[troub]

Do you believe that one can meet an ethical balance?<br><br>
Karma of sorts, but like a large metaphysical scale, with good deeds on one side, and bad deeds on the other?<br><br><br><br>
Do the ends justify the means?<br><br><br><br>
Which of these, if any, would you consider <i>justified</i> in the grand scheme of things?<br><br><br><br>
1)A man kills 3 people in a laboratory saving 300 animal lives (dogs, monkeys, rats).<br><br>
2)A man kills 1 person in a lab, injuring others, setting fire to research, but saves 4000 animal lives. But unknowingly to him, the research was about to lead to a cure for AIDS<br><br>
3)A cure for AIDS if it took the deaths of 5,000 dogs/chimps to find.<br><br>
4)A cure for AIDS if it took the death of 3 children to find. Your children.<br><br>
5)If someone made a deal with you, that if you ate like the SAD for one year, they would be vegan for 20 years.<br><br>
6)If someone made a deal with you, that if you ate like the SAD for one year, their company (100 people) would be vegan for 5 years.<br><br>
7)None - war does not begat peace.<br><br>
8)All - war can begat peace<br><br><br><br>
Which would you consider not justifed at all? Which is the most justfied?

 

[Dirty Martini]

I voted #6, before realizing that you put "SAD" in the description. Your poll says "omni" and we all know that on VB, "omni" means that you can eat a completely vegan diet, but eat a bag of gummy bears one day, and you're omni. So I voted thinking that I could eat one gummy bear a day, or cheese with rennet, and be in line with #6.<br><br><br><br>
Depends on what you mean by SAD diet I guess. I know people who are omni and eat very healthy meals (and small amounts of meat a couple times a month). I also know people who eat Yoplait and McDonalds all the time.

 

[raw jess]

I picked the end doesn't justify the means.<br><br><br><br>
I think people need to start worrying more about prevention of things, than cure.

 

[kpickell]

What does SAD mean? Google says "Standard American Diet" I guess? Anyways, here's my answers...<br><br><br><br>
1)A man kills 3 people in a laboratory saving 300 animal lives (dogs, monkeys, rats).<br><br><b>Not justified. Very unethical.</b><br><br>
2)A man kills 1 person in a lab, injuring others, setting fire to research, but saves 4000 animal lives. But unknowingly to him, the research was about to lead to a cure for AIDS<br><br><b>Not justified. Very unethical.</b><br><br>
3)A cure for AIDS if it took the deaths of 5,000 dogs/chimps to find.<br><br><b>Justified</b><br><br>
4)A cure for AIDS if it took the death of 3 children to find. Your children.<br><br><b>Not justified. Unless those children were of the age of consent and donated their own bodies to science, then it's their choice.</b><br><br>
5)If someone made a deal with you, that if you ate like the SAD for one year, they would be vegan for 20 years.<br><br><b>Definetely justified. Of course, you'd need some guarantee.</b><br><br>
6)If someone made a deal with you, that if you ate like the SAD for one year, their company (100 people) would be vegan for 5 years.<br><br><b>Definetely justified.</b><br><br><br><br><br><br>
I'd do 5 or 6 in a heartbeat if there was some type of guarantee that these otherwise omnivore people would most definetely go vegan for that duration. Obviously such a hypothetical situation would never happen, but it sure would be awesome, and I'd have no trouble eating meat knowing it's helping such a large number of animals. Since the poll wasn't multiple choice, I picked #6 as the most ethical choice.<br><br><br><br>
And I'd very much like to find a cure for AIDS... 5000 dogs seems like a small price to pay if that disease could be cured for good, especially in Africa, even though I'm a very big dog lover and it'd break my heart to be involved in research like that it's for the greater good.<br><br><br><br>
PS: I don't know why I answer these polls, people just like any excuse to rip up what I say, but I'm just answering the question with my own opinion.

 

[troub]

yeah I meant standard american diet. so mainly fast food and ice cream.

 

[Dirty Martini]

<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=""><br><br><br><br>
yes, because we all know the typical american only eats fast food & ice cream. I was WONDERING why all those people at the farmer's market last weekend were all walking around complaining about there being no mcdonalds or ben & jerry's. Shame they were buying all that fresh produce.

 

[Dirty Martini]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
PS: I don't know why I answer these polls, people just like any excuse to rip up what I say, but I'm just answering the question with my own opinion.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Because it's likely that there are a lot of people who agree with you but rarely say anything. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=""> I think it's important to have variety in opinion - people who are interested in vegetarianism but don't want to live on the fringes of society see that it's possible to be normal while adhering to a vegetarian diet.

 

[Tesseract]

I don't know what my actual vote is yet, but I don't see any moral difference between #3 and #4. Either they're both justifiable or neither is. Neither the dogs/chimps nor the children can meaningfully consent (I'm assuming children = legal minors).<br><br><br><br>
I think if the test subjects were going to be horribly tortured and die slow, painful deaths, no number of lives saved can justify that. OTOH, if they were going to be sedated beforehand and and die painlessly, then maybe it would be justified, in light of the number of lives that could be saved and the amount of suffering that could be ended or prevented.<br><br><br><br>
But if we're going to look at it from a utilitarian POV based on suffering, we have to remember to factor in the suffering that the deaths of the children will cause in the human community-- would enough other people suffer, and would their suffering be severe enough to render the tradeoff a bad deal?

 

[*AHIMSA*]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I don't know why I answer these polls, people just like any excuse to rip up what I say, but I'm just answering the question with my own opinion.</div>
</div>
<br>
Shocking as this may seem to some, I, STRICTEST of STRICT VEGANS, agree with you on all these points. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:"> Actually I am finding you post things that resonate with me more and more since I've been back at VB <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sunny.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":sunny:">

 

[Sevenseas]

Whether they're my kids (in choice #4) or not should have no influence on whether it's justified. Kids are always somebody's kids and to maintain that them being <i>my</i> kids is ethically relevant implies that I am somehow more important than everyone else (or my kids are), both of which don't make much sense.<br><br><br><br>
I think the first 4 are pretty much unjustified if some of them are. I have to think about 5 & 6 though.

 

[snownose]

I voted #6, because I'm sure some of those 100 people would stay vegan after they experience all the benefits.

 

[gas4]

I don't know, I hate utilitarianism.

 

[Carwere15]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>raw jess</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I picked the end doesn't justify the means.<br><br><br><br>
I think people need to start worrying more about prevention of things, than cure.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Agreed.

 

[GhostUser]

I voted "the ends do not justify the means."