Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Vegetarians - Eat a chicken to save a chicken

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

Kre

I'm not a vegetarian, I'd eat the plate of chicken and save the other one for later. :colone:

Reply 41

EmmaBxoxo

Original post by Tootles

Killing* a person to save another could be an admirable act, depending on the situation. Though I'd probably kill myself instead; I'd rather have to account for my own soul than for someone else's.

* I am aware you said eating, and that the two are different things.

But I'm assuming that the first chicken died naturally. In which case, even if I were a vegetarian (and for ethical reasons), eating the chicken that died naturally to prevent the death of (and potential cruelty towards) the second chicken would be the preferable course of action; you're preventing the unnecessary destruction of a life, and preventing something that your body can use from being wasted.

You are right, don't want to get into an argument

Reply 42

tazarooni89

Original post by DAS4793

A vegetarian and your question is bull****. Tell me what is the point in it? What are you trying to prove?

It's obvious isn't it? It ascertains whether a person has chosen to be vegetarian in order to minimise the number of animals killed, or for some other reason (they don't like the taste of meat, religious requirement, mere habit etc.)

For example, I'm not a vegetarian myself, but I don't eat pork due to religious reasons based on the uncleanliness of pigs. So if I would not a plate of pork, even if it were to save another pig.

Why is this kind of question anything to get annoyed about? :s-smilie:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 43

joker12345

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

There's no truly ethical solution to this problem, but it's irrelevant, because it's never going to happen.

Well, if seems that the most ethical solution is obviously to eat the chicken. If you don't, a chicken dies. If you do a chicken lives.

Reply 44

joker12345

Original post by DAS4793

A vegetarian and your question is bull****. Tell me what is the point in it? What are you trying to prove?

It's trying to ascertain whether vegetarianism truly is just for the benefit of animals or if there's other reasons behind it.

Reply 45

RocketCiaranJ

Original post by BitWindy

So you're against "cruelty" towards an insensible lump of flesh which at no point contained awareness approaching that of humans, and this aversion to necro-cruelty overrides similar sentiments towards the living chicken?

So intelligence should be directly proportional to the intensity of our empathy and compassion towards a being?

Reply 46

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by joker12345

Well, if seems that the most ethical solution is obviously to eat the chicken. If you don't, a chicken dies. If you do a chicken lives.

If I don't eat it, two chickens will be dead, and if I do, only one chicken will be dead. That may arguably be the more ethical option, but because a chicken has already been killed to bring us this conundrum, there isn't any perfectly ethical option.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 47

joker12345

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

Whether or not you eat it one chicken is dead, so that's not relevant. Like if a muderer is attacking and you can save someone or not, the ethical option is to save, you don't say it's still unethical because he's a murderer and has murdered before. You start from the point of the scenario, hence the choice between saving a chicken or letting it die.

Reply 48

Aisa

I'm vegetarian, and the though of eating meat is utterly repulsive to me, so irl I'm not sure I'd do it. It might depend on if it looked tasty. Also, would I have to eat the whole thing, or just a bit?

Ethically, I guess it would be right for me to eat the chicken to save the other one. If it was a person's life a stake, that's what I'd do, whether it involved eating a chicken or eating a person.

I'm not actually a vegetarian because I'm that bothered about animals. I mean, I'd probably avoid cosmetics tested on animals if I knew about them, and if I ate meat I'd prefer it to have been a fairly happy animal before it was killed, but I don't think I care any more about them than my brother does, and he eats meat.

Reply 49

Juichiro

Original post by BitWindy

In front of you is a plate of chicken.

If you do not eat this chicken, another chicken will be killed.

What do you do, and why?

The question is badly phrased. It should be: "Eat a chicken that is dead to save a chicken that is alive."

Reply 50

Juichiro

Original post by EmmaBxoxo

I don't but I won't ever eat meat. Nope not in my entire life. :cool:

I am sorry but if you have never eat a particular food you won't know if you like it. And I bet you 20 pints of beer that if you were left stranded in an island with nothing but chickens you would eventually eat at least a portion of one.

Reply 51

9DennyJ

Original post by BitWindy

In front of you is a plate of chicken.

If you do not eat this chicken, another chicken will be killed.

What do you do, and why?

I'd eat the chicken. I can't see why someone who is a vegetarian for ethical reasons wouldn't.

Reply 52

e aí rapaz

I don't think I would eat the chicken. The death of the second chicken would be on whoever was putting me into this bizarre situation, not me.

I would eat both.

Logic dictates that I eat the chicken to save the other chicken, otherwise two chickens have died instead of one. In reality, though, I doubt this scenario would ever play out, meaning that I can most likely continue to abstain from eating the flesh of another sentient being for the rest of my life.