Stop using shitty arguments about veganism

I’m not particularly talkative about my veganism. I’ve never been much of an activist for any cause (I refuse to count posting facebook links as activism). I prefer to do my best to be rational about my opinions and ethics and let my life speak for itself. It certainly doesn’t help that “pushy vegan” is a common cultural trope (and, let’s be honest, silencing technique) that I would rather not play into. So, generally speaking I just do my thing and try my best to ignore the overwhelmingly meat-obsessed culture around me.

But the thing is, I don’t just hate needless animal suffering. I also hate shitty, irrational arguments and I find it really hard to shut up and let people make them. Exposing shitty arguments is part of the reason I’ve written for Crocoduck (the rest of my reasons are the sexual favors and casual Fridays). So, I feel compelled to discuss the shitty, irrational arguments about veganism. I say about, not against, because the bread knife cuts both ways, and I find shitty arguments in favor of veganism to be every bit as rage worthy as the ones against it. [Read more…]

The Nonexistence of Religious Morality

In a recent essay for a religion survey course I wrote that “If there are good teachings or moral ideas in the Bible or in the words of Jesus, they are good independent of their source and to rely on someone else’s teaching for your own morality is to be amoral.” My professor wrote a comment on my essay asking: “…what about when people motivated by religious ethics do really good things like the Civil Rights Movement? …are they amoral even if their cause is good?” By way of responding, I’d like to consider the classic “trolley problem” of ethics. Here’s the Wikipedia summary of this thought experiment:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do). You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

Like many thought experiments in ethics, there is no “right” answer; both are pretty terrible options. The important part of the trolley problem is that the subject is forced to make a moral decision and is subsequently forced to examine the moral reasoning process that led them to that decision. For example, many would say that saving as many lives as possible is the most moral decision, others might say that the active participation in the death of the individual by pulling the lever implicates them in a murder. Both are valid concerns given the situation. [Read more…]