In which case they wouldn't have a problem with the friends eating the steak?
Printable View
In which case they wouldn't have a problem with the friends eating the steak?
I wouldn't think so :p It was essentially the same question that was originally posted. Would you eat chicken if it meant saving the life of a live chicken? And would you eat a steak, which meant 10 omnis would eat a vegan meal, knowing that somewhere down the line it's doing more good than you could do on your own?Quote:
twinkle
By the time you're sitting in the restaurant, the meat is already in the freezer/pantry: the animals turned into either one or ten steaks are already dead.Quote:
"Obviously 1 steak has less of an impact than 10. I'm still unsure as to what I'd do..."
It could be argued that the restaurant's sales figures will be affected by your buying one steak, instead of your friends buying ten. If the decreased demand were a trend (unlikely), they might obtain less meat the following week which would filter back to the slaughterhouse/farmers and perhaps reduce the number of animals killed.
Tom Regan crushes this (utilitarian) way of thinking in Chapter 6 of his book, The Case For Animal Rights - which incidentally, every vegan should read.
Well no matter how small the action is, it should have at least some effect somewhere down the line, right? If every omni on the planet suddenly decides to only eat meat once a week, the farms aren't going to continue producing the same amount of meat. So the 9 steaks that wouldn't have been eaten, would mean less meat being purchased next week. Of course it wouldn't be a huge difference. It wouldn't even mean the difference in one less animal being bred and slaughtered. But if you add that on to you being vegan, and vegetarians in the community, together you would think you could save at least a few animals over the course of the year.
I don't know how you could calculate it, but does anyone know a rough estimate of how many animals are killed just to feed a single omnivore for a year?
Ah, the attempt to separate the utilitarians from the deontologists! Do you do what has the best consequences or do you follow rules no matter what the consequences?
I consider myself a utilitarian, but I think that there are some rules which will effectively need to be followed all the time for the sake of having the best consequences come about. For instance, the consequences of sacrificing anyone's rights are too great, from the perspective of the one who's rights are being violated to the psychological effect on the rights violator. So, for me, rights and certain rules come with utilitarianism, and any attempt to dismiss them reveals flawed reasoning.
So, in this particular instance, what would I do?
For one thing, we need to recognize that the chicken you'd be eating is already dead, and cannot be harmed anymore. That's what decides it for me. I'd eat the chicken. I wouldn't trust the nut with the gun, but I'd cooperate in the hopes that he would follow through with his promise not to harm the live chicken.
For me, eating meat is not in itself wrong: it's the violation of the rights of the individual animal that is wrong. The suffering, the killing, the exploitation, etc. - that's what makes it wrong, and what makes supporting it financially or encouraging it in other ways wrong.
I have more thoughts on the matter that I could elaborate on, but I've already done too much procrastinating on projects I have due tomorrow! Must wrap things up here...
Quote:
fiver
If the "Consumers" are only 'swallowing' the flesh, then they would only be "aiding and abetting" if space was very tight, and the slaughterer's progress was impeded by slipping on twitching foetuses, and the like. Were the "Consumers" to negotiate the skin, organs, and muscle tissue to be acquired and provided by some organisation... then they would certainly be conspirators. I did not use the term "money" in the previous sentence, because people confuse that term, then get lost in something else. The 'negotiation' is a more useful subject for scrutiny.Quote:
Back-Space
Negotiation can commence between people, or between as few as two potential outcomes in the mind of a single person.
Missions to negotiate reduction of flesh use [or animal abuse], with those people whom do not care about animal consciousness or welfare, engage in continual negotiation...and result in enabling the abusers in all of the deals that are made... since they will only settle in their own interests.
A logical outcome to be sought would be that of proving that veganism is in the interests of the affore mentioned abusers.
Alternatively exist missions to generate sensibility of animal consciousness and their ability to suffer, probably combined with remedies to delusional states.
Permission is currency, persuasion is a force.
@whalespace - When I wrote 'Consumers of meat' I was referring to those who pay for and use goods and services. Not those who simply eat or drink! :)
Perhaps a better analogy for the latter (those 'swallowing the flesh') would be people who allow themselves to benefit from the perpetration of a crime, as in knowingly receiving stolen goods.
"Receiving stolen goods" fits the bill;... maybe perverting the course of justice?
Being disgusting isn't a crime in Britain... I'm not familiar with oscenity laws.
Be surprised, because none of my friends would make weird statements like that- they all respect me and me being vegan, even if they still don't quite understand it, and would never do this.Quote:
Back-Space
But, say they did, I'd ask why they want me to eat a steak so much. To feel better about themselves?
I might even get so offended as to get up and walk out. Getting 10 people to eat vegan for one meal is not really going to change anything and it would be pointless to sit around with disrespectful people trying to be smartasses when there are 100s of better things I could be doing with my time.
Yes. Back a while I posted that it would be a completely heartless thing of your friends to do. I read it on a different site within the first few weeks of becoming vegan and got me thinking.Quote:
kikifromscotland
I would offer the person to pistol whip me in the face instead of the other two options.
Do you take being vegan as a personal set of guidelines? That nothing from an animal will ever be eaten by you. Or do you look at it as "for the better good". Like I was saying :p Another interesting one would be this.
Would you live out the rest of your life as an omnivore, if it meant that at that moment 5 omnivores would live out the rest of their lives as vegans? No trickery or distrust as with the gun wielding chicken lunatic :p Again, I have no idea how I would answer that. 5 vegans are better than one, but how would I feel having to go back to eating meat? You lose either way, but which one?
Err.. so presumably you could persuade an omnivore to take on the job of becoming that omnivore which "made" five omnivores live out their lives as vegans?
Or would that be too hypothetical?
I think it is great that people search out new ways of making the world a better place. Also it is healthy for people to question the consequences of their principles, and the bases of those principles.
Let us not forget what we were doing before we "identified" strongly with someone else's definition.
These kind of words are the crust of the meaning.
If you find a better way, and you are sure that it is better, [and you don't need to bite us] then why not go for it?
These sort of scenarios make my head hurt!
I'm so glad being vegan is about so much more......................
No no :p It's got to be you personally or there's no point in thinking about it. I suppose you could just go to the meeting place (wherever that may be) and tell them that you're going to stay vegan. Then just run over the 5 omnivores who would have become vegan on your way out :p Lol
Lol, me too :p I've never been so clueless about what I'd do.Quote:
sandra
I bet you're not 'clueless' at all. I think us vegans know exactly what the right thing to do is at ALL times.................well, I always do! :satisfied: :p
Is that so? :p Then how would this scenario play out for you?Quote:
sandra
You could suggest that four of the omnivores become vegans and the fifth keeps eating meat. Exactly the same consequences! :p
If they say that's not what they want (a vegan to compromise their values), ask them WHY? :mad: They're just messing with you. Idiots.
Lol :p Nope, that's not part of the deal. Everyone's trying to find ways around it, but nobody gives a straight answer :pQuote:
fiver
Ok, here's my straight answer. I'm not a consequentialist, so I would not become an omnivore.
The first answer. Good job :pQuote:
fiver
Well, as it's such a ludicrous scenario I would answer it by posing a similarly ludicrous question such as...........Quote:
Back-Space
'Would you live out the rest of your life as a cannibal if it meant that 5 cannibals would live out the rest of their lives as non-cannibals? :)
Classic answer, Sandra!Quote:
sandra
Lol :pQuote:
sandra
Excellent!Quote:
sandra
That one realy would give an omni a bit of insight into how most vegans would feel about eating meat.
But what if you did ask an omni that and they said summat like "For the sake of the human lives it would save I would have to, sooooo ... Yes!" ?
Well then I'd think that omni was particularly daft as those sort of questions/scenarios are so ridiculous they don't really warrant an answer! ;) :)
You would point out that individuals have value beyond the numerical value they add to a total number. You would say that it is wrong to increase the likelihood of harm to individuals simply so that others can benefit, with only a few exceptions - self-defense by the innocent, punishment of the guilty, minimisation of the damage caused to those facing imminent and equal harm (or in some cases, unequal harm) and the neutralisation of threats posed by those not culpable for their actions. You would insist that all individuals be treated with respect.Quote:
"But what if you did ask an omni that and they said summat like "For the sake of the human lives it would save I would have to, sooooo ... Yes!" ?"
"If you don't eat that chicken, I'll kill this chicken" That statement never claims whether the chicken you are supposed to eat is alive or not. The chicken could well be alive. So if he's holding a chicken in front of you and says eat this bird or I will kill that bird, I wouldn't eat the chicken because either way one bird is going to die whether it's the one I eat or the one the other party kills. Either way, I am not responsible for the death of this living being...the killer or the consumer is :)
I only just spied this post. Assuming the chicken in question was "a bucket of KFC" (ie. already dead); I would probably feel so sick at the thought of eating it (when I turned vegan I also became COMPLETELY turned off by the idea of eating anything animal derived at all), that despite "logically" wanting to save the live chicken I'm not sure I could do it. If it was live, I wouldn't do it either. In either case, I'd say "you are holding the gun, it's your choice not mine". I would also probably be scared I was about to get shot myself, so I'd be thinking about how to make them see reason; both about the chicken, and about letting go of the gun.
I found the entire thing totally disgusting. Sorry i cannot help you.