Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

In the fight against animal tested products, you have those products that have recently been produced and tested through animal cruelty that occurred during your own lifetime and then there are other products (such as insulin) that have been produced also through animal cruelty but it's long before you were born.

As someone who opposes animal cruelty and want to express your opposition to it by refraining to use products that have been developed through animal cruelty, must you focus your opposition onto those products that are being developed during your own lifetime as you are interested in protecting the living animals you share the planet with, or must you equally fight also all products that were developed using such evil means?

So my question is trying to figure out whether there is some sort of time limit where you must accept the evil past that has been handed down to you and not reject it because it was the fight of those like you today but who have lost that fight back then. You can't change the past with your protest.

So refraining from using long standing products developed through animal cruelty may be fighting the fight belonging to another time and will not help to save any living animals because all the animals of those long gone days are now dead anyway?

I am asking because some people seem to suggest that to be a vegan, you need to refrain from using all products that were developed through animal cruelty. I am therefore reasoning that this is unreasonable and the protest focus of animal rights activists must be on products developed during their own lifetime or during their time as vegans. This is a key question because it would allow someone who is diabetic today to still think of him/herself as a vegan. Accepting one's past does or does not involve accepting the evil associated to it?

So now, if you tell the vegan diabetic person that he/she is hypocritical because they use a product of animal cruelty, the diabetic person can respond that he/she is trying to save the lives of currently suffering animals and not the lives of long dead animals and that had she/he been living in those days when the life-saving product was being developed on the back of dogs, she /he would likely not have survived as they would have fought that product then to end animal cruelty at that time.

This way of thinking sounds right and well focused to me and perhaps helpful to would be vegans, but I have never heard this argument being made and is original to me (in the sense that I came up with this on my own) and it has also implications in other areas as well because if you accept this argument, you realize that toppling down statues of long gone evil doers such Hitler will do absolutely nothing to help with fighting current fascists.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by LuckyR »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 4th, 2021, 7:55 pm In the fight against animal tested products, you have those products that have recently been produced and tested through animal cruelty that occurred during your own lifetime and then there are other products (such as insulin) that have been produced also through animal cruelty but it's long before you were born.

As someone who opposes animal cruelty and want to express your opposition to it by refraining to use products that have been developed through animal cruelty, must you focus your opposition onto those products that are being developed during your own lifetime as you are interested in protecting the living animals you share the planet with, or must you equally fight also all products that were developed using such evil means?

So my question is trying to figure out whether there is some sort of time limit where you must accept the evil past that has been handed down to you and not reject it because it was the fight of those like you today but who have lost that fight back then. You can't change the past with your protest.

So refraining from using long standing products developed through animal cruelty may be fighting the fight belonging to another time and will not help to save any living animals because all the animals of those long gone days are now dead anyway?

I am asking because some people seem to suggest that to be a vegan, you need to refrain from using all products that were developed through animal cruelty. I am therefore reasoning that this is unreasonable and the protest focus of animal rights activists must be on products developed during their own lifetime or during their time as vegans. This is a key question because it would allow someone who is diabetic today to still think of him/herself as a vegan. Accepting one's past does or does not involve accepting the evil associated to it?

So now, if you tell the vegan diabetic person that he/she is hypocritical because they use a product of animal cruelty, the diabetic person can respond that he/she is trying to save the lives of currently suffering animals and not the lives of long dead animals and that had she/he been living in those days when the life-saving product was being developed on the back of dogs, she /he would likely not have survived as they would have fought that product then to end animal cruelty at that time.

This way of thinking sounds right and well focused to me and perhaps helpful to would be vegans, but I have never heard this argument being made and is original to me (in the sense that I came up with this on my own) and it has also implications in other areas as well because if you accept this argument, you realize that toppling down statues of long gone evil doers such Hitler will do absolutely nothing to help with fighting current fascists.
Many things.

First, I agree with you that the best goal is to limit actual suffering. Supporting companies that do so makes sense, of course. However having companies that used to contribute to suffering and have made the recent decision to stop, then making them unprofitable is sending the wrong message, IMO.

The logical way to view past testing is to realize that the testing served some positive purpose, but that you have concluded that the concurrent negatives of the testing outweigh the positives, making it net negative in your view. If the testing has stopped, using the product is giving some positive purpose to the sacrifice of the past organisms, respecting that sacrifice as it were.

Lastly, on the topic of Hitler statues, you are correct that it doesn't do anything to current fascists, but it sends the message to folks raised in that jurisdiction that fascism is not honored by the state, ie keeping the statue "normalizes" abnormal ideology.
"As usual... it depends."
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by AverageBozo »

If the product continues to exist, but the cruelty of testing the product is a thing of the past, you should focus on those things that are cruel in the present.
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

AverageBozo wrote: December 5th, 2021, 10:42 am If the product continues to exist, but the cruelty of testing the product is a thing of the past, you should focus on those things that are cruel in the present.
You seem to be separating each instances of animal testing. Ok, there is no more testing of the Moderna vaccine, so let's accept it and refocus ourselves on opposing the new vaccines that are emerging for kids as they are still currently being tested on animals. To me that doesn't make sense. If you fight an animal abuser who is still reaping profits from a cruel product that was developed while you were around, you have a moral activist duty to fight that product/producer until the right no animal testing policy is put in place.

I am glad however that you seem to agree that current cruelty is the kind that needs to be focused on first.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

LuckyR wrote: December 5th, 2021, 2:14 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 4th, 2021, 7:55 pm In the fight against animal tested products, you have those products that have recently been produced and tested through animal cruelty that occurred during your own lifetime and then there are other products (such as insulin) that have been produced also through animal cruelty but it's long before you were born.

As someone who opposes animal cruelty and want to express your opposition to it by refraining to use products that have been developed through animal cruelty, must you focus your opposition onto those products that are being developed during your own lifetime as you are interested in protecting the living animals you share the planet with, or must you equally fight also all products that were developed using such evil means?

So my question is trying to figure out whether there is some sort of time limit where you must accept the evil past that has been handed down to you and not reject it because it was the fight of those like you today but who have lost that fight back then. You can't change the past with your protest.

So refraining from using long standing products developed through animal cruelty may be fighting the fight belonging to another time and will not help to save any living animals because all the animals of those long gone days are now dead anyway?

I am asking because some people seem to suggest that to be a vegan, you need to refrain from using all products that were developed through animal cruelty. I am therefore reasoning that this is unreasonable and the protest focus of animal rights activists must be on products developed during their own lifetime or during their time as vegans. This is a key question because it would allow someone who is diabetic today to still think of him/herself as a vegan. Accepting one's past does or does not involve accepting the evil associated to it?

So now, if you tell the vegan diabetic person that he/she is hypocritical because they use a product of animal cruelty, the diabetic person can respond that he/she is trying to save the lives of currently suffering animals and not the lives of long dead animals and that had she/he been living in those days when the life-saving product was being developed on the back of dogs, she /he would likely not have survived as they would have fought that product then to end animal cruelty at that time.

This way of thinking sounds right and well focused to me and perhaps helpful to would be vegans, but I have never heard this argument being made and is original to me (in the sense that I came up with this on my own) and it has also implications in other areas as well because if you accept this argument, you realize that toppling down statues of long gone evil doers such Hitler will do absolutely nothing to help with fighting current fascists.
Many things.

First, I agree with you that the best goal is to limit actual suffering. Supporting companies that do so makes sense, of course. However having companies that used to contribute to suffering and have made the recent decision to stop, then making them unprofitable is sending the wrong message, IMO.

The logical way to view past testing is to realize that the testing served some positive purpose, but that you have concluded that the concurrent negatives of the testing outweigh the positives, making it net negative in your view. If the testing has stopped, using the product is giving some positive purpose to the sacrifice of the past organisms, respecting that sacrifice as it were.

Lastly, on the topic of Hitler statues, you are correct that it doesn't do anything to current fascists, but it sends the message to folks raised in that jurisdiction that fascism is not honored by the state, ie keeping the statue "normalizes" abnormal ideology.
Regarding your first paragraph, I am happy to see that you concur with the objective of doing work to save today's animals. Your second part of that first paragraph is a bit more puzzling. Which company that changes and stop engaging in animal cruelty is then being targeted by animal rights activists?

Regarding your second paragraph, to keep using a product developed and tested on animals can indeed appear to be giving a seal of approval to what happened, and this is precisely what I think a vegan will never be comfortable with. So, if you're a vegan and using insulin today, I think it's important to keep in mind what animals you have in mind to save. You can't save dr Banting's early 20th century dogs by opposing insulin today, and so using it today is completely ineffective in saving anyone.

But the association between the cruel creator of a product and the product itself need to be addressed though. It may be useful to try and create a fictional story of the invention of insulin where no animals were used, and then try and pass it off as how things occurred in reality to clear the name of a terrible inventor who's products are still being used today. That would send the more appropriate message in my opinion.

Lastly, regarding your last paragraph remarks, I think that once again creating a fantasy where Nazi were just a bunch of funny clowns who never used weapons as they were quite good at convincing millions of others to jump off bridges or working very hard in camps. They were tricky clowns, right? Having no respect for the facts that actually took place is arguably here and now the best approach for a number of reasons, so long as enough time has past and the interest and need in killing Nazis will not bring relief or justice to anyone suffering because of them.The key here being also to isolate today's nazis from their past, as they seem to draw strength from there.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by LuckyR »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 6th, 2021, 6:37 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 5th, 2021, 2:14 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 4th, 2021, 7:55 pm In the fight against animal tested products, you have those products that have recently been produced and tested through animal cruelty that occurred during your own lifetime and then there are other products (such as insulin) that have been produced also through animal cruelty but it's long before you were born.

As someone who opposes animal cruelty and want to express your opposition to it by refraining to use products that have been developed through animal cruelty, must you focus your opposition onto those products that are being developed during your own lifetime as you are interested in protecting the living animals you share the planet with, or must you equally fight also all products that were developed using such evil means?

So my question is trying to figure out whether there is some sort of time limit where you must accept the evil past that has been handed down to you and not reject it because it was the fight of those like you today but who have lost that fight back then. You can't change the past with your protest.

So refraining from using long standing products developed through animal cruelty may be fighting the fight belonging to another time and will not help to save any living animals because all the animals of those long gone days are now dead anyway?

I am asking because some people seem to suggest that to be a vegan, you need to refrain from using all products that were developed through animal cruelty. I am therefore reasoning that this is unreasonable and the protest focus of animal rights activists must be on products developed during their own lifetime or during their time as vegans. This is a key question because it would allow someone who is diabetic today to still think of him/herself as a vegan. Accepting one's past does or does not involve accepting the evil associated to it?

So now, if you tell the vegan diabetic person that he/she is hypocritical because they use a product of animal cruelty, the diabetic person can respond that he/she is trying to save the lives of currently suffering animals and not the lives of long dead animals and that had she/he been living in those days when the life-saving product was being developed on the back of dogs, she /he would likely not have survived as they would have fought that product then to end animal cruelty at that time.

This way of thinking sounds right and well focused to me and perhaps helpful to would be vegans, but I have never heard this argument being made and is original to me (in the sense that I came up with this on my own) and it has also implications in other areas as well because if you accept this argument, you realize that toppling down statues of long gone evil doers such Hitler will do absolutely nothing to help with fighting current fascists.
Many things.

First, I agree with you that the best goal is to limit actual suffering. Supporting companies that do so makes sense, of course. However having companies that used to contribute to suffering and have made the recent decision to stop, then making them unprofitable is sending the wrong message, IMO.

The logical way to view past testing is to realize that the testing served some positive purpose, but that you have concluded that the concurrent negatives of the testing outweigh the positives, making it net negative in your view. If the testing has stopped, using the product is giving some positive purpose to the sacrifice of the past organisms, respecting that sacrifice as it were.

Lastly, on the topic of Hitler statues, you are correct that it doesn't do anything to current fascists, but it sends the message to folks raised in that jurisdiction that fascism is not honored by the state, ie keeping the statue "normalizes" abnormal ideology.
Regarding your first paragraph, I am happy to see that you concur with the objective of doing work to save today's animals. Your second part of that first paragraph is a bit more puzzling. Which company that changes and stop engaging in animal cruelty is then being targeted by animal rights activists?

Regarding your second paragraph, to keep using a product developed and tested on animals can indeed appear to be giving a seal of approval to what happened, and this is precisely what I think a vegan will never be comfortable with. So, if you're a vegan and using insulin today, I think it's important to keep in mind what animals you have in mind to save. You can't save dr Banting's early 20th century dogs by opposing insulin today, and so using it today is completely ineffective in saving anyone.

But the association between the cruel creator of a product and the product itself need to be addressed though. It may be useful to try and create a fictional story of the invention of insulin where no animals were used, and then try and pass it off as how things occurred in reality to clear the name of a terrible inventor who's products are still being used today. That would send the more appropriate message in my opinion.

Lastly, regarding your last paragraph remarks, I think that once again creating a fantasy where Nazi were just a bunch of funny clowns who never used weapons as they were quite good at convincing millions of others to jump off bridges or working very hard in camps. They were tricky clowns, right? Having no respect for the facts that actually took place is arguably here and now the best approach for a number of reasons, so long as enough time has past and the interest and need in killing Nazis will not bring relief or justice to anyone suffering because of them.The key here being also to isolate today's nazis from their past, as they seem to draw strength from there.
I see that I have succeeded in being confusing, sorry about that.

In my first paragraph, you had mentioned that you were considering boycotting products that were developed through animal testing even though the testing stopped. That is the company I am talking about. I think "rewarding" a company that has stopped animal testing with a boycott based on past testing is sending corporations the wrong message. That is: why bother stopping the testing? We're going to get boycotted anyway.

When you mention vegans in your writings, I think you are referring to animal rights folks. The difference between what vegetarians eat and what vegans eat, don't involve killing animals, by common understanding.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

LuckyR wrote: December 7th, 2021, 2:53 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 6th, 2021, 6:37 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 5th, 2021, 2:14 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 4th, 2021, 7:55 pm In the fight against animal tested products, you have those products that have recently been produced and tested through animal cruelty that occurred during your own lifetime and then there are other products (such as insulin) that have been produced also through animal cruelty but it's long before you were born.

As someone who opposes animal cruelty and want to express your opposition to it by refraining to use products that have been developed through animal cruelty, must you focus your opposition onto those products that are being developed during your own lifetime as you are interested in protecting the living animals you share the planet with, or must you equally fight also all products that were developed using such evil means?

So my question is trying to figure out whether there is some sort of time limit where you must accept the evil past that has been handed down to you and not reject it because it was the fight of those like you today but who have lost that fight back then. You can't change the past with your protest.

So refraining from using long standing products developed through animal cruelty may be fighting the fight belonging to another time and will not help to save any living animals because all the animals of those long gone days are now dead anyway?

I am asking because some people seem to suggest that to be a vegan, you need to refrain from using all products that were developed through animal cruelty. I am therefore reasoning that this is unreasonable and the protest focus of animal rights activists must be on products developed during their own lifetime or during their time as vegans. This is a key question because it would allow someone who is diabetic today to still think of him/herself as a vegan. Accepting one's past does or does not involve accepting the evil associated to it?

So now, if you tell the vegan diabetic person that he/she is hypocritical because they use a product of animal cruelty, the diabetic person can respond that he/she is trying to save the lives of currently suffering animals and not the lives of long dead animals and that had she/he been living in those days when the life-saving product was being developed on the back of dogs, she /he would likely not have survived as they would have fought that product then to end animal cruelty at that time.

This way of thinking sounds right and well focused to me and perhaps helpful to would be vegans, but I have never heard this argument being made and is original to me (in the sense that I came up with this on my own) and it has also implications in other areas as well because if you accept this argument, you realize that toppling down statues of long gone evil doers such Hitler will do absolutely nothing to help with fighting current fascists.
Many things.

First, I agree with you that the best goal is to limit actual suffering. Supporting companies that do so makes sense, of course. However having companies that used to contribute to suffering and have made the recent decision to stop, then making them unprofitable is sending the wrong message, IMO.

The logical way to view past testing is to realize that the testing served some positive purpose, but that you have concluded that the concurrent negatives of the testing outweigh the positives, making it net negative in your view. If the testing has stopped, using the product is giving some positive purpose to the sacrifice of the past organisms, respecting that sacrifice as it were.

Lastly, on the topic of Hitler statues, you are correct that it doesn't do anything to current fascists, but it sends the message to folks raised in that jurisdiction that fascism is not honored by the state, ie keeping the statue "normalizes" abnormal ideology.
Regarding your first paragraph, I am happy to see that you concur with the objective of doing work to save today's animals. Your second part of that first paragraph is a bit more puzzling. Which company that changes and stop engaging in animal cruelty is then being targeted by animal rights activists?

Regarding your second paragraph, to keep using a product developed and tested on animals can indeed appear to be giving a seal of approval to what happened, and this is precisely what I think a vegan will never be comfortable with. So, if you're a vegan and using insulin today, I think it's important to keep in mind what animals you have in mind to save. You can't save dr Banting's early 20th century dogs by opposing insulin today, and so using it today is completely ineffective in saving anyone.

But the association between the cruel creator of a product and the product itself need to be addressed though. It may be useful to try and create a fictional story of the invention of insulin where no animals were used, and then try and pass it off as how things occurred in reality to clear the name of a terrible inventor who's products are still being used today. That would send the more appropriate message in my opinion.

Lastly, regarding your last paragraph remarks, I think that once again creating a fantasy where Nazi were just a bunch of funny clowns who never used weapons as they were quite good at convincing millions of others to jump off bridges or working very hard in camps. They were tricky clowns, right? Having no respect for the facts that actually took place is arguably here and now the best approach for a number of reasons, so long as enough time has past and the interest and need in killing Nazis will not bring relief or justice to anyone suffering because of them.The key here being also to isolate today's nazis from their past, as they seem to draw strength from there.
I see that I have succeeded in being confusing, sorry about that.

In my first paragraph, you had mentioned that you were considering boycotting products that were developed through animal testing even though the testing stopped. That is the company I am talking about. I think "rewarding" a company that has stopped animal testing with a boycott based on past testing is sending corporations the wrong message. That is: why bother stopping the testing? We're going to get boycotted anyway.

When you mention vegans in your writings, I think you are referring to animal rights folks. The difference between what vegetarians eat and what vegans eat, don't involve killing animals, by common understanding.
Why stop testing? Because the results of the animal experiments that they were legally obliged to produce before marketing their product are now here and there is no requirement to keep producing these results afterwards.

If you listen to common understanding, you will know that there was massive electoral fraud in the US at the last election. The concept of veganism versus vegetarianism isn't simple and I don't think you can refer to common understanding to grasp this difference. Due to a shortcoming in intellect or interest, I don't expect the truth to be commonly known in that respect.

Vegetarians don't eat the flesh of animals, but may eat animal products such as milk and eggs. Consuming these products will get animals killed and that's of no concern to vegetarians. You seem to think that I view vegans as animal rights folks. And I start to get the idea that you view vegans as just one type of vegetarians, with more dietary restrictions. I believe this is wrong.

A vegan isn't a follower of any diet, and certainly not a follower of a compassionate diet. A vegan is someone who takes a political stand for justice, like someone who stands for women's rights. If you think that because someone isn't a member of your species does not give you the right to kill it for your needs, then you are just towards others and should consider yourself a vegan. You need to understand what is just and back it up if you are to be vegan. It's definitely not about following a diet or even having a compassionate diet. I have witnessed some fake vegans online attacking other vegans for not taking the animal tested vaccine because it's not the compassionate thing to do as not being vaccinated brings on more deaths and pain and sorrow. This pandemic has helped me realize that a bunch of vegans are still just vegetarians despite avoiding the foods that true vegans want to avoid. And vegetarians are often less friendly to justice or animals then ordinary folks who eat meat. I was told by what I think was a meat eater that he respected my right to dodge the vaccine based on vegan ethics. I don't even get that kind of moral support from the fake vegans. The fake vegans, even the one that stick to what looks like a vegan diet, are enemies of justice and they seek to attack true vegans by trying to come close to them by adopting the word vegan for themselves but it's meaningless in them and then they will betray the true vegans and attempt to take the lead from them so as to undermine the movement through their hypocrisy.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by LuckyR »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 7th, 2021, 12:11 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 7th, 2021, 2:53 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 6th, 2021, 6:37 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 5th, 2021, 2:14 am

Many things.

First, I agree with you that the best goal is to limit actual suffering. Supporting companies that do so makes sense, of course. However having companies that used to contribute to suffering and have made the recent decision to stop, then making them unprofitable is sending the wrong message, IMO.

The logical way to view past testing is to realize that the testing served some positive purpose, but that you have concluded that the concurrent negatives of the testing outweigh the positives, making it net negative in your view. If the testing has stopped, using the product is giving some positive purpose to the sacrifice of the past organisms, respecting that sacrifice as it were.

Lastly, on the topic of Hitler statues, you are correct that it doesn't do anything to current fascists, but it sends the message to folks raised in that jurisdiction that fascism is not honored by the state, ie keeping the statue "normalizes" abnormal ideology.
Regarding your first paragraph, I am happy to see that you concur with the objective of doing work to save today's animals. Your second part of that first paragraph is a bit more puzzling. Which company that changes and stop engaging in animal cruelty is then being targeted by animal rights activists?

Regarding your second paragraph, to keep using a product developed and tested on animals can indeed appear to be giving a seal of approval to what happened, and this is precisely what I think a vegan will never be comfortable with. So, if you're a vegan and using insulin today, I think it's important to keep in mind what animals you have in mind to save. You can't save dr Banting's early 20th century dogs by opposing insulin today, and so using it today is completely ineffective in saving anyone.

But the association between the cruel creator of a product and the product itself need to be addressed though. It may be useful to try and create a fictional story of the invention of insulin where no animals were used, and then try and pass it off as how things occurred in reality to clear the name of a terrible inventor who's products are still being used today. That would send the more appropriate message in my opinion.

Lastly, regarding your last paragraph remarks, I think that once again creating a fantasy where Nazi were just a bunch of funny clowns who never used weapons as they were quite good at convincing millions of others to jump off bridges or working very hard in camps. They were tricky clowns, right? Having no respect for the facts that actually took place is arguably here and now the best approach for a number of reasons, so long as enough time has past and the interest and need in killing Nazis will not bring relief or justice to anyone suffering because of them.The key here being also to isolate today's nazis from their past, as they seem to draw strength from there.
I see that I have succeeded in being confusing, sorry about that.

In my first paragraph, you had mentioned that you were considering boycotting products that were developed through animal testing even though the testing stopped. That is the company I am talking about. I think "rewarding" a company that has stopped animal testing with a boycott based on past testing is sending corporations the wrong message. That is: why bother stopping the testing? We're going to get boycotted anyway.

When you mention vegans in your writings, I think you are referring to animal rights folks. The difference between what vegetarians eat and what vegans eat, don't involve killing animals, by common understanding.
Why stop testing? Because the results of the animal experiments that they were legally obliged to produce before marketing their product are now here and there is no requirement to keep producing these results afterwards.

If you listen to common understanding, you will know that there was massive electoral fraud in the US at the last election. The concept of veganism versus vegetarianism isn't simple and I don't think you can refer to common understanding to grasp this difference. Due to a shortcoming in intellect or interest, I don't expect the truth to be commonly known in that respect.

Vegetarians don't eat the flesh of animals, but may eat animal products such as milk and eggs. Consuming these products will get animals killed and that's of no concern to vegetarians. You seem to think that I view vegans as animal rights folks. And I start to get the idea that you view vegans as just one type of vegetarians, with more dietary restrictions. I believe this is wrong.

A vegan isn't a follower of any diet, and certainly not a follower of a compassionate diet. A vegan is someone who takes a political stand for justice, like someone who stands for women's rights. If you think that because someone isn't a member of your species does not give you the right to kill it for your needs, then you are just towards others and should consider yourself a vegan. You need to understand what is just and back it up if you are to be vegan. It's definitely not about following a diet or even having a compassionate diet. I have witnessed some fake vegans online attacking other vegans for not taking the animal tested vaccine because it's not the compassionate thing to do as not being vaccinated brings on more deaths and pain and sorrow. This pandemic has helped me realize that a bunch of vegans are still just vegetarians despite avoiding the foods that true vegans want to avoid. And vegetarians are often less friendly to justice or animals then ordinary folks who eat meat. I was told by what I think was a meat eater that he respected my right to dodge the vaccine based on vegan ethics. I don't even get that kind of moral support from the fake vegans. The fake vegans, even the one that stick to what looks like a vegan diet, are enemies of justice and they seek to attack true vegans by trying to come close to them by adopting the word vegan for themselves but it's meaningless in them and then they will betray the true vegans and attempt to take the lead from them so as to undermine the movement through their hypocrisy.
Based on many things, I assumed you had a proprietary definition for "vegan", hence why (for the sake of clarity) I labelled my use the word vegan as the common meaning, not your personal meaning.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

LuckyR wrote: December 7th, 2021, 8:17 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 7th, 2021, 12:11 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 7th, 2021, 2:53 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 6th, 2021, 6:37 pm
Regarding your first paragraph, I am happy to see that you concur with the objective of doing work to save today's animals. Your second part of that first paragraph is a bit more puzzling. Which company that changes and stop engaging in animal cruelty is then being targeted by animal rights activists?

Regarding your second paragraph, to keep using a product developed and tested on animals can indeed appear to be giving a seal of approval to what happened, and this is precisely what I think a vegan will never be comfortable with. So, if you're a vegan and using insulin today, I think it's important to keep in mind what animals you have in mind to save. You can't save dr Banting's early 20th century dogs by opposing insulin today, and so using it today is completely ineffective in saving anyone.

But the association between the cruel creator of a product and the product itself need to be addressed though. It may be useful to try and create a fictional story of the invention of insulin where no animals were used, and then try and pass it off as how things occurred in reality to clear the name of a terrible inventor who's products are still being used today. That would send the more appropriate message in my opinion.

Lastly, regarding your last paragraph remarks, I think that once again creating a fantasy where Nazi were just a bunch of funny clowns who never used weapons as they were quite good at convincing millions of others to jump off bridges or working very hard in camps. They were tricky clowns, right? Having no respect for the facts that actually took place is arguably here and now the best approach for a number of reasons, so long as enough time has past and the interest and need in killing Nazis will not bring relief or justice to anyone suffering because of them.The key here being also to isolate today's nazis from their past, as they seem to draw strength from there.
I see that I have succeeded in being confusing, sorry about that.

In my first paragraph, you had mentioned that you were considering boycotting products that were developed through animal testing even though the testing stopped. That is the company I am talking about. I think "rewarding" a company that has stopped animal testing with a boycott based on past testing is sending corporations the wrong message. That is: why bother stopping the testing? We're going to get boycotted anyway.

When you mention vegans in your writings, I think you are referring to animal rights folks. The difference between what vegetarians eat and what vegans eat, don't involve killing animals, by common understanding.
Why stop testing? Because the results of the animal experiments that they were legally obliged to produce before marketing their product are now here and there is no requirement to keep producing these results afterwards.

If you listen to common understanding, you will know that there was massive electoral fraud in the US at the last election. The concept of veganism versus vegetarianism isn't simple and I don't think you can refer to common understanding to grasp this difference. Due to a shortcoming in intellect or interest, I don't expect the truth to be commonly known in that respect.

Vegetarians don't eat the flesh of animals, but may eat animal products such as milk and eggs. Consuming these products will get animals killed and that's of no concern to vegetarians. You seem to think that I view vegans as animal rights folks. And I start to get the idea that you view vegans as just one type of vegetarians, with more dietary restrictions. I believe this is wrong.

A vegan isn't a follower of any diet, and certainly not a follower of a compassionate diet. A vegan is someone who takes a political stand for justice, like someone who stands for women's rights. If you think that because someone isn't a member of your species does not give you the right to kill it for your needs, then you are just towards others and should consider yourself a vegan. You need to understand what is just and back it up if you are to be vegan. It's definitely not about following a diet or even having a compassionate diet. I have witnessed some fake vegans online attacking other vegans for not taking the animal tested vaccine because it's not the compassionate thing to do as not being vaccinated brings on more deaths and pain and sorrow. This pandemic has helped me realize that a bunch of vegans are still just vegetarians despite avoiding the foods that true vegans want to avoid. And vegetarians are often less friendly to justice or animals then ordinary folks who eat meat. I was told by what I think was a meat eater that he respected my right to dodge the vaccine based on vegan ethics. I don't even get that kind of moral support from the fake vegans. The fake vegans, even the one that stick to what looks like a vegan diet, are enemies of justice and they seek to attack true vegans by trying to come close to them by adopting the word vegan for themselves but it's meaningless in them and then they will betray the true vegans and attempt to take the lead from them so as to undermine the movement through their hypocrisy.
Based on many things, I assumed you had a proprietary definition for "vegan", hence why (for the sake of clarity) I labelled my use the word vegan as the common meaning, not your personal meaning.
The least common of all the senses is the common sense. Perhaps one needs to be equally wary of common meanings. The person who first coined the word 'vegan' was in it to do justice for animals. That's not my own personal view; it's history. I wonder how the common people took over his newly coined word to give it a new common meaning. It's not well documented. Ho well, it must be those fake vegans again along with the true vegetarians.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by Good_Egg »

I think the answer to the core question here is that it depends on what ethical theory you hold. (Unsurprisingly).

If your aim is directing your actions towards bringing about good consequences, in the way of utilitarian ethics, then because you cannot change the past, you should give no weight to past wrongs and their past consequences, but should instead focus on maximising the present and future benefits from insulin, as from anything else.

If on the other hand you hold a purity ethic that believes in keeping oneself uncontaminated by the taint of association with the wrongdoing of others, then it matters little how long ago that wrongdoing was or whether it is still going on. You should have as little as possible to do with it regardless.

Just don't expect those who follow these two different approaches to reach agreement. They're starting from fundamentally different premises.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
Elephant
Posts: 86
Joined: February 1st, 2022, 1:32 am

Re: Long dead evil is still evil or not?

Post by Elephant »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: December 4th, 2021, 7:55 pm
So my question is trying to figure out whether there is some sort of time limit where you must accept the evil past that has been handed down to you and not reject it because it was the fight of those like you today but who have lost that fight back then. You can't change the past with your protest.

So refraining from using long standing products developed through animal cruelty may be fighting the fight belonging to another time and will not help to save any living animals because all the animals of those long gone days are now dead anyway?
Yes, I wouldn't fight against the action that's already passed. I'd focus my effort in fighting animal cruelty presently. It is useless to use the rationale today to reason against the evils in the past.
Hungry
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021