Since I'm already in rant mode...

[thistlechaser]

So a few weeks back I joined up with vegetarian. I wish I could say I liked what I see there. Let's take a post from this morning:

---

Quick Ethical Question
Theres a short weekend job, that I might be able to get which will pay me about $18 an hour.

Thing is, its at the Bronx Zoo handing out yogurt to kids. Although I basically do not have a problem with that, how ethical is it that it's at a Zoo? Do zoo's infringe upon animals rights?

Also, being a vegan, how ethical is it to hand out yogurt to kids? Is that wrong?

Keep in mind I wont take the job, if it truly would be in poor taste, but if I do I can make over $200 bucks in one weekend, for giving kids (...and I enjoy being around them) food (which isn't really hard).

What should I do?
Ethical or not?

Thanks

~LiLitH~

(x-posted to animal_rights and vegetarian, like anyone cares ;))

---

First off, [insert basic "If you cannot type or spell, get the hell off the Internet." rant].

Second, why why why do you look to someone else to tell you what is ethical? Are you under some mistaken believe that there's One True Right Way of doing things? (I mean, other than my way, of course.)

Some people choose to eat meat. Some choose to drink milk and eat eggs, but not eat meat. Some people want to eat nothing that has ever even been near an animal. Do what you feel comfortable with, people! This is your life! They are your ethics! You have to live with you and with what you do.

"Also, being a vegan, how ethical is it to hand out yogurt to kids?"

Right. Because, as a vegan, it's your duty to override what kids' parents want, and to enforce your beliefs on other people.

Grrr grrr grrr.

Idiots.

Comments

[tersa.livejournal.com]

Vegans are, by their nature, political beasts. Whenever I hear someone is a vegan, I immediately get my hackles up.

It is a valid question for a vegan to ask. However, if they are doing it for ethical reasons (which most vegans are), then the answer should be simple, IMO.

So, mostly, I agree with you. If they're vegan, they really shouldn't have to ask someone else how they should feel about this.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Vegans are, by their nature, political beasts.

I've been picking up on that, yeah. Seems like a sad thing to be mixing the two, but I suppose if someone's feeling really radical about such things, they'd probably think it's sad that I turn away from PETA.

It is a valid question for a vegan to ask.

I agree it's a valid question to ask, but I think they should be asking themselves it, not others. As it stands, it feels almost like high school: you need to get validation from all your little in-group before you can say 'I feel this' or 'I think that'...

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

I would like to think that society teaches basic morality rather than each person deciding it for themselves. The extreme example would be, is killing wrong? I don't think that each person should decide for themselves if killing is wrong. If I decide to kill you because I decided for myself that it is right, well, I'd have to claim that society would violently disagree.

Besides, how does one decide morality without a basic framework? Only society can provide this basic framework. One would hope that parents would provide this basic framework, but often, I think that people are needing to ask people other than their parents for these guidelines because their parents are either not providing that sort of guidance or have opposing views.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with you on that it teaches basic morality. To use the killing example: Most everyone knows and agrees that killing is wrong, but that's not the end-all of it. Is killing wrong if someone threatens your life? If someone is trying to steal your car? If they have your kid at gunpoint? That's the stuff you need to decide on your own.

but often, I think that people are needing to ask people other than their parents for these guidelines because their parents are either not providing that sort of guidance or have opposing views.

That seems possible, yeah. But even then, if you need to ask someone other than a parent, is a nameless, faceless person on the Internet really a great source?

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

I disagree. I think that society should be providing the moral background so that an individual can make the decision as to whether it is moral to kill someone if they are threatening your life, or are holding your kid at gunpoint. I do not believe that it is a simple five step lession, but a layering of multiple examples that provide a frame of reference. The lack of that frame of reference is what makes sociopaths so scary to me. They eschew society and thus have only themselves for guidance. I'm not saying that the individual does not make the final decision, but the guidelines do not come from a vacuum, indeed, should not come from a vacuum.

The Internet may not be a great source, but it is one. It is hard to say what sort of local sources this person has.

[aretina.livejournal.com]

The basic conflict you're reaching for here is the difference between Utilitarian morality and Denetological morality. A person with Utilitarian morality believes that the end result of an action is more important than the action itself-- ie, killing a person who is trying to kill you is alright, because you are only saving the life that would have been taken had he succeeded. A person demonstrating Denetological morality would stand by a hard and fast rule-- no, it is never o.k. to kill, ever, end of story. You might say that society lays in a kind of Denetological morality, with Utilitarian morality being shown to most people by example, presented in a frame of reference as you suggest.

As for this vegan, it is very probable that she became a vegan under a kind of self-imposed Denetological morality, ie, it is not ok to eat animal products ever. If this is true, then she would be under a moral obligation to herself not to take a job where she was allowing others to eat the product she has decided is verboten. If she is a utilitarian moralist, she might say "it's not ok for me to eat these products, but it is ok for other people if they so choose, and the end product of my prosperity justifies me handing out yoghurt." It seems her main problem is that she doesn't know the reasons behind her own ideals of veganism, and therefore she is having a hard time functioning in an instance where the question of why she is a vegan in the first place is asked.

As for killing, practically everyone who lives in an individual-centered society holds, consciously or unconsciously, a Utilitarian ideal that they would kill for the greater good. Clearly, Bush hopes we do, and also hopes that we agree with his idea of what the greater good is.

[tersa.livejournal.com]

but I think they should be asking themselves it,

Just me being nitpicky, but I *did* agree with you on that point. :)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Ah, cool beans then!

[warwulf.livejournal.com]

Eh, some people chose to be vegan to be different...

Some people aren't as dedicated to being vegan or vegetarian as those who are for real, moral reasons. Those who are don't typically have a question on such matters.

However, in my view... a job's a job. I worked at McDonald's once... handing out a heart attack in a bun.

But, that's off topic. I'm just saying lighten up on the kid. ~_^

warwulf

PS: Meat Rocks! =P

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

However, in my view... a job's a job. I worked at McDonald's once... handing out a heart attack in a bun.

Yeah. It's the choice of people to come in though, it's not like you were chasing after them on the street, tackling them, and forcing McDonald food into their mouths. (As funny as that'd be...)

But, that's off topic. I'm just saying lighten up on the kid. ~_^

Yessir! ;)

[daltontrix.livejournal.com]

it's not like you were chasing after them on the street, tackling them, and forcing McDonald food into their mouths. (As funny as that'd be...)


The fact that you're not doing this, however, apparently doesn't take away the customer's right to sue you when they get fat from eating your food every day!

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

True dat!

[triplem.livejournal.com]

Yes, people are silly like that.

I have a co-worker who's vegetarian. She handles all types of meat toppings, processes some of those toppings (we get a sixteen pound log of ham that we have to send through a processor), and hands pizzas coated in meat of to customers. She manages the place, too. Though we joke at each other sometimes, we pretty much let each other do our thing.

Then there are those like this person here. My co-worker would likely say the exact same thing you did.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I think I'd like your co-worker. :)

[piperz.livejournal.com]

o.o

As if handing out yogurt outside the lion's cage is really going to upset the lion? (laughing.) Kidding.. kidding...

Well, all I can say is that you believe what YOU want to believe, and screw other people's thoughts on it. Really. If you wanted to believe something for THEM, then what's the point of YOU believing it? It's YOUR thoughts, and views... don't let what other people.

Now, if the kid was vegan, they shouldn't be eating yogurt anyway.... BUT.. do you see Vegans just standing around ice cream parlors, picketing? (crickets chirp.) Thought not....

In other words... it's money! Lots of people do what they don't really want to do, or they do something that collides with things they believe in, or don't believe in, because of money. In this modern world, you can't really get anywhere without it, as much as some people would like to believe. You pay for your food with it, you pay your bills with it, you buy nice things for your loved ones with it, you do ALL sorts of things with it, and EVERYONE has to have it to survive in modern society.

I know I'm ranting a little bit extreme here, but yeah....

Afterall, if *I*, an agnostic with mild pagan tendencies, can stand on 'holy ground' and hand out flyers for a sunday revival just so I can get a few volunteer hours under my belt for future job assignments... then ANYONE can do pretty much ANYTHING if they want to get paid.

Screw what other people think, especially if they are trying to force some kind of belief or something on you... or whatever! And Yeah!
^-^;;!!

That's all I gotta say. I'll stop my pointless rambling now. XD!

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

Re: thank you!

[jacquez.livejournal.com]

I stick with vegrecipes myself. Avoids most of the political bull.

Re: thank you!

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

That's a really good idea! I think I'll do that myself.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph...

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

She is not selling slaves, she is distributing crack, she is handing out yogurt, for the love of heaven.
Heck, I need money right now, and I would love to make a quick $200.
Some people!

Re: Jesus, Mary and Joseph...

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Pretty much my thought on it, yeah. Sheesh!

Asking moral questions of the general public...

[batratblue.livejournal.com]

...Should probably not be preceded by the words 'Is it moral to...' or 'Is it ethical to...' but more often than not the driving motivator for the person asking the public question is:

'Would it be trendy/cool to...?'

If your concern with your moral pattern is reliant upon what the public thinks rather than your own evaluation of the moral pros and cons of the situation, IMNSHO you need to do some significant self-evaluation work on what you've been calling your ethics.

In the final evaluation, ethics are not 'what you friends think' or 'what your mum taught you', or 'what you read in a book'. They are your own determinations based on all the external input and personal experience that you can bring to bear, evaluate, measure and weigh.

Many pacifists point to Gandhi as their saint/positive role model. Gandhi was not, strictly speaking, a pacifist. He was an extremely and deliberately confrontational individual who fought a political and culture war through forcing violent confrontation. He deliberately provoked his enemies into violence and used the incidents caused to promote his own agenda. Not saying it was a bad agenda or a bad way to carry it out, but set the record straight: Gandhi was not a pacifist. A person who provokes violent confrontation is not a pacifist. Setting yourself up in the victim's role to garner sympathy for your cause by deliberately forcing someone else's hand, placing them in a position where you know they will use violence, is not the act of a pacifist.

It's damned satisfying for the self-righteous, though.