[joey m]

Jerry,

This is getting really fun! I love your posts, and I love these sort of philosophical discussions. IT is a win/win because even if we don't end up agreeing on each point in the end, we will have both explored our own philosophies more deeply.

I am an expert on health and fitness, but am just an enthusiast of the philosophical components -- but I love to explore these areas as well.

I am still a touch confused by the argument you made that

I do however maintain that for anyone to equate animal suffering to the Holocaust means that that person must be dedicated 100% in their life to solving problems of humans, or else it is an empty argument.

I do understand the human desire to care more for humans than for other species -- much as other species have a tendency (although not always) to care more for their own than for other species. This certainly seems to be a Darwinian type of survival mechanism. But, I do know of many people who would say they care more deeply for animals than for humans. Take for instance Jane Goodall -- if she were put in the situation of defending the life of one of her gorillas versus a human, who do you think she would choose? I am not sure of the answer here, but I think this would be a very difficult decision for her. Would Jane Goodall's life's work be "empty" because she doesn't simultaneously concern herself with solving the problems of humans?

I certainly understand the point that you care more for the relatives that you will never know than the unnamed animals, but isn't that just normal? If you had a dog that you loved, and it died, wouldn't you also be more upset by that than you would be about hearing on the news that some random person died whom you never knew?

It is hard for us to feel compassion on such a grand scale for animals or humans we don't know personally. For me, I never related much to how horrible it was when kids are reported kidnapped on the news until I had my first baby. Now, I am torn up inside everytime I hear about something like this. It is a good thing you are aware of your limits for compassion and are working on them. I am too. My wife, however, feels this stuff more naturally where it doesn't necessarily comes as easily to me.

I'll pose this question, and I'm curious to hear your answer because I can tell you've thought a lot more about this than I have and this is the first time I'm really articulating this. If a non-meat-eating person is going to say that the rest of humanity who eats meat are metaphorically murdering Nazis, but then that same person fails to stop the actual murder of actual humans in actual Nazi fashion that is going on right now in our immediate world, what does that say about the moral system of that person? Is that not a de facto declaration that the desire to protect animals who are being eaten for meat is at least equal, if not morally higher, than the protection of humans being killed for sport or bizarre religious/racial issues?

Good question! I am not sure it actually says much about the moral system of that person either positively or negatively. It is certainly not a de facto declaration that they care more for animals than protecting people. Every day each of us has to eat -- it is really not optional. Vegans simply choose not to engage in the part of the food chain that causes the most suffering of animals. Again, this sort of awareness and discipline is to be applauded. But, because a vegan makes this choice while others do not, are they then required to also be more humanitarian than the average Joe? I don't think so. A vegan should not be held to a higher standard than anyone else.

Further, people only have so much time in their day, and must prioritize. Often, spending time with family and/or making a living take the top spot. This, for many, can take up a vast preponderance of their time. Somewhere down the road is doing public service of some sort, and there is limited time. If people feel their passion is strongest for helping animals, they should not be condemmed for then not spending even more of their limited free time to help out in humanitarian causes. Unfortunately, there are so many plights to go around right now that any time people volunteer should be applauded. We should not be telling these people that the cause they have chosen is not as worthwhile as this other, and you are being a bit hypocritical for trying to get people to pay attention to your cause when my cause is so much "Better."

The choice indicates what you think is most deserving of your passion and energy.

Yes and no. Some people may just feel they are better equipped to help with animals than they are with humans. Maybe they have feral kittens in their basement, and so get caught up in that and learn to love doing it. Whereas tackling AIDS in Africa seems a bit out of their league. And again, doing public service is optional, but eating is not. Vegans simply use the opportunity to cause less harm.

Let me pose another question. If you had a gun, and you saw a tiger attack a human for no reason, would you kill the tiger and save the human? I would assume yes?

Same situation, you have a gun, but now you happen to stroll out back of a circus tent and you see an animal trainer whipping a tiger until it bleeds to teach it how to do a trick. Would you shoot the trainer and save the tiger?

I love and hate these questions at the same time. The answer to the first question is if I saw anyone attacking anything for no reason I would tend to want to help the victim. If, though, the person was a hunter, and the tiger attacked him, I would likely not be willing to help the person because, as far as I am concerned, they assumed the risk.

But, in the situation you gave, I would likely kill the tiger with a very heavy heart.

The second question is not quite analogous to the first. Let's assume instead that the trainer was whipping the tiger to death. I don't know that I would shoot the trainer, but I would certainly do everything I could to stop the trainer and protect the tiger. There are other considerations here that I would not need to consider with the first example (e.g. if I kill the trainer, I would no doubt be labelled a murderer and spend a good deal of time in jail. Also, I could reason with the trainer, whereas I would not be able to reason with the tiger in the first example).

Another one of these questions I have often asked was if there was a flood, and I had time to save only one or the other, who would I save -- my dog, or some human I don't know? I have never been fully satisfied with my answer to this question. I guess if it were an older person, I would tend to save my dog -- whereas if it were a defenseless child, I would likely save the child. Horrible question -- but it at least shows me that while I have a tendency to value human lives over those of other animals, that tendency doesn't always hold true.

Best,
Joey