Let us imagine that every action is denoted by a force vector acting on a system simplified as a mathematical point. Every action you take, in any direction, applies a force of magnitude > 0. Inaction does not apply any force vector.

The two are fundamentally different. It's much the same as belief vs disbelief...we place the burden of proof on the claimant for a reason, and that reason is that a claim and the lack of a claim are not the same. A thing and a lack of a thing are not the same.

Hey, Sam Hyde

Inaction with regards to a particular system still necessitates action in some other system. There's no such thing as global inaction for a human. E.g. if you're not donating money to buy mosquito nets, you're still performing some other action instead.

On a related note, are you suggesting that the morality of a decision should not be determined by the consequences of that decision?

This post was edited by Voyaging on Mar 24 2016 03:15am

You would be wrong. You might be surprised by this, but your personal experiences are not universally applicable.

This post was edited by Skinned on Mar 24 2016 05:05am

You can't do a moral good on accident. You can do something that is consequentially good on accident, but you can't be moral by mistake. You can't plan on doing some evil and accidentally accomplish some good and claim to be moral.

Also you can't do other utilitarian things like murder homeless people in the name of medical research so that you can cure diseases for the multitudes. These things are morally repugnant, for deontological reasons.

I live in the middle of a city, I have no garden and am not permitted to go on the roof of the building.
I do grow my own tomatos and some peppers in a veranda-like room.
I go out of my way to buy fresh produce from a farmers collective that's active here.

It's not perfect, but it's the best I can do with the funds at my disposal. Why would I forgo all that in favor of just participating again in the meat-industry?

And again, as I said before, your argument is faulty.

Small animals that inadvertently get trapped and killed by agricultural machinery is not by intent of the farmers, it's sad and should be prevented wherever possible. It's another thing entirely to equate or even compare it to factory farming.

(I'm vegetarian, not vegan though).

...this is never a justification .

The truth is that anti-meaters as a rule place greater moral value on larger animals than smaller ones , cute ones over not so cute ones but to me it's a glaring contradiction to accept the slaughter of rabbits just because it's unintentional . And really now , how unintentional is it in actuality . The farmer , when he fires up the harvester , knows full well what is going to happen . The truth is that the slaughter of smaller mammals is more acceptable than the slaughter of cows and a large part of that is because it goes unseen .

I've noticed multiple related topics like this from the op. You aren't fond of overweight people are you? 0.o

This post was edited by obisent on Mar 24 2016 06:48am

Most humans aren't.

It sounds like the tolerance crowd gets to pick and choose who is part of their circle.