The ethics of X (twitter)

[Lou]

First off, I Gotta say I love the all the comments this essay has prompted.

when I read this essay the first time, it really stuck with me. I thought it might be a good post here and get some people to think of what the author said. I am glad that you guys find this topic as interesting as I.

Second I always have a problem with the ethical situation scenarios as they are contrived scenarios asked in controlled situations. That isn't how we make rash or quick ethical decisions as there is no train truly rushing down the tracks.

I think sometimes these contrived situations are given to vegan to show some kind of logical flaw in their stance. Like it is some kind of hypocrisy test.
the trolley car is something that can be used by philosophers to sort of evaluate how real people think.

I actually disagree that utilitarianism "is the ethical philosophy that most closely corresponds with veganism". I think vegans are usually deontological because they look at whether actions that are “wrong” in and of themselves rather than the total amount of harm that they cause.

I know where you are coming from and I believe I participated in that discussion we had years ago. Wasn't that the one where Forest Nymph and Nickelodeon got into a fight?
You may be right about vegans usually being deontological, but I think the reason Utilitarian is often associated with Veganism is because of Peter Singer's writing.
For instance he wrote, "animals have interests that should be considered equal to the similar interests of human beings. If it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on human beings, then it is also wrong to do it to animals."

 

[Lou]

I"m sorry but I feel you paraphrased me out of my point. yes we all laugh at Memes but we forget that the people in those Memes are not just actors. Some of them are real life people that are being exploited, sometimes without knowing it, and everyone is making fun of them. And "It's the making peoples butts to our jokes that is not OK" I don't get ......did you mean "Making people the butt of our jokes?"

I think it comes down to consequences.
If I laugh at a meme, that has no real consequences. when I roll my eyes and say to myself, boy is that person stupid, that has no consequences either.
However if I make a joke at the expense of another person and then share it with the world, help spread someone else's joke online, that may have some real consequences and we need to be more mindful.
And yes, I meant "making people the butt of our jokes". I worded it wrong.

 

[VeganAnon]

I think it comes down to consequences.
If I laugh at a meme, that has no real consequences. when I roll my eyes and say to myself, boy is that person stupid, that has no consequences either.
However if I make a joke at the expense of another person and then share it with the world, help spread someone else's joke online, that may have some real consequences and we need to be more mindful.
And yes, I meant "making people the butt of our jokes". I worded it wrong.

So laughing means nothing as long as you don't share it? -asking for clarification, not attacking argument/response ----yet

 

[Jamie in Chile]

A strict interpretation of utilitarianism would lead to some very rare cases where certain plant foods have caused more harm than some animal products (destroyed a forest to make space to grow plant food vs oysters, maybe). In these cases, a strict utilitarian interpretation would be to eat the oysters rather than the plant food, but vegans do not generally follow that logic.

Therefore, as I said years ago, in a very strict interpretation, there may be too much of a conflict between utilitarianism and veganism for both to co-exist. However, if the terms utilitarianism and veganism are interpreted as broad guidelines rather than strict doctrines, then you can indeed be both since the conflict between them is not that large.

We should recognise Peter Singer as very important in the animal rights movement since he gave it some of its strongest and most solid ethical arguments, but he is not very important in the vegan position, which was clearly outlined ahead of him. To understand how a utilitarian can come to positions different from veganism, look at these Peter Singer quotes. Given the quotes, Peter Singer is probably not even himself vegan, unless you take a looser than average interpretation (which you Lou do as I recall, but the majority including the UK Vegan Society do not).

Quotes from Peter Singer:

“If it is the infliction of suffering that we are concerned about, rather than killing, then I can also imagine a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm.”

“[T]here’s a little bit of room for indulgence in all of our lives. I know some people who are vegan in their homes but if they’re going out to a fancy restaurant, they allow themselves the luxury of not being vegan that evening. I don’t see anything really wrong with that.”

“When I’m traveling or going to other people’s places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan.”

“I think it’s more important to try and produce a change in the right direction than to be personally pure yourself. So when you’re eating with someone at a restaurant, and you ordered something vegan but when it comes there’s a bit of grated cheese or something on it, sometimes vegans will make a big fuss and send it back and that might mean the food is wasted. And if you’re in company with people who are not vegan or not even vegetarian, I think that’s probably the wrong thing to do. It’d be better off just to eat it because people are going to think, ‘Oh my god, these vegans…’”

“If you really were thorough-going in eating only animals that had had good lives, that could be a defensible ethical position.”

Vegans are concerned about freedom and killing as well as suffering, but Singer seems to be mostly only concerned about suffering.

 

[silva]

So laughing means nothing as long as you don't share it? -asking for clarification, not attacking argument/response ----yet

When you laugh at something but keep it to yourself you can change your feelings about it and no one is hurt and there's no need for apology.
I totally ridiculed that hair glue woman in my head when I read it, but I would never share that immediate attitude because we all mess up and no one should be shamed. There is no harm in an inside reaction

 

[silva]

the opposite is also very true. I've been a member of a vegan fb that includes transitioning vegans. Sometimes a post gets made using non vegan foods and someone points it out and gets totally trashed! Like "you're why people hate vegans!", or "stop being so judgemental", just from saying don't post non vegan foods

 

[silva]

Now Twitter is "X" and I've x-ited!
F' Musk