Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Should you save a dying stranger if you know they eat MEAT?


Oxford philosopher controversially argues that it's ethical to let them die

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.

His argument stems from a conflict of what he says are two commonly held beliefs.
ADVERTISEMENT

The first is human beings have a duty to rescue each other when doing so comes at a trivial cost. For example, jumping into a pond to save a drowning child but ruining your clothes in the process.

The second belief, Dr Plant claims, is it is wrong to eat meat because of the suffering animals can experience in factory farms.

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.

He does not specifically address in his article if welfatarians should be saved in life-or-death situations.

[i]Dr, Plant is also a certified douche bag.
[/i]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
So what would he say to the totally carnivorous animals? What would he do if they were starving?

Nature goes not only two ways yet many ways. Many creatures are even cannibalistic. Should they eliminate themselves as well?

Nature changes according to the needs. It's not stagnant.

As to change itself it abhors a stasis as much as nature abhores as vacuum.

Who are any to judge whether nature is wrong.

Better to ask just how nature feels about what us humans are doing to the planet than how nuture intended to sustain ourselves.