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...