Philosophical Vegan Forum

PsYcHo wrote: Is it always informed consent? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4c_wI6kQyE .

I remember that. And how they use cigarettes as medicine, it's terrible. That's a great example of it not being informed consent.

I would say the informed consent thing mainly goes for Westerners. North America, Europe, Australia, and more developed Asian and African countries where public information about the dangers of smoking is available. That's also why it's so critical that health warnings be displayed clearly on cigarette packages in all relevant local languages.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It might be clearer to call it negligent suicide

This is an interesting read (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3750741?seq ... b_contents).
You have to create an account to read it for free online, but it's quick and easy.

brimstoneSalad wrote:...we could also be wrong in calling the suffering animals experience at the hands of humans "torture", since torture is causing pain to another to certain ends (as punishment, to extract information, or compel behavior).

That's a good point.

brimstoneSalad wrote:They're not forced into it, they choose it as a way to maximize damage (and get a reward).

Surely there'd be incidents where children are forced/threatened into "suicide" bombing by their leader, despite not actually wanting to do die. If this were the case, it technically wouldn't be suicide, however, it would still be a suicide bombing since a "suicide" and a "suicide bombing" hold different meanings.

There's a noteworthy part in that link (above) which looks into sacrificial suicide.

ThinkAboutThis wrote:In the quote tag, you add ="ThinkAboutThis"

Cheers.

ThinkAboutThis wrote: Surely there'd be incidents where children are forced/threatened into "suicide" bombing by their leader, despite not actually wanting to do die. If this were the case, it technically wouldn't be suicide, however, it would still be a suicide bombing since a "suicide" and a "suicide bombing" hold different meanings.

They may be told it's the only way to please Allah and go to heaven.

An important distinction in suicide bombings (at least Islamic ones), is that they have been lied to -- told Islam is correct, and that the interpretation that encourages them to commit violent Jihad is the correct one.

There's no way to give informed consent if one is improperly informed. But how often is suicide really well informed?

I'd say information is relative to the morality of it, but it still may be classified suicide even if it's based on misinformation or delusion.

Considering that cigarettes are tested on animals, discouraging smoking is the better choice. Also, I don't think encouraging people to kill themselves because they aren't vegan is an ethical thing to do.

Sawyer wrote:I don't think encouraging people to kill themselves because they aren't vegan is an ethical thing to do.

Interesting question. In any case, I don't think there wouldn't be anything unethical about remaining neutral, i.e. letting the non-vegan kill him/herself without intervening although intervention may have saved them.

Jebus wrote:

Sawyer wrote:I don't think encouraging people to kill themselves because they aren't vegan is an ethical thing to do.

Interesting question. In any case, I don't think there wouldn't be anything unethical about remaining neutral, i.e. letting the non-vegan kill him/herself without intervening although intervention may have saved them.

Remaining neutral could be sound. Like not intervening in somebody trying to jump off a bridge. It could be argued it's that person's choice. Unless, of course, that person didn't know doing that would be dangerous.

There may be something to said for a simple "I won't bother you again about this, but I just want to make sure you're as informed as you want to be about the possible dangers of smoking".