[C19fan]

Whish Socrates and Plato would come back to tear these preeners new ones. What is worse, the monks of Medieval debating how many angels can dance on a pin or these so called philosophers debating a willful disregard for human life. How does this argument define "suffering"? Is a non-free range chicken suffering? How does one know if a chicken is even suffering? How does one define "save". Would it involve any intervention on the part of in dividuals and society? If drowning is okay then denial of any aid is fine too. Going one more step, if someone determines the suffering the man is causing is more than the man's life, then it appears to me the man should be murdered either judicially or non-judicical.

[Verginius Rufus]

I have known a lot of meat-eaters and I have never met one who eats meat from animals he has killed by torturing them to death.

[Seaplaner]

Mister Plant would do well to read from a philosopher of much greater stature, Alf.

"Vegetables are not food. Food eats vegetables."

[jersey117]

Should you save a dying vegan because they support killing babies?

[lee martell]

How to make yourself sound hateful in one easy lesson!

[Do_Tar]

I heard that cows cause global warming so I’m doing my part to kill as many as I can. To be ethical, I’ll only kill what I can eat.

[353FMG]

Did the Oxford philosopher wear leather shoes and belt?

[Zack Attack]

Death to all Venus Flytraps! :D

[Billthedrill]

Bertrand Russell would be 150 this year. If I were feeling mean I’d wander over to his grave and read this to him and tell him, “Yo, Bert, this is what they’re doing at the Cambridge philosophy department these days.” Somewhere there would be inconsolable sobbing.

[popdonnelly]

The prof should learn some ethics.

[sten]

let’s turn that around... if we knew a lib was dying, should we bother to help?

[FLT-bird]

Y’all watch. This will be the next thing.

Give it 10-20 years and to radical Leftists, every human being that existed up til then we be a horrible moral cripple and nothing they did in their lives will be of any value at all - and of course they will have been nowhere near as virtuous as the Lefties will be then because they ate meat.

Why if those future Leftists had lived in our time they would have burned down the slaughterhouses and pipe bombed the meat section in every grocery store!....they will say as they practically break their arms patting themselves on the back so hard for their moral superiority.

Then when they’re done virtue signaling about that, the next wave of Leftists will claim owning pets is animal slavery and everybody who ever had a pet was a terrible slavemaster and.....you get the idea.

[Clioman]

I’m puzzled. When did revenge become ethical?

[daniel1212]

How dare you expose a “Philosopher of HAPPINESS” at Oxford University for basically teaching that lifeguards/doctors, etc. should not save souls if they eat hot dogs. Which, even if eating meat was wrong, actually presumes omniscience, for the premise that a life should be saved if it will result in some suffering to others presumes you know the future life of the person at issue, as well as ignoring the overall virtuous life such a one overall may lead.

The paradox here is that the philo-sophist has no problem with causing (by neglect) people to suffer if they cause animals to suffer, yet animals themselves will engage in often viscous acts. What this sophist has actually done is to reduce man to the level of such.

I argue that, if meat eating is wrong on animal suffering grounds then, once we consider how much suffering might occur, it starts to seem plausible that saving strangers would be the greater evil than not rescuing them and is, therefore, not required after all. - https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/2/206/htm