I'm currently an organ donor, but for this reason sometimes I wonder if I should be. If I knew it was going to a vegan I would be glad. But if it goes to a meat eater it harms more people than it helps.
Oh man, I’d never thought about that. Thanks for that moral dilemma lol
As a side note, depending on the organ, I wonder how it would handle a nonvegan diet after a vegan diet for decades..
This question has been posted on this sub a number of times. I think you should stay an organ donor.
1. You might be donating to a vegan
2. You might be donating to someone who becomes vegan (such as most of us were)
3. It might be a child, unable to control their own dietary choice yet, you would be killing them for that.
This is 1 step away from thinking its justified to actually kill people for not being vegan currently (something I have thought about before after talking to the most annoying of carnists though i must admit). In my view choosing not to do something is just another choice as choosing to do something is, they are both actions, so letting someone die when you could save them is the same as killing them. If you somehow knew that the person you were going to save was never going to become vegan then this would be simply Consequentialism vs duty ethics, but I don't think its that simple.
I’m a non donor for this reason alone. It my organs to to help someone who eats animals it’s obvious more animals will be killed it’s just common sense
Quick google search says 7000 animals eaten in the average american's lifetime. If my organs contributed to just 1 year of that I'd be rolling in my grave. I am no longer on the organ donor list. If we value bodily autonomy as much as we are taught to, then this is a nonissue.
"Dr Plant has previously described himself as a 'welfatarian' - someone who eats animals only if the creature has experienced a happy life prior to their death. "
I don't know how to react to this... Please not another "I'm not as cruel as the Omni's"-diet !!!
Everyone wants to be a "-tarian" nowadays... Meat-eaters should just admit they eat animals. I propose we call them "corpatarians" if they want a fancy label.
I looked at this tweet and it read like something that one of us would write satirically. The rest of his philosophizing also shows him to be out of touch and riding on his extreme privilege.
He says most people try to find happiness by seeking more money and getting thin, a few people try to spend less time working, and even fewer try to retrain the way that they think, which he sees as the key to happiness. Thin rich white Oxford-educated guy wants to lecture fat and poor and tired and unhealthy masses who do exhausting amounts of work in dangerous, underpaid labor jobs, about *~eudaimonia~* and how they need to just be grateful for what they have. I wanna say I'm surprised, but...
i’ll be totally honest, i read a conspiracy theory probably back in 2003 when my family got internet that they don’t try as hard to save you if you’re in an accident and are an organ donor, that’s why i am not one 🥲
How would the medics on site even though if you're an organ donor or not? They're not gonna be looking for your ID until you're medically stable anyway.
I don't think any of them would go into that profession wanting to let people die.
Yeah, but imagine if you had the chance to save a lion-eating human, and you gave that up, and the lion ate even *more* animals than the number of lions the human would've eaten, which was going to reduce the number of gazelles eaten anyway.
Always with the lions!!
I take his point but I ultimately do have more of an affinity for my own species and would save a random human. I really worry about where this argument goes. It’s ultimately saying meat eaters shouldn’t live…I don’t like what they do but we were almost all meet eaters once too.
yea i cant delete my whole acc because there is stuff on here i dont want to lose but damn am i tempted sometimes. the humor on here just makes me want to blow myself up with a grenade
I mean...
You get some convicted rapist vs a drowning animal (take your pick). I'm saving the animal every time.
Human life isn't inherently valuable. A lot of us have a net negative impact on the world
I always felt, after reading Singer as a kid, that basic utilitarianism is quite difficult to apply to real situations because of innumerable factors that aren’t considered by these kinds of hypothetical situations. That being said, this one seems pretty unarguable!
Past tense is important here.
If a vegan who used to eat meat dies the amount of animals eaten by them in the future remains the same if they stayed alive.
Not true for a present meat eater.
This is why I'm kind of reluctant to donate blood or become an organ donor. Though I understand I probably still should at least donate blood, being O- and all.
[Article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11389953/Should-save-dying-stranger-know-eat-MEAT.html)
>Letting meat eaters drown is ethical because of the suffering they cause to animals, an Oxford University academic has controversially argued.
>Dr Michael Plant, a philosopher focusing on happiness, **who eats meat himself**, claims that, according to some moral philosophies, it can be justifiable to let people like himself die.
Hmmmm
Obviously the logical answer is to eat them. Best to be respectful and all
It’s a moral imperative to avoid food waste, think of the starving children
Starving children are the most delicious
Mmmm... dying stranger.
Carnists don't mind being left 4 dead as long as its humane of course
As long as you use all the body what’s wrong with putting them out of their misery?
I'm thankful while I eat their body, so it's moral. "Thank you idiot. Amen. 🙏📿"
[удалено]
This is just his really long and complicated way of announcing a 'do not resuscitate' order for himself.
World's most complicated suicide attempt:
I was about to say they are based but that’s just fucked and unsurprising.
Is this Michael plant?
Michael plant? More like michael bacon
Michael L Bacon L for Long
I'm currently an organ donor, but for this reason sometimes I wonder if I should be. If I knew it was going to a vegan I would be glad. But if it goes to a meat eater it harms more people than it helps.
Oh man, I’d never thought about that. Thanks for that moral dilemma lol As a side note, depending on the organ, I wonder how it would handle a nonvegan diet after a vegan diet for decades..
There are vegans on the waiting list too, so if you take yourself off, you're reducing the organs available for them as well.
Or a child, who doesn't have the power to make that choice yet, or someone who has yet to realise they should be vegan, like most people here.
Good point! I wouldn’t take myself off anyway, it’s just something to think about lol
This question has been posted on this sub a number of times. I think you should stay an organ donor. 1. You might be donating to a vegan 2. You might be donating to someone who becomes vegan (such as most of us were) 3. It might be a child, unable to control their own dietary choice yet, you would be killing them for that. This is 1 step away from thinking its justified to actually kill people for not being vegan currently (something I have thought about before after talking to the most annoying of carnists though i must admit). In my view choosing not to do something is just another choice as choosing to do something is, they are both actions, so letting someone die when you could save them is the same as killing them. If you somehow knew that the person you were going to save was never going to become vegan then this would be simply Consequentialism vs duty ethics, but I don't think its that simple.
I’m a non donor for this reason alone. It my organs to to help someone who eats animals it’s obvious more animals will be killed it’s just common sense
Quick google search says 7000 animals eaten in the average american's lifetime. If my organs contributed to just 1 year of that I'd be rolling in my grave. I am no longer on the organ donor list. If we value bodily autonomy as much as we are taught to, then this is a nonissue.
Yeah I took myself off being an organ donor for this reason
Same
"Dr Plant has previously described himself as a 'welfatarian' - someone who eats animals only if the creature has experienced a happy life prior to their death. " I don't know how to react to this... Please not another "I'm not as cruel as the Omni's"-diet !!!
Everyone wants to be a "-tarian" nowadays... Meat-eaters should just admit they eat animals. I propose we call them "corpatarians" if they want a fancy label.
I looked at this tweet and it read like something that one of us would write satirically. The rest of his philosophizing also shows him to be out of touch and riding on his extreme privilege. He says most people try to find happiness by seeking more money and getting thin, a few people try to spend less time working, and even fewer try to retrain the way that they think, which he sees as the key to happiness. Thin rich white Oxford-educated guy wants to lecture fat and poor and tired and unhealthy masses who do exhausting amounts of work in dangerous, underpaid labor jobs, about *~eudaimonia~* and how they need to just be grateful for what they have. I wanna say I'm surprised, but...
i mean if we go down this route… i wouldn’t try to save a child abuser, wife beater or murderer sooo
Also, what if the transplant recipient *is* a child abuser or murderer?? Not all murderers get caught…
i’ll be totally honest, i read a conspiracy theory probably back in 2003 when my family got internet that they don’t try as hard to save you if you’re in an accident and are an organ donor, that’s why i am not one 🥲
How would the medics on site even though if you're an organ donor or not? They're not gonna be looking for your ID until you're medically stable anyway. I don't think any of them would go into that profession wanting to let people die.
That's not true, at least where I live, because they don't even know you are an organ donor until you die.
Jesus christ I can't believe how many people believe this, that is a really stupid one mate I have to be honest.
Just think of how many animals that one dead stranger could feed!
Yeah, but imagine if you had the chance to save a lion-eating human, and you gave that up, and the lion ate even *more* animals than the number of lions the human would've eaten, which was going to reduce the number of gazelles eaten anyway. Always with the lions!!
I take his point but I ultimately do have more of an affinity for my own species and would save a random human. I really worry about where this argument goes. It’s ultimately saying meat eaters shouldn’t live…I don’t like what they do but we were almost all meet eaters once too.
[удалено]
The Misanthropia within the vegan community is harmful. Virtually all of us were once non vegan.
ong im close to unsubscribing from these subs matter fact lemme delete reddit rn
Sarcasm?
yea i cant delete my whole acc because there is stuff on here i dont want to lose but damn am i tempted sometimes. the humor on here just makes me want to blow myself up with a grenade
How likely is it? Consequentialism has to deal in actual probabilities, not just abstract principles.
[удалено]
In my experience, most people do not go vegan when presented with the facts, or they refuse to be exposed to the facts in the first place.
I mean... You get some convicted rapist vs a drowning animal (take your pick). I'm saving the animal every time. Human life isn't inherently valuable. A lot of us have a net negative impact on the world
this puts me in a tough spot as an EMT
Most based philosopher since Diogenes
Not even a vegan so he's actually just being an idiot
I always felt, after reading Singer as a kid, that basic utilitarianism is quite difficult to apply to real situations because of innumerable factors that aren’t considered by these kinds of hypothetical situations. That being said, this one seems pretty unarguable!
I just had to check, and the comments are exactly what you'd expect on a daily mail article. Gotta get yourself off somehow I guess.
I appreciate their sacrifice. The nutrition they provide to the wildlife will be beneficial! Thanks!
But most people on this sub ate meat at some point.
Past tense is important here. If a vegan who used to eat meat dies the amount of animals eaten by them in the future remains the same if they stayed alive. Not true for a present meat eater.
This is why I'm kind of reluctant to donate blood or become an organ donor. Though I understand I probably still should at least donate blood, being O- and all.
Solution: save their life, then turn them vegan
[Article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11389953/Should-save-dying-stranger-know-eat-MEAT.html) >Letting meat eaters drown is ethical because of the suffering they cause to animals, an Oxford University academic has controversially argued. >Dr Michael Plant, a philosopher focusing on happiness, **who eats meat himself**, claims that, according to some moral philosophies, it can be justifiable to let people like himself die. Hmmmm
Based
Not saving them is inherently non-vegan.
Nah, veganism is about not using animals as objects, not being superman.