@ Cirion and ThatNerdyScienceGirl: Sorry for my late responses. I didn't see them until today. From now on I'll look at my "Notifications" to see if someone replied to me.
@Cirion:
Cirion Spellbinder wrote:It's wrong to videotape someone's death or photograph their corpse to promote veganism because it can cause harm to their family, friends, and the vegan movement. Family and friends will have to mourn for longer due to this event and may face depression.
Yes, I agree, that this may result from filming the family member's death, and even more so by publishing it online. Therefore I would not do so and would generally deem it unwise for others to do so as well, even if they're sincere about doing so to promote a worthy cause. If the harm exceeds the benefit then it is ultimately unethical.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote:The vegan movement will lose credibility because most consider actions like these detestable. Turning more people away from veganism will lead to more unnecessary death and suffering. Thus, video taping the deaths of humans or photographing their corpses to prove a point will have a harmful impact and by extension be considered "wrong".
While I think this is true, it bothers me that the action (of filming a death) being unethical is based (mostly) upon the fact that many people deem it unethical. Essentially, it's wrong to do so because others deem it wrong.
If the filmer is unable* to save the dying family member, and films the death to promote a worthy cause, then why do people find it so "detestable"?
How is the act of filming actually bad for the person dying (unless they have explicitly stated that they don't want this to happen, which isn't necessarily the case)
? This is what I really want to know. Why the act of filming does wrong by (specifically) the person dying.
For those who deem it "detestable", their explanation of why, is either "It's wrong because it's wrong" (circular logic), "It's wrong because
others deem it wrong (which doesn't explain why
those people deem it wrong)", or some kind of appeal to emotion.
Just to be clear, I understand why (in most circumstances) this action is unwise (because of the results you described). However,
my point is that I don't think that this action always involves wrongdoing towards the person who's actually dying, and I'd like to know why others do think that it's always wrong.
Hypothetically, if I was dying because of some avoidable malady, and
I gave permission to someone nearby to film my death (and publicize it; for the sake of educating others of the danger), would the filming then be deemed morally acceptable by most people? Is this explicit permission what's necessary? Perhaps by default we should assume that filming a person's death goes against their wishes, and thus is unethical? This however would not demonstrate that filming a family member's death is inherently unethical, 100% of the time.
*This was the case with VG and his grandfather. VG performed CPR upon him, until he was told by paramedics to stop. He then started filming.
@ThatNerdyScienceGirl:
ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:I stopped reading here.
I wish that you hadn't stopped. Reading further after an offensive question of mine might help you better understand why I asked it, or why I don't necessarily hold the views that others do. Additionally, if you had continued reading, you would have seen these comments of mine:
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:I think it's obvious to most people who promote any social justice movement(s) that using ad-hominems against the opposition is an ineffective tactic. Vegans ought to provide rational explanations of why nonvegans' actions towards animals are unethical, without criticizing their character.
One can definitely explain why it's unethical to deny blacks/homosexuals the same respect & legal rights as whites/heterosexuals, without condemning the character of racists/homophobes (which would make them defensive and outraged). Same thing with the vegan movement.
Similarly, I imagine that you can explain to me (you haven't yet) why filming a family member's death does wrong to them, without making derogatory comments about my character.
ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:If you can't understand why, go seek help.
You mean psychiatric help? This is a condemnation of my mental health (or maybe just my character), but not a sufficient answer to any of the questions I asked you. Nor an answer at all for that matter. I'm not bothered by your insult, but I am disappointed by your lack of a substantial reply. I also posed for you some questions (mostly about Freelee) that were
before the particular question of mine that you couldn't bear to read past. You didn't address those either.
ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:I just saw a cat on my way home that was run over by a car.
I'm sorry to hear that. Mostly for the cat, but also for you for having to witness that.
ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:No, I did not take a picture of it so I can claim why cats are stupid and should not run in the streets.
That's not a good analogy. I was discussing the morality of filming & publicizing an avoidable death, so that the filmer can use it to educate others on a danger & how to avoid it. Not to mock the victim as being "stupid".
ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:Use your brain, honey.
Please stop using ad-hominems.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
