Not vegetarian, vegan. As a vegetarian myself, I say this campaign is bullshit. Being vegan (and healthy) is expensive and time-consuming, more expensive than paying for water. It's cruel to dangle luxury morality consumerism in front of poor people who can't afford it as a test for assistance. Maybe you could do it cheaply for a month but if you kept eating like that you'd end up with vitamin or protein deficiency. I'm pretty enraged by conditional assistance anyway. Conditions that are modeled on what rich liberals like to pat themselves on the back for are doubly enraging. If it's truly a superior way, then make it financially feasible for everyone instead of paternalistically teasing a city of vulnerable people.
Vegetarian to vegan changes things a lot (and is kind of pointless -- the amount of people who would probably have tried to go vegetarian is a lot higher than those who would try vegan ... the net gain to animals is probably to ask people to go vegetarian). But the basic question is still there. I don't know what "paternalistically teasing a city of vulnerable people" means, but I can recognize the offering of a potential contract to be turned down or not. Presumably those who value being able to eat meat etc over paying their water bill will turn it down, and if there are people on the other side, they won't. You ignored my point: no one loses, assuming that PETA wasn't going to run around paying people's water bills to begin with. In other words, I guess I have absolutely no problem with conditional assistance (although in this case, veganism is a somewhat ridiculous condition -- I maintain that vegetarianism would be a fine one). EDIT: and being enraged by conditional assistance seems like something a rich liberal would say, though I know you aren't one. It's easy to be righteously angry, as I said above, when you've never had trouble paying your water bill.
I would say that in this case, the exact terms of the conditional assistance makes a difference. If the population that you're trying to get on board with veganism doesn't understand the shear challenge of maintaining a vegan diet, if the population has essential zero culture centered non-meat, non-dairy, non-fish-oil, non-honey foods, then you're going to see a lot of malnutrion-related sicknesses down the road. For the less-informed, the deal has the potential to do a lot of harm. Many would call that the condescending liberal attitude, but I'm of the opinion that it's simply not fair to expect people to understand the risks involved without the proper resources and knowledge base. Which PETA is certainly not providing in this scenario. (There is also the distinction that no one here is arguing that the assistance be made illegal, we're only debating the ethical (moral?) side of it)In other words, I guess I have absolutely no problem with conditional assistance (although in this case, veganism is a somewhat ridiculous condition -- I maintain that vegetarianism would be a fine one).
Good points. I will note that according to the article I dug up at the end of my post, PETA sent some sort of preparatory materials, which presumably include a list of vegan foods, some recipes, etc. No details given about that. You are all generally right that being vegan is almost impossible for someone who is poor, but even if the language said "vegetarian," I suspect you would still disagree on principle. That's what I'm trying to understand. True. I would like to register the opinion, which I haven't put enough thought into probably, that no voluntary contract can be immoral in the sense that you mean it. (That is, you can voluntarily contract to kill someone, which is immoral, but the immorality isn't in the contract, like everyone seems to be saying it is in this scenario, it's in the action.)(There is also the distinction that no one here is arguing that the assistance be made illegal, we're only debating the ethical (moral?) side of it)
I have less objections, veganism just gives me a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, since it's not for the faint of heart. I'll leave it to others to debate the topic of vegetarianism since it gets into more specifics (i.e. are the people lactose-intolerant) and I honestly don't know what side I would lean towards if that were the case.but even if the language said "vegetarian," I suspect you would still disagree on principle.
Vegan, vegetarian, hand jobs... Each misses the point. The point is that it is exploitative to say "I have tons of money. Take on my cause, and I'll make your problems disappear." Opportunism, war profiteering, etc., are always offensive, because they can be seen as taking advantage of the less fortunate to advance yourself. In this case the fact that they ostensibly want to advance the cause of animal suffering muddies the waters, because some people think their cause is a just one. Some people think that converting people to Christianity is a just cause. Would it have been appropriate for the Vatican to step up and say, "We'll make your water bill disappear every month that you come to church at least 6 times"? Could Sheldon Adelson say he'll pay the water bill of anyone who votes republican? We come from a nation of charitable people, and I think we should be proud of that. Most people who can afford to give some amount of charity do so, and those that do rarely ask for anything in return. It's part of our being to help the needy, so to dangle the carrot that's only available for a quid pro quo is inherently offensive, not offensive on the merit of the cause.
Wrote a long reply explaining why I disagreed with you, then decided I agreed with you anyways. I'm suddenly and strangely reminded of the dentistry programs targeting the subsidized poor, who over treat then over bill under the guise of helping those in need. Without them there would be a gap in aid, but you still wish they wouldn't be predatory in the process of being charitable...
Aye, being vegetarian is relatively easy: just don't eat meat, you can still get protein from any form of dairy, albeit with increased fat content. Being vegan means having to find substitutes every time you want to bake, cook, or buy anything from the store. I have a friend who's been a hardcore vegan for years and even she needs an app on her phone to filter food for her. That aside, this is also one of the least enforceable contracts out there. Want to half your water bill? Pair up with a neighbor: you buy the veggies, they buy the meat, split the saving from water at the end of the month. Still I'm happy to see that PETA is at least re-directing their attention away from promoting the assault of scientists...
I've accepted an invitation to participate at a conference in Oxford next summer on the ethics of using animals for scientific research. According to my friend, who is a member of the organization who puts it on, it's a dog and pony show for militant vegans. The scientist in me wants to hear their side, and try to educate about what I do and why. The asshole side of me is really looking forward to trolling some college students.Still I'm happy to see that PETA is at least re-directing their attention away from promoting the assault of scientists...
#PETA# [celebrity] dilettantes annoy the living snot out of those of us who actually know everything. If they had a truly intelligent strategic platform, they'd be screaming bloody murder about the quality of public education -- which is where civilized ethics ought to be taught, and taught properly at that. Raise a generation or two of critical thinkers who have intelligent and civilized ethical principles drilled into their heads in school and problems like Detroit would never occur in the first place[*]. PETA is mostly about band-aid solutions and copious amounts of media exposure. Poorly educated college students are easy meat for celebrity propaganda; trolling them should be almost too easy but you might get laid anyhow if you play your cards right. [*] non-trivial political objective. I think we'll have to get rid of organized religion first.
I wish you luck. A part of me feels like it's a futile task to convince some people of the value of animal research. The same vegan friend as above tried to convince me that animal research was unnecessary because we can just do the experiments on cells in a petri dish...
Exactly. Well put, I'm deleting my comment below because you said it much better.