[CF#5]

To the child.

I find this to be a cop-out, because we're talking about morality. Is there a moral difference between someone who fails to intervene due to lack of consciousness (i.e., sleeping) and someone who fails to intervene due to some other reason, such as laziness? In sort of a twisted way, this has absolutely nothing to do with the child. It's simply a question of morality, right vs. wrong, and justification (or lack thereof) for inaction.

how can things be altered for a better outcome?

This is the problem here. You're set on blame, culpability, whether someone is good or evil or whatever. To me, those per se are irrelevant.

Damn effing right I'm set on blame! Here's a not-so-unrealistic hypothetical example: You walk into a pet store, not intent on buying anything, but just to check the price of a specific item. You notice a sick guinea pig and ask the store owner if that particular pig has received proper medical care, and the owner tells you there's no use wasting money on vet care for a pig who is going to die anyway. Should you buy the pig to spare him or her a premature death?

I'll go back to the first page of this thread, and now I think the Thoreau quote is painfully applicable. "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Saving that one guinea pig is hacking at a branch. Sad as it is for all of us, we know it would best to not buy that guinea pig.

Our reasons and motivation make no difference to that particular pig. Is it still wrong to leave the store without the pig?

How different would this discussion be if it were about, say, dogs and not humans? Say I have a dog who object guards and has done minor injury when I attempted to take toys, keys, socks, and gardening hand tools (I has a shovel!) away. Would you be discussing with me the best way to train object exchange exercises, for example, or would you be ignoring that, and instead trying to compare whether you thought the dog was evil with whether I thought the dog was evil? Or if that's not enough (because I'm a human), what if a dog is dog-aggressive or cat-aggressive or horse-aggressive, not human-aggressive? Wouldn't you be talking management, counterconditioning, desensitization, etc right along with me?

So you're saying we should try to take away humans' free will and force them to be less harmful to animals and the environment? I don't really disagree with you, but I don't think it's a realistic goal. People change when they're ready, willing, and able to change. I don't think people are ready.

Haven't read anything by Judge Judy.

Neither have I, but the title speaks for itself.

Premise. Although in these hypotheticals, hopefully you would agree that it is best to save the person, all else being equal.

Yeah, but all else is not equal. Based in a wonderland where the entire human race exists without harming other species or the environment, yeah, I would agree it's best to save the person.

Only if it worked. You could say the same about cats or mosquitoes. Doesn't work that way.

Which one of us is talking in theory and which one is being realistic? I have to admit I get a little confused when talking to you like this.

Why not other animals?

Because wild animals have equilibrium with the environment. Humans do not. Reduced to an abstract idea, domesticated animals are nothing more than merely an extension of humanity.

Why not females? Males are cheaper and safer, true, but let one male slip by and he can sire a gazillion offspring in a year. Let one female slip by and she can birth one "litter" (almost always 1 child) a year, and wouldn't do so for that many years. Unless you're assuming everyone will be monogamous.

Are you actually thinking about this in a realistic sense? It's what I think should happen in theory, and thus, there would be no "mistakes" that "slip by." We both know there's not a chance in hell this is going to happen any time soon.

Problems concerning starving humans? Do starving mice and owls not matter to you?

They have equilibrium with the environment. That means according to Darwinism, the stronger ones will find food while the weaker ones die out - some from starvation no doubt. Humans have been able to defy Darwinism for short bursts of time, so many of them seem to think nature won't ever be able to come back and bite them in the ass. They are wrong. In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world. Clearer this time?

Or to put it another way, unwittingly and partially being what I hated was what caused me to hate.

Been there, done that. I still hold myself in contempt in certain respects, but I've gone to great lengths to extricate myself from being what I hate for the most part. My anger and hatred that remain are mostly directed at others who still are what I used to be. I'm certainly far from perfect and I have my failings, but at least I'm aware of them. Most other people aren't in many respects.

Should to/for what? A moral type of "should"?

I don't know really. To grow? Evolve? Learn something?

Anyway, it is an analogy. Gets the point across. Works for me. The rest is, hmm, maybe "cosmetic" fits?

Yeah, I know what you mean - like setting up hypothetical circumstances that wouldn't actually exist in the real world but are necessary in order for the analogy to fit. To me, that's a logical fallacy.

Why assign them one way and not the other? Is there any objective difference?

Because it can be concluded with deductive reasoning that the humans who exploitatively bred the guinea pigs are not going to give those pigs a good home or even care enough for the thought to cross their minds, whereas the parents of human children are supposed to care for the children they bring into the world. By donating money to feed these children, you're letting the parents off the hook - same as when you buy a sick guinea pig in a pet store, you're letting the store owner and the supplier off the hook, freeing them up to replace that sick pig with another sick pig. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Buying that sick pig is as bad as breeding the replacement pig yourself. It's very similar to feeding children whose parents can't afford to feed them.

The parents have to be held accountable for their actions, which according to Alusdra, include breeding as much as possible because they know some of their children will inevitably die during infancy due to poor living conditions and lack of food. STOP BREEDING ALREADY. That's my attitude. Humans should know better. The guinea pigs being bred and the babies that result are victims all around. It's not the same case with humans. The parents are not victims, even if the children are. If the parents aren't willing to walk to the ends of the earth to feed their children, they shouldn't be procreating. It's like those parking spaces at the grocery store reserved for pregnant women. Why should I suffer because some other guy knocked her up? I'll park in that space whenever it's available simply out of protest. And I really don't give a crap if that costs me credibility in the eyes of most of the membership of this forum.

By the way, you can always call or write to manufacturers asking if their products are vegan. Some might pay attention to the fact that they have vegan potential customers. And on PETA's list, look for the symbol that says a company is entirely vegan, that way you don't have to ask manufacturers (or you might still want to in the case of companies that don't have vegan policies, as they might change ingredients sometimes without telling PETA). And for more ethical purchasing, the all-vegan companies are the ones I most like to support. For that reason I never liked Lush, KMF, Tom's of Maine (I don't buy that at all now since they sold out to Colgate), etc all that much.

Thank you very much for those links. After visiting a Lush store yesterday, I don't anticipate having a need for much soap in the near future (hopefully) but I'm sure those links will come in handy one day. I wasn't even aware that Tom's of Maine got bought out by Colgate. That's discouraging. Now I have to find a new supplier for toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant, and shaving cream in addition to soap. But I'll continue to use what I've already purchased, so it's not an immediate need.

As for Lush and KMF, I totally get what you're saying, and if you don't want to give them your money, I can't fault you for that. But keep in mind that the issue with these companies has nothing to do with animal testing, only animal ingredients. Buying a vegan product at Lush isn't really any different than buying a vegan product at Whole Foods.

Tom's of Maine is a totally different monster now that they're tied to Colgate.

What's your view on Dr. Bronner's?