Right, hypothetical situation, say you are walking minding your own business then you see a burning car wreck, and the people inside are ostensibly meat eaters- won't you, by saving the people inside, in return have caused the deaths of the hundreds/thousands of cows/chickens/fish that they would consume throughout their remaining lifetime? Or lets take this a step further and exaggerate the situation even more, say the people inside are serial killers/nazis/israili war criminals/ jihad extreemists/child molesters/etc - should one follow the general "value all life" rule or should one indeed look at the laws of causality and how rescuing them might bring some good karma to you in the short term but in the long term by rescuing them you might indeed recieve some very bad karma?
49 comments
This is only borderline fundie. Most of us consider a question like this at some point in our lives, but manage to separate responsibility for our own actions, the actions of others and the need to be compassionate to suffering to realise you always help someone who is suffering.
Is this person asking a genuine question with the need to learn, being a fundie expecting their religion to provide easy answers or trying to trip up vegetarians with silly hypothetical situations that they think they will struggle to answer? Hmmm, not sure.
Edit: looking at later posts on this thread, someone tells him he is not responsible for the decisions of others and he accepts that this is a good thing. I think he was just trying to learn having recently become vegetarian.
But what about the plants? Aren't they alive enough for you?
How about treating them like human beings instead of being a selfish prat, and if they do prove to be some sort of horrible, irredeemable person, then leave them in the hands of justice instead of taking matters into your own like some sort of vigilante, holier-than-thou crusader fuckwit?
"What if the people inside are horrible, horrible criminals?"
Then you save them and put them before a jury of their peers, you dick.
You're confusing Buddhism with Jainism.
Buddhism represents a middle road of never going to extremes. Buddha said not to gorge yourself, but also not to starve. Kind of ironic given that he died essentially from stuffing his face with pork, but still. The important message is to live a life of moderation, which I rather get on with. If I had to say I were inclined to any belief system (not religion though, they just get in the way), it would be Buddhism.
Jainists, however, do go to extremes. Jain sold all his clothes, walked around bollock naked. Tried not to harm any living creature, and that philosophy is carried on today such that his followers wear masks so that they don't inhale insects. I think that's so... false, so proudly humble, that it freaks me out a bit.
A friend of mine and I were discussing almost the very same hypothetical situation the other day - a baby about to be eaten by a tiger. We decided that a Jainist might just stand by and watch, being prohibited from doing harm to either creature, whereas any normal, sane human being would shoot the tiger to save the child. Buddhists included.
This is about as fundie as we are.
1) The poster is asking questions, not espousing views; asking questions is the beginning of wisdom.
2) They said "hypothetical situation" so that we could accept its implausibility. That's what everyone does when they need to discuss hypotheticals.
3) (@1029377:) Godwin applies to posts that call their opponents Nazis, not just anyone who uses the word "Nazi."
4) Based on what Woody says, the poster sounds reasonably intelligent overall.
Come on, people. Fundie is when someone keeps believing in something after they've been shown its disproof. Fundie is a tangled mess of logical fallacies and poor grammar. Fundie is an inability to grasp opposing views (or even the fact that there ARE opposing views). This is not fundie.
Actually, unless they were in imminent danger of death from the fire (the flames or the smoke), I'd go call 911. Several first aid instructors of mine have pointed out that many Good Samaritans do a lot of damage to people with neck/spine injuries by moving them out of car wrecks, because they think a car on fire will explode like in the movies (which cars nowadays are designed not to do)
Remember kids, knowing is half the battle (the other half is using your knowledge to get out of inane moral questions posed by idiots)
You are ultimately only in control of your own behavior. You can try to influence others but as long as you do the right thing as far as you can determine it, you really can't hold yourself responsible for what other people do or you'll cripple yourself trying to determine increasingly complex causal chains.
Sorry for the serious answer, but I was just surprised to hear a weird vegetarianism related hypothetical I hadn't heard a million times. Seriously, I think that was the first one since "what if a monkey made you a sandwich."
If, hypothetically, you KNEW that you were causing more harm than good, don't do it. On the other hand, imprisonment might be better than letting them die. That's not about meat eaters, that's about anyone you think is causing harm.
Inaction can carry just as much moral culpability as Action. Might as well just go on a spree killing all the meat=eaters.
---
@Wehpudicabok
This is about as fundie as we are.
1) The poster is asking questions, not espousing views; asking questions is the beginning of wisdom.
2) They said "hypothetical situation" so that we could accept its implausibility. That's what everyone does when they need to discuss hypotheticals.
This means nothing. Many people use hypotheticals as a method of convincing people there view is correct. We have a num of Guaranteed Fundie post from Rapture Ready that do that.
So, I admit there may be context that indicates lack of fundieness. But just because the post is phrased as a question doesn't mean it's not an accurate depcition of yuri's beliefs.
If the car wreck had omnivorous beings inside, as an observance of their dentition would reveal, then yes, I would see they were humans and rescue them, being a humanist myself. I would not be as compelled to rescue them if they were either carnivores like zombies or vegetarians like sheep.
If the car wreck had people inside who were serial killers/nazis/israili war criminals/ jihad extreemists/child molesters/etc (sic) then yes, I would rescue them because, as an atheist, I don't discriminate against religionists.
Karma? yuriythebest needs to karm down and stop his crazy fantasizing about hypothetical and exaggerated dream scenarios.
These are the type of questions that face anyone who is following a path that says not to harm any sentient being. The question itself is perfectly fine. I just hope the answer this person eventually arrives at is sensible (i.e. save the folks from the burning car, for cryin' out loud!) Buddhist teachings would say their karma will be the 'judge' (for want of a better term) for their actions. Saving them, on the other hand, would net you some good karma for your compassion and selfless action. Plus, as others have pointed out, how would you even know what they eat or what they are about to do in the future?
BTW - The Buddha did not die from 'stuffing his face with pork' implying that gluttony killed him. While different ideas of what actually killed him abound, the most accepted one is that there was something wrong with the pork he was served. It was not because he strapped on the ol' feedbag at the buffet table.
Well, personally, in case of serial killers / nazis (rather, people known to me with 100% certainty that they are serial killers / nazis) - I would lock the car to make sure they stay inside... Yet again, I don't care about karma, I just don't like serial killers and nazis.
And the likelihood of them being serial killers, pol pot, hitler, or Stalin versus them being ordinary humans with families is... what?
This is not about what kind of people they are, but what kind of person you are. Will you allow people to burn to death or do you rescue them without concern for your benefit?
Karma does not go to those who seek karma. Good must be done for its own sake, not for any thought of gain. Give of yourself and we all grow richer. Buddhism teaches this. Learn it.
The thing is, of course, that the people you save are in fact responsible for their own actions. Go ahead, save them.
In fact, if you're so concerned about them believing the way you do, you could use saving them as an excuse to introduce them to your religion.
You see a burning car wreck, you cal 9-1-1. Then, you see what you can do about the situation until the emergency guys get there.
Hello, reality. You can't judge who or what the people trapped in a car wreck are until they've been rescued and can be interviewed.
Prejudging without any facts just makes you an dumb asshole. Even if you knew anything, allowing someone to DIAF without doing something to help makes you worse than an asshole.
By the time you've finished considering all that, the people in the car will have burned to a crisp. In any case, if the people in the car were strangers, how would you know that they were meat eaters / terrorists / child molesters etc?
We can't possibly foresee and calculate every possible consequence of our every action. We just have to do what seems right at the time. Nobody can do more than that.
... by saving the people inside, in return have caused the deaths of the hundreds/thousands of cows/chickens/fish that they would consume throughout their remaining lifetime?
Has it ever occured to you that someone else might consume those animals?
Or lets take this a step further and exaggerate the situation even more, say the people inside are serial killers/nazis/israili war criminals/ jihad extreemists/child molesters/etc...
Most of those types of people can be rebilitated. Besides, by letting these people die, how does it make you any better?
the second example about the war criminals is a legit moral dilemma, but the meat-eater stuff is ridiculous.
Personally, I think it's wrong to let people suffer or die based on what they might do in the future.
@ #1029633: you win an internet. I couldn't agree more.
And, what if that act of being trapped in the car is the pivotal thing that makes said person inside re-think their life? If you let them die, then they can't ever change.
Furthermore, what someone eats should in no way affect their rescue. Seriously, that is the most petty thing I've ever heard. Don't be stupid.
And you could tell the people in the burning are meat eaters how? They good while they are cooking?
Do you fundies spend all your time coming up with bullshit like this, instead of actually doing anything? Get a frigging LIFE!
Inside the burning car are Bush, Cheney, and Rush Limbaugh. You have a cell phone, a bucket of water and a loaded revolver.
Do you shoot them each or Bush 6 times?
And how many times should you reload?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.