians, if the interests of other individuals matter so little to you that you won't take them into consideration, then you are clearly responsible for the harm committed.


-Eugene

[Sevenseas]

I would argue that killing the pedestrians in this manner is morally indistinguishable from killing them simply because you are sadistic and enjoy going out of your way to kill people.

I wouldn't say they are morally indistinguishable, but they're both pretty bad, and in both cases the driver is of course fully responsible for the harm (s)he causes.

The only valid excuse I can think of is that you genuinely don't know that the lever is connected to an electric chair.

Since we're talking about a hypothetical, there can be many different mitigating reasons. For example: someone has threatened to kill person A's family unless (s)he lets B in the room; A needs to get a life-saving antidote from the room and time is running out; there's a spider in the adjacent room and A has extreme arachnophobia, etc.

This is why a victim who is attacked is not responsible for his own predicament, since he genuinely didn't know that he was placing himself in danger.

I think many victims have been told and are aware that walking home at night, being drunk etc. will place them at danger. They just choose not to care, or they decide to take the risk. But that will never make me say that they were "responsible" for someone attacking them.

[holnrew]

I hope the leaflets are made from recycled paper

I couldn't do it because I used to be a Jehovah's Witness. I'd rather avoid doing any activity reminiscent of the evangelising I used to partake in.

[penny79]

It's actually fairly easy to leaflet and say, "Please read this when you have time or it's convenient for you." Most people aren't goign to stand there and read it and wait to have a convo with you.

[Eugene]

I hope the leaflets are made from recycled paper

Yes, they are printed on recycled paper. But more importantly, the environmental benefits of creating new vegetarians far outweighs the harm caused by the paper use.

-Eugene

[Eugene]

I think many victims have been told and are aware that walking home at night, being drunk etc. will place them at danger. They just choose not to care, or they decide to take the risk. But that will never make me say that they were "responsible" for someone attacking them.

Well, they don't believe it is a significant risk, otherwise they wouldn't be taking it. Just getting out of bed involves risk, and we always have to make a judgment call as to what level is appropriate.

-Eugene