Philosophical Vegan Forum

I just read this article here ( http://jalopnik.com/woman-who-caused-fa ... 1594820674 ) and I wanted to see your thoughts. While I don't think the women was smart to pull over on the left lane (as that is the passing lane here in Canada), her compassionate actions resulted in the death of motorcyclists.

I inherently see a few issues with this:
1) if the women had pulled over to help a wondering senior or child, and caused a fatal accident, I can't imagine her getting punished, so the issue seems that she risked humans to save non-humans (i.e. speciesism)
2) the motorcyclists were going 70-80mph (in a 55 mph area), and so they in some way (perhaps largely) participated in their own demise.

What do you think, does the women who got out of her car to save ducks deserve to spend 14 years in jail?

I voted for 2nd...
what she did was wrong. parking on the left side of a highway? she mad? i mean yes do everything you can to save animals... as long as its not crazy! she could have tried to.... drive slower and go on the right side or whatever but to stop on a highway is never an option... maybe 2-3 years or social hours... im not really into that but she should be punished for the pure stupidity! (even though she might be punished enough by knowing shes the one who killed two other humans!)

Viktorius_the_Third wrote:I voted for 2nd...
what she did was wrong. parking on the left side of a highway? she mad? i mean yes do everything you can to save animals... as long as its not crazy! she could have tried to.... drive slower and go on the right side or whatever but to stop on a highway is never an option... maybe 2-3 years or social hours... im not really into that but she should be punished for the pure stupidity! (even though she might be punished enough by knowing shes the one who killed two other humans!)

would you feel the same if instead of ducks she had pulled over to help a senior with dementia, or a crawling infant?

TheVeganAtheist wrote:

Viktorius_the_Third wrote:I voted for 2nd...
what she did was wrong. parking on the left side of a highway? she mad? i mean yes do everything you can to save animals... as long as its not crazy! she could have tried to.... drive slower and go on the right side or whatever but to stop on a highway is never an option... maybe 2-3 years or social hours... im not really into that but she should be punished for the pure stupidity! (even though she might be punished enough by knowing shes the one who killed two other humans!)

would you feel the same if instead of ducks she had pulled over to help a senior with dementia, or a crawling infant?

nope. dont put me in that category please (<--- rational vegan atheist) i do value the life of a human a little higher than other species but in general i am very rational and aware of what im saying. and even if it would be a lost child or whatever! she has to follow the rules because she puts everyone else on that road in danger! i dont know the situation exactly as i wasn't there but as i said:
there must have been an other way than to stop midway on a highspeed road! maybe (or even probably) it was just instinct or reaction... but still


i love this "dilemma" (quotationmarks because i think its pretty easy to solve with my philosophy):
if a try has lost control over the breaks and it is heading for 5 middle aged men. there is a lever that you can pull to get it on another railroad but there stands one fat human. would you pull the lever to save the five?
PLEASE answer this one before reading the next one. would you yes or no?

second dilemma: the train again is heading for the five men. this time you are standing on a bridge with no way to stop the train. but next to you is the same fat guy from the first dilemma (which youve probably killed). if you push him down the bridge he will fall in front of the train and stop it, but will obviously be killed. will you push him?
PLEASE answer this one honestly even you may know what im appealing to.
nearly 95% of all humans asked those two questions answer the same way: they pull the lever, but they do not push the guy!
why? because pulling the lever is like eating meat. its passive. you dont do anything... (in your head) by pushing the fat guy you ACTIVLY kill the animal that you want to eat.

my answer is very basic: do not interfere! you may not have helped those five but they have been at the wrong time to the wrong place. but by pushing the fat one (or pulling the lever) you ACTIVLY kill a human beeing and you are fully responsible for his death!

same with the car accident:
by stopping the car you have activly killed those two. she would have to try and think of another way to save them!

i hope you could follow me and my (sometimes) crazy thoughts ^^

Viktorius_the_Third wrote:same with the car accident:
by stopping the car you have activly killed those two. she would have to try and think of another way to save them!

That's incorrect. She didn't know what would have happened. She didn't see those 2 people coming, and purposely kill them.
Besides, it was really stupid of her to do such a thing. Parking in the highway? What was she thinking?

thebestofenergy wrote:

Viktorius_the_Third wrote:same with the car accident:
by stopping the car you have activly killed those two. she would have to try and think of another way to save them!

That's incorrect. She didn't know what would have happened. She didn't see those 2 people coming, and purposely kill them.
Besides, it was really stupid of her to do such a thing. Parking in the highway? What was she thinking?

but the propability on a highway... i mean cmon... thats like saying if you throw rocks down a bridge and hit someone who died... that wasnt murder! you couldnt know that exactly in this moment someone would drive under the bridge...

Viktorius_the_Third wrote: but the propability on a highway... i mean cmon... thats like saying if you throw rocks down a bridge and hit someone who died... that wasnt murder! you couldnt know that exactly in this moment someone would drive under the bridge...

It isn't murder. Murder involves intent. That would be reckless manslaughter.

However, paying somebody to kill another person for you is murder- which is the parallel to buying/eating meat.

It's just crazy if she's going to jail for 14 years for this. Yes, she made a mistake by pulling over to the left lane, but I don't think you deserve to be punished this hard for making a mistake that had good intentions. I think she won't do this ever again because of the tragedy, so punishment doesn't seem to be necessary at all.

The motorcyclists should be able to stop, and made themselves a big mistake (with intent) by going too fast. I don't know much about the situation, but you should always be able to stop if the one before you does. But maybe that wasn't possible at all, I don't know about that.

I agree with your issues.

@Viktorius_the_Third
I find your solution to the Trolley-problem pretty weak actually. You seem to be more concerned with the law than morality.

Volenta wrote: @Viktorius_the_Third
I find your solution to the Trolley-problem pretty weak actually. You seem to be more concerned with the law than morality.

That's a complicated matter.

Inaction is a prescription of deontology, wherein any wrong (no matter how minor) can not be excused regardless of the good ends it achieves. A deontologist could not pull the lever to kill one man instead of a billion.

Of course, deontology is inherently flawed- but I think that's where he's coming from.

But, inaction is not without some precedent in consequentialism either- although it only comes up in the context of incomplete knowledge (if you don't know which action is right or wrong, there is good argument to abstain from acting/intervening against the default situation unless the situation is more evident- the trolley case is supposed to be straight forward, but it isn't necessarily), and within social context (which is not morality itself, but which is relevant to morality through consequence).


Viktorius, can you clarify where that is coming from for us?

@Volenta:
haha actually i dont really care about any laws! I think you should be able to break any laws, but you have to face the consequences! As i stated in another thread. I will try to not harm any other beeing. While harm is for me really something dmging! to steal 1000 dollar from a billionaire isnt dmging! as well as to steal one bread from a normal man! its hard to say where its dmging and where its not. but to come back to the topic:
i didnt mean to be "fully responisble" by law but morally!
If a spider dies outside, because i didnt open a door to let her in, that is not my problem. But as soon as ive opened the door and she got in, i am fully responisble for her. if she dies of old age or behind a table or something im not... i have to see her to know of her existence. but as soon as i see her and i dont try to get her out, ive killed her. and i feel wrong everytime and i try to help them all, but ive got a balcony and everytime i open that door theres a high propability of a spider getting in

i dont go after strict rules in my life! and of cause i will safe 100 babies even if i have to kill an old man... or whatever! but its often not as easy as that! and to not dmg anyone is something i get around pretty well