What to do with leather, wool, etc. after becoming vegan

[Weatherlight]

Somehow not surprised :D

I'm a consequentialist, because consequences are that matter, because they're all that exist. No clue if I'm explaining it clearly.

I read a LOT of Peter Singer as a younger teen. The consequentialism made sense, I saw it immediately although I was raised xn with the 10 commandments ("do not x, do not y"). Things like acts and omissions (positives and negatives) are labels that humans slap onto things. There is no inherent difference.

Is a vegan acting ("going" vegan, consciously choosing what they do for animals, etc) or omitting (not purchasing animal products)? Is a meat eater acting (paying others to slaughter animals) or omitting (not making lifestyle changes, etc)?

[Justin]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Your Moral Parsimony Score is 59%
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Geographical Distance: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]51%
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Family Relatedness: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]2%
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Acts and Omissions: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]83%
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Scale: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]100%[/FONT]

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Justin

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Your Moral Parsimony Score is 59%
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Geographical Distance: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]51%
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Family Relatedness: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]2%
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Acts and Omissions: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]83%
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Scale: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]100%[/FONT]

I went back there and found out that it's asking what is right, regardless of what I would do. So I took the test again. Then the result was different.
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Your Moral Parsimony Score is 100%
[/FONT]I am surprised that I am very morally correct person after all!

[CF#5]

I'd like to see my results for family relatedness if the survey asked about my guinea pigs instead of my brother or cousin.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

What does policing the location you're in have to do with humans vs nature? *confused*

I'm sleeping in my house in the middle of the night, and some kid decides to take an evening dip in the lake about 20 miles north of where I live and tragically drowns, I have no responsibility in that. My hands are clean. You asked about proximity in terms of feet; I was thinking in terms of miles. You're complicating matters by lumping accidents together with intentional atrocities committed by humans.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

consequences are that matter, because they're all that exist.

That kid might drown by accident, or might have been held down under the water by another person. Either way, the consequence is the same - the kid is dead. And either way, my hands are clean. It's just not possible to lay any blame on me for this. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

How do you reconcile that with this?

Your entire argument really is that if I have the opportunity to prevent an injustice and fail to seize that opportunity, it's the same as committing it myself. If there's a clear opportunity to intervene and prevent an intentional human atrocity from being committed and someone passes up that opportunity, it MAY constitute complicity with the atrocity. The question of whether such opportunity exists will virtually always be a gray area and up for debate. The reasons someone might pass up such an opportunity, assuming it's existence isn't disputed, can vary greatly, and then you're going to have to be a mind reader and determine someone's intent. Did I not save the girl from being drowned by the murderous necrophiliac pedophile because I thought it would be cool to see her die at the hands of an evil villain, or did I have legitimate concern and fear for my own safety? How significant do the risk and fear have to grow before I'm justified in NOT taking action? You're diving into a subjective debate that has no concrete answers.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

Have you seen "Peter Singer's Solution to World Poverty," New York Times Sunday Magazine ?

I have now, unfortunately. The more I learn about this guy, the less I like him. Does the 20% of his income that he donates to feed starving people go to pay for them to eat animals or animal products? If that's the case, then his donations are no better than giving money to fund cancer research that tests on animals. He might actually be committing an injustice through his action, while someone who never gives to charity is actually avoiding injustice through inaction, at least as it relates to this specific example. I realize there are plenty of charitable organizations that have been approved by the Caring Consumer website.

This article is a great condemnation of materialism and capitalism. Why should anyone work hard to make $100,000 or more since everyone is capped at $30,000 for necessities? I'm no fan of capitalism myself for the same reasons Singer doesn't like it, but his utilitarianism is very irritating, and his guilt-tripping is ridiculously overblown. The whole set-up of Bob and the Bugatti was faulty, because he set up a situation in which Bob's entire financial net worth was concentrated in this automobile that he, of course, didn't insure! To save the kid on the train tracks, Bob wouldn't have had to give a reasonable PORTION of his money away while keeping enough to cover his essential necessities - he'd have to give up EVERYTHING.

About the only paragraph I found genuine is the one in which Singer acknowledges and addresses how ridiculous this example is: :"Hypothetical examples can easily become farcical. Consider Bob. How far past losing the Bugatti should he go? Imagine that Bob had got his foot stuck in the track of the siding, and if he diverted the train, then before it rammed the car it would also amputate his big toe. Should he still throw the switch? What if it would amputate his foot? His entire leg?"

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

Where did you get this attitude? Humans were created by God in His own image and therefore all their minds, thoughts, and actions are inherently specialer?

Just change "specialer" to "not wrong" then it's the core of my belief. I see nothing wrong in the present world. Moral is culturally bounded idea, may be God don't care.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

So it's quite moral if it's out of sight, out of mind

Maybe it's not quite moral. But then do we want to be personally bound to be moral? I just found out there was 41% difference in my morality score for that difference.

[Weatherlight]

I'm sleeping in my house in the middle of the night, and some kid decides to take an evening dip in the lake about 20 miles north of where I live and tragically drowns, I have no responsibility in that.

And if you knew this kid, who told you hir plan to sneak out and do that, you were aware that this lake is dangerous, yet you didn't warn the ignorant, naive child, nor alert the parents or anyone else, I would say you have some responsibility.

Intent does not change the outcome. Someone who buys meat because they hate vegetarians (think Maddox fans), because they know they shouldn't but like the taste, or because they just always have and do it thoughtlessly all have very different mindsets and intents but try explaining that to the animals that are slaughtered because of them.

It's just not possible to lay any blame on me for this. Am I wrong?

I think you mistake blame/guilttripping/whatever with moral choices. If you were choosing between seeing and looking away, or seeing and helping, then the choice with a higher likelihood of a better outcome would be helping. In that respect, it doesn't matter whether you're choosing to drown a child, choosing to stop someone who is drowning a child, or choosing to pull out a child who slipped.

Your entire argument really is that if I have the opportunity to prevent an injustice and fail to seize that opportunity, it's the same as committing it myself.

In terms of consequence.

you're going to have to be a mind reader and determine someone's intent

Determine intent for what purpose? I'm not going to judge you badly, as being evil, for thinking it's cool, nor for giving up if there's nothing you could do even if you tried, nor for being afraid that he has a weapon. Or even for being too lazy to get your mobile phone out of your pocket. I do judge the outcome as the child being drowned to death. Whatever the reason/s for someone in that position not acting, it would be good to address them as far as is possible. For example, if they had no way of contacting help, carrying a mobile phone can be great in many situations. If they did think it was cool, psychiatric help might change that. For things like feeling hopeless or afraid of weapons, I actually think it would benefit the world for people to receive basic training in self protection and be legally permitted to carry nonlethal weapons, but that's another topic. And the lazy person can be helped to be more motivated, better able to control behavior.

Does the 20% of his income that he donates to feed starving people go to pay for them to eat animals or animal products?

Probably not HI, anyway. In Animal Liberation he goes into some detail on how animal-based models for nutrition are illogical. The animals have to eat too, don't they? :P

PETA's list just deals with whether charities test on animals or not. If you're interested in alleviating human hunger, there's

Vegfam | Home ¦ Vegfam Charity
The Fruit Tree Planting Foundation
Food for Life Global - The world's largest vegan / vegetarian food relief

and, associated independent groups, THE FOOD NOT BOMBS MOVEMENT

his utilitarianism is very irritating, and his guilt-tripping is ridiculously overblown

How so?

he'd have to give up EVERYTHING.

So are you saying Bob should just protect his car?

Just change "specialer" to "not wrong" then it's the core of my belief. I see nothing wrong in the present world. Moral is culturally bounded idea, may be God don't care.

A moral subjectivist, eh? If they aren't specialer, what about dogs or houseflies, are they also created by God in his own image and nothing they think or do is wrong?

What sort of God do you believe in?

But then do we want to be personally bound to be moral?

Haha, I read Singer's Practical Ethics 2nd ed, and he deals with the question "Why be moral?" It is like the question "Why be logical?" but he tries to give selfish reasons for humans to want to be moral.

I just found out there was 41% difference in my morality score for that difference.

You wouldn't want to live morally, all else being equal?

[Biscuit]

I guess I sort of read the family relatedness question as just "living beings you are directedly associated with and care for." Not specifically the cousin example. I know it says what you should do, not what you would do, but I still struggled thinking about saving one of my guinea pigs.

Geographical Distance
100%
Family Relatedness
100%
Acts and Omissions
51%
Scale
100%

With acts and omissions questions, I have trouble shaking the "I need more information" feeling. I know it's supposed to be simple and direct, but I read complications and gray areas into it for some reason.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

What sort of God do you believe in?

The God who keeps low profile and does not judge people.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

You wouldn't want to live morally, all else being equal?

I don't want to do what I want others to do. Very selfish, isn't it?
My wife describes it as under-developed mind, which makes me a mentally teenager. That's all right. Her psychology teacher said many people don't get older than that anyway. I know my status so I have a chance at least.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Justin

I don't want to do what I want others to do. Very selfish, isn't it?
My wife describes it as under-developed mind, which makes me a mentally teenager. That's all right. Her psychology teacher said many people don't get older than that anyway. I know my status so I have a chance at least.

Sounds like a swell justification to never bother changing anything about yourself.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I have trouble shaking the "I need more information" feeling.

I was shouting, "which cousin?" Then I counted out that I had more favorable cousins than what not.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Sounds like a swell justification to never bother changing anything about yourself.

I do keep change something. But meanwhile, the unchanged parts doesn't bother me.

[CF#5]

And if you knew this kid, who told you hir plan to sneak out and do that, you were aware that this lake is dangerous, yet you didn't warn the ignorant, naive child, nor alert the parents or anyone else, I would say you have some responsibility.

Again, this brings me back to the simple question that has a different answer in every individual unique situation: WHAT CONSTITUTES OPPORTUNITY?

In that respect, it doesn't matter whether you're choosing to drown a child, choosing to stop someone who is drowning a child, or choosing to pull out a child who slipped.

If I'm drowning the child, then I am responsible. That's really clear. If someone witnesses me drowning the child and chooses to not intervene, WHY did that person not intervene? The outcome is the same - the child is dead. Since you only judge consequences, are the thoughts and perceptions of the witness meaningless? If the witness was sleeping, does he share culpability for the child's death? What if the witness was afraid of me? What if he didn't realize what I was doing and thought nothing unusual was happening until it was too late? Do you still pass the same judgment on him as if he was lazy or fearful or in need of psychiatric evaluation? Is he "MORALLY RESPONSIBLE" to the same degree, regardless of his intent, thoughts, and perception, simply because the outcome was the same? You say you won't judge him badly for being evil, but you do judge the outcome. We're talking about INACTION. Of course you're judging him for not intervening. To say otherwise is like what Judge Judy called her book, Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining.

If the kid slipped, then nature (or perhaps more accurately, "the randomness of life") was responsible. Maybe the witness was too far away to PERCEIVE trouble. Maybe the witness had a broken leg and couldn't get there fast enough on crutches. Maybe the witness didn't care. Same judgment?

Another fallacy here is that during this entire discussion, we've been assuming that the "right" thing to do is to try to save the person in danger and the "wrong" thing to do is to kill that person or to not intervene when that person is being killed. Well maybe the world would be better off with fewer people in it? There are thousands of kids starving in Africa right now who I've been guilt-tripped into donating money to by Peter Singer and by you. WHERE ARE THE PARENTS? If you can't afford the vet, you can't afford the pet. IF THEY CAN'T FEED THEIR CHILDREN, WHY ARE THEY STILL BREEDING? Are they really so dumb as to not realize that heterosexual intercourse leads to pregnancy? Are they simply unable to control themselves? Are their cultures so primitive that they are unable to adjust to current conditions? As recently as 160 years ago IN THE UNITED STATES, children were thought of as assets because they could be used for their labor on the farm. Now, they're looked at as financial burdens because they cost a lot of money. It's time for people in third and fourth world countries to start making that same mental adjustment and STOP BREEDING. It's not my fault someone else decided to create this hunger problem by bringing more and more people into the world. The problem is their responsibility, not mine. Maybe instead of feeding these people and giving them the opportunity to continue breeding, we should let the most hungry die out. Maybe that would be the most morally correct choice, because that would minimize the total suffering to those who are currently alive, and those yet to be born would never suffer because they'd never exist. Kind of makes you wonder, maybe? Why is there seemingly so much agreement on an issue that's so subjective? I stopped agreeing a long time ago.

You have to keep in mind that I believe in the abolitionist approach not only when it comes to domesticated animals, but also when it comes to all humans. I believe humans have failed to create a just society, and humans have failed to overcome the inherent lack of fairness in nature. Whatever chance humans may have had due to superior intellect was squashed by human shortcomings and imperfections. Combined with my existentialistic beliefs, I think it's time to give up. In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world. We should have mandatory sterilization for all newborn male babies STARTING TODAY. Within 110 years, there won't be a human being still alive on the face of the earth, and all these "problems" will have disappeared.

How so?

Because the analogy doesn't fit! If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!

So are you saying Bob should just protect his car?

No, I'm saying Singer has a responsibility to keep his analogies free of logical fallacies as well as give them some semblance of reality if he's going to try to tug on his readers' heartstrings and guilt them into sending money to starving children whose parents were too selfish to give them the consideration and respect they deserve by OMITTING to bring them into the world. You want to talk about action vs. inaction - did the parents act by bringing a starving child into the world, or did they fail to act by not preventing what should have been an unwanted pregnancy?

Are you starting to see where my animosity towards humans is coming from? You said you used to hate humans too, but you don't anymore. Was your hatred similar to mine? How'd you overcome it? Should I try to overcome it? Why would I even want to?

If I give 20% am I still allowed to accumulate money to live on after I stop working? Bob didn't have that opportunity in Singer's silly hypothetical example, because his entire future was based on selling the investment he'd made in the car, whose value could only increase... yeah... that's realistic. And not having insurance on it when his entire livelihood depended on keeping it in pristine condition... sounds like Bob is a smart guy.

And most important of all, why should I send money to Africa to feed starving children whose parents are much more responsible for their hunger than I'll ever be (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I'm in a position to feed them while the parents are not), when I can take that same money and donate it to a local guinea pig rescue that works to feed hungry domesticated guinea pigs who are the victims of human exploitation? Is one cause more important than the other? I certainly think so.

If we feed those children, surely some of them will survive and will reproduce like their parents did, prolonging the problem. Since guinea pig rescues don't allow breeding, their cause is a lot more consistent with the abolitionist approach that I find to be morally superior to any other philosophy.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by CF#5

Within 110 years, there won't be a human being still alive on the face of the earth, and all these "problems" will have disappeared.

Oh God. You are in a deeper hole than I have thought.

[CF#5]

Also I want to add my observations about the Moral Parsimony quiz. It claims to measure the simplicity with which you approach situations and moral judgments. In the three categories we (me, Biscuit, and Weatherlight) scored 100%, it does exactly that. But there is so much gray area in the fourth category that a score of 100% is actually rather complicated. The questions presented in the quiz avoided these gray areas as much as possible, but as I tried to describe above, realistic situations are not the same as hypothetical quiz questions. In question 18, which is the one that keeps sticking in my head for some reason, what if reporting the imminent danger would result in the whistle blower getting fired for some reason?

[FONT=Courier New](this was the question: You become aware that a piece of machinery in your workplace is faulty and that if it is not repaired then there will soon be an accident which will result in someone losing the use of their legs. Despite knowing that nobody else is aware of the fault, you take no action. Shortly afterwards, the accident occurs, and someone does lose the use of their legs. Are you morally responsible for their injury?)[/FONT]

My score of 35% was not zero. There are certain instances in which I believe inaction is morally wrong. But they have to be so unambiguous and obvious without any room for doubt that these situations are very limited in scope. In most real-world situations, I reserve judgment and try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Now with the wisdom of years, I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts