Vegetarian Discussion: Question For "aras"

Question For "aras"
Posts: 76

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-04-15 10:13:09 EST
You're an "animal rights activist" ("ara"), and you're driving down a
narrow road. Suddenly in front you after you round a bend in the road,
a child and a fawn deer appear in the road. You've never seen either
one before - it isn't your neighbor's pet fawn who's gotten loose, and
it isn't your child or the child of anyone you know; it's just a fawn
and a child. Moderately skillful driving will allow you to miss one,
but not the other - you're definitely going to strike and kill one of
the two. How do you choose which one to mow down and kill?

Most of "ar" theory, particularly as understood by non-academics,
suggests the choice ought to be random - you flip a mental coin, or
perhaps you just close your eyes, let go of the steering wheel and slam
on the brakes and let the car go where it will. Some hardcore radical
"ar" extremists - noted misanthropes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter
come to mind - would undoubtedly steer deliberately at the human child.

If you choose non-randomly to hit and kill the deer rather than the
child, what criteria do you employ that don't depend on either a moral
or utilitarian species distinction?

Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-15 11:34:37 EST
On Apr 15, 8:13 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> You're an "animal rights activist" ("ara"), and you're driving down a
> narrow road.  Suddenly in front you after you round a bend in the road,
> a child and a fawn deer appear in the road.  You've never seen either
> one before - it isn't your neighbor's pet fawn who's gotten loose, and
> it isn't your child or the child of anyone you know; it's just a fawn
> and a child.  Moderately skillful driving will allow you to miss one,
> but not the other - you're definitely going to strike and kill one of
> the two.  How do you choose which one to mow down and kill?
>
> Most of "ar" theory, particularly as understood by non-academics,
> suggests the choice ought to be random - you flip a mental coin, or
> perhaps you just close your eyes, let go of the steering wheel and slam
> on the brakes and let the car go where it will.  Some hardcore radical
> "ar" extremists - noted misanthropes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter
> come to mind - would undoubtedly steer deliberately at the human child.
>
> If you choose non-randomly to hit and kill the deer rather than the
> child, what criteria do you employ that don't depend on either a moral
> or utilitarian species distinction?



Steer for the ditch and kill yourself, Goo.

George Plimpton
2011-04-15 12:54:55 EST
On 4/15/2011 8:34 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:13 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> You're an "animal rights activist" ("ara"), and you're driving down a
>> narrow road. Suddenly in front you after you round a bend in the road,
>> a child and a fawn deer appear in the road. You've never seen either
>> one before - it isn't your neighbor's pet fawn who's gotten loose, and
>> it isn't your child or the child of anyone you know; it's just a fawn
>> and a child. Moderately skillful driving will allow you to miss one,
>> but not the other - you're definitely going to strike and kill one of
>> the two. How do you choose which one to mow down and kill?
>>
>> Most of "ar" theory, particularly as understood by non-academics,
>> suggests the choice ought to be random - you flip a mental coin, or
>> perhaps you just close your eyes, let go of the steering wheel and slam
>> on the brakes and let the car go where it will. Some hardcore radical
>> "ar" extremists - noted misanthropes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter
>> come to mind - would undoubtedly steer deliberately at the human child.
>>
>> If you choose non-randomly to hit and kill the deer rather than the
>> child, what criteria do you employ that don't depend on either a moral
>> or utilitarian species distinction?
>
>
>
> [snarky bullshit lack of substance removed]

Your record of never posting anything of substance is intact. You are
incapable of it, so your record will continue to grow.


Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-15 13:17:28 EST
On Apr 15, 10:54 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/15/2011 8:34 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 8:13 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> You're an "animal rights activist" ("ara"), and you're driving down a
> >> narrow road.  Suddenly in front you after you round a bend in the road,
> >> a child and a fawn deer appear in the road.  You've never seen either
> >> one before - it isn't your neighbor's pet fawn who's gotten loose, and
> >> it isn't your child or the child of anyone you know; it's just a fawn
> >> and a child.  Moderately skillful driving will allow you to miss one,
> >> but not the other - you're definitely going to strike and kill one of
> >> the two.  How do you choose which one to mow down and kill?
>
> >> Most of "ar" theory, particularly as understood by non-academics,
> >> suggests the choice ought to be random - you flip a mental coin, or
> >> perhaps you just close your eyes, let go of the steering wheel and slam
> >> on the brakes and let the car go where it will.  Some hardcore radical
> >> "ar" extremists - noted misanthropes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter
> >> come to mind - would undoubtedly steer deliberately at the human child.
>
> >> If you choose non-randomly to hit and kill the deer rather than the
> >> child, what criteria do you employ that don't depend on either a moral
> >> or utilitarian species distinction?
>
> > [snarky bullshit lack of substance removed]
>
> Your record of never posting anything of substance is intact.  You are
> incapable of it, so your record will continue to grow.-


I gave you the only reasonable option you have, Goo.

George Plimpton
2011-04-15 13:36:26 EST
On 4/15/2011 10:17 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:

> [snarky bullshit from a 40+ year old lifelong wastrel snipped]

Still no substance - but that's expected.


Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-15 16:34:28 EST
On Apr 15, 11:36 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/15/2011 10:17 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > [snarky bullshit from a 40+ year old lifelong wastrel snipped]
>
> Still no substance - but that's expected.


There is a precedent for what I told you to do, Goober. In the early
60s a man gave his life to save others. He was driving a truck load of
gasoline down the 5 mile long grade that passes Radium Hot Springs,
B.C. I don't recall why his tractor-trailer unit started gaining speed
but he was unable to slow it down. At the speed he was going he would
never make the corner at the bottom and would end up in the hot
springs. He drove his truck off the road and crashed into the side of
a mountain. The gasoline fire burned half way up the mountain and
there was burning gas in the creek all the way down to the hot
springs.

He deliberately gave his life so the people sitting around in the hot
spring soaking their hemmorhoids wouldn't be immolated. The government
immediately sent out drills and other equipment and made 2 or 3
runaway ramps up the side of the mountain in case such an event ever
happen again.

So do the right thing, Goo. Steer for the ditch and certain death for
yourself and know in the back of your mind that the gubmint will build
a runaway ramp in that location sort of as a lasting monument to your
sacrifice.




George Plimpton
2011-04-15 17:00:07 EST
On 4/15/2011 1:34 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Apr 15, 11:36 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/15/2011 10:17 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>> [snarky bullshit from a 40+ year old lifelong wastrel snipped]
>>
>> Still no substance - but that's expected.
>
>
> There is a precedent for my complete lack of substance.

Yes, there have been wastrels forever.



Rupert
2011-04-15 20:02:10 EST
On Apr 16, 12:13 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> You're an "animal rights activist" ("ara"), and you're driving down a
> narrow road.  Suddenly in front you after you round a bend in the road,
> a child and a fawn deer appear in the road.  You've never seen either
> one before - it isn't your neighbor's pet fawn who's gotten loose, and
> it isn't your child or the child of anyone you know; it's just a fawn
> and a child.  Moderately skillful driving will allow you to miss one,
> but not the other - you're definitely going to strike and kill one of
> the two.  How do you choose which one to mow down and kill?
>
> Most of "ar" theory, particularly as understood by non-academics,
> suggests the choice ought to be random - you flip a mental coin, or
> perhaps you just close your eyes, let go of the steering wheel and slam
> on the brakes and let the car go where it will.  Some hardcore radical
> "ar" extremists - noted misanthropes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter
> come to mind - would undoubtedly steer deliberately at the human child.
>
> If you choose non-randomly to hit and kill the deer rather than the
> child, what criteria do you employ that don't depend on either a moral
> or utilitarian species distinction?

There is an extended literature about this issue. Read about Tom
Regan's discussion of the lifeboat case. The fawn has less
opportunities to derive satisfaction from its life than the child
does, so you kill the fawn.

George Plimpton
2011-04-15 20:05:31 EST
On 4/15/2011 5:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:13 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> You're an "animal rights activist" ("ara"), and you're driving down a
>> narrow road. Suddenly in front you after you round a bend in the road,
>> a child and a fawn deer appear in the road. You've never seen either
>> one before - it isn't your neighbor's pet fawn who's gotten loose, and
>> it isn't your child or the child of anyone you know; it's just a fawn
>> and a child. Moderately skillful driving will allow you to miss one,
>> but not the other - you're definitely going to strike and kill one of
>> the two. How do you choose which one to mow down and kill?
>>
>> Most of "ar" theory, particularly as understood by non-academics,
>> suggests the choice ought to be random - you flip a mental coin, or
>> perhaps you just close your eyes, let go of the steering wheel and slam
>> on the brakes and let the car go where it will. Some hardcore radical
>> "ar" extremists - noted misanthropes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter
>> come to mind - would undoubtedly steer deliberately at the human child.
>>
>> If you choose non-randomly to hit and kill the deer rather than the
>> child, what criteria do you employ that don't depend on either a moral
>> or utilitarian species distinction?
>
> There is an extended literature about this issue. Read about Tom
> Regan's discussion of the lifeboat case. The fawn has less
> opportunities to derive satisfaction from its life than the child
> does, so you kill the fawn.

So, species matters. Thank you. I don't know why it was so hard to get
you to admit it.


George Plimpton
2011-04-15 20:06:04 EST
On 4/15/2011 5:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:13 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> You're an "animal rights activist" ("ara"), and you're driving down a
>> narrow road. Suddenly in front you after you round a bend in the road,
>> a child and a fawn deer appear in the road. You've never seen either
>> one before - it isn't your neighbor's pet fawn who's gotten loose, and
>> it isn't your child or the child of anyone you know; it's just a fawn
>> and a child. Moderately skillful driving will allow you to miss one,
>> but not the other - you're definitely going to strike and kill one of
>> the two. How do you choose which one to mow down and kill?
>>
>> Most of "ar" theory, particularly as understood by non-academics,
>> suggests the choice ought to be random - you flip a mental coin, or
>> perhaps you just close your eyes, let go of the steering wheel and slam
>> on the brakes and let the car go where it will. Some hardcore radical
>> "ar" extremists - noted misanthropes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter
>> come to mind - would undoubtedly steer deliberately at the human child.
>>
>> If you choose non-randomly to hit and kill the deer rather than the
>> child, what criteria do you employ that don't depend on either a moral
>> or utilitarian species distinction?
>
> There is an extended literature about this issue. Read about Tom
> Regan's discussion of the lifeboat case. The fawn has less
> opportunities to derive satisfaction from its life than the child
> does, so you kill the fawn.

Odd utilitarian position for a deontologist.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron