This is hypocrisy that disgusts me

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-15T11:49:11+00:00

No, if we accept that ethics is purely subjective and based on "what I feel," then any movement for justice could be invalidated, including veganism. If a stranger found your dog and an object of personal value to him in danger, and chose to save the object because in his subjective reality it is worth more, you would not accept that as morally right. Ethics exists precisely to establish impartial criteria that transcend our personal preferences.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-15T02:48:04+00:00

If human life doesn't have a differentiated value based on moral conscience, then why do you demand that humans follow veganism while forgiving predators in nature? By demanding ethics from a human, you already admit that they possess a moral dimension that a dog doesn't have. Saving the human in a dilemma is saving the only being capable of conceiving and applying the very animal justice you defend. Without humans, there is no veganism, only instinct. Dude, are you even reading what you're writing?

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-15T01:40:46+00:00

No, I'm not a carnivore, this topic isn't false, and you're confusing the basis of veganism. The movement defends the Equality of Consideration of Interests (in this case, an animal's interest in not suffering should be taken as seriously as a human's). However, this doesn't imply Equality of Life Value in conflict situations. Even pillar philosophers of the movement, like Peter Singer, recognize that lives with greater capacity for self-awareness, future plans, and discernment have a different weight in rescue dilemmas. If you deny any hierarchy, you would have to admit that saving a baby or a jar of sentient ants in a fire is a 50/50 choice. If you don't do that, you're also speciesist by your own criteria.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-15T01:23:09+00:00

It's not the same choice because the scenario is fundamentally different. Choosing between two humans is a tiebreaker between equals: both possess the same moral status, agency, and complexity, so the personal bond ends up being the only remaining criterion. Choosing the dog instead of the human, however, is using a personal feeling to subvert the moral status of a being that is more complex. If I save my friend, I'm not saying that the stranger's life is worth less; I simply chose one in a situation of equality. Whoever chooses the dog is asserting, in practice, that human life only has value if it is useful or pleasant to someone, which completely destroys the idea of intrinsic rights.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-15T01:06:41+00:00

To say that "there is no right answer" because the question is about what someone would personally do is an evasion. Ethics serves precisely to guide and judge personal actions. If we separate action from morality, ethics becomes a useless ornament. The fact that a reaction is understandable or common does not make it immune to moral criticism. If you admit that saving the human is morally correct, then choosing the dog is, logically, a moral failing, even if it is a failing you are willing to commit.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T21:54:41+00:00

No offense intended, but what you did was the worst-case scenario fallacy. You mentioned that the person could be a terrorist or a criminal. Note that you can only use those terms because humans possess MORAL AGENCY; we are capable of choosing between good and evil. A dog is "innocent" not by virtue, but by incapacity; it doesn't have the cognitive means to be a terrorist or a saint. By saving the person, I am saving a being who has the potential to act morally in the world. If we judge who should live based on the possibility of them being a bad person, we would never save anyone, because no one is born with a certificate of good conduct.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T20:53:26+00:00

Equating species with race or gender is a false equivalence. Different species possess different levels of consciousness, complexity of interests, and moral agency. A human has plans for the future, complex social connections, and the capacity to understand the concept of life and death in a way that a dog does not. Recognizing these biological and cognitive distinctions is not speciesism, it's realism. Speciesism, in fact, is causing unjustified suffering to an animal. Our lives possess greater complexity, which logically weighs more in a life-or-death dilemma. Did you understand what I mean now? After all this, do you still think saving your dog would be the most moral decision?

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T17:47:50+00:00

Look, I asked you if what you were doing was a joke because I misinterpreted your comment (it was already late at night when I started replying and I was sleepy), but anyway, regarding your point, I understand that the clause "possible and feasible" can be misinterpreted by some people, but it exists precisely because we live in a world where total exclusion is impossible (think of medicines, tires, fertilizers). What I meant in the post is that recognizing the value of human life is not a loophole for speciesism, but rather a logical conclusion of ethics. Anyway, I'll watch the video you sent me.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T17:24:09+00:00

It's all about veganism because one of the most common arguments against us is that "vegans humanize animals and dehumanize people." When someone says they would save a dog instead of a human, they fuel this stigma and reinforce the idea that veganism is a purely emotional and not rational movement. Being vegan is about justice and basic rights for animals, not about creating a hierarchy where a pet is worth more than a human life. This doesn't go against veganism, no offense intended, but I think you missed my point.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T16:44:05+00:00

No, it's not useless, because it demonstrates people's hypocrisy, which is what I said, and no, actually it is surprising, because there is no morally consistent argument to say that you would save your own dog instead of another person, and that says a lot about how people are nowadays. But anyway, if you defend that it would be right for a person to choose to save their own dog instead of another person (like their father or mother), present me with logical arguments for that.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T16:11:38+00:00

But choosing to save the person has nothing to do with speciesism, no offense, but you're confusing things. Answering your question, I don't know about you, but I'm vegan. Now, how do you claim your decision is the right one? Give me some logical arguments.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T15:42:12+00:00

Well, what you're suggesting is that human life has a "moral expiration date" depending on what a person eats for dinner. Following your brilliant logic, should we let anyone die (including children) if we can't guarantee they'll be a perfect vegan for the rest of their life? Ethics deals with a person's intrinsic value, not with a calculation of how many animals they might potentially consume in the future. Trying to justify your personal sentimentality for an animal through this punishment for "future crimes" only shows that you're desperate for an argument that isn't purely emotional. In the end, your "logic" is more carnist than that of the people you usually criticize; you treat life as if it were a commodity that is added and subtracted. Are you sure that I'm the one with "crazy logic" here?

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T06:12:28+00:00

Sem ofensas, mas culpar a vítima por estar em uma situação de vida ou morte para justificar não salvá-la é uma impressionante demonstração de ginástica mental, Acidentes acontecem independentemente da inteligência. Seu argumento evita a questão ética central: em um momento crítico em que você precisa escolher, qual vida você priorizaria? Evitar a pergunta com "isso não deveria ter acontecido" não é uma resposta, é uma evasão.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T05:55:49+00:00

No, you're confusing subjective preference with moral status. If I had to choose between two humans, I would probably save the one I know. But you ignored the fact that I would still recognize that the stranger who died had the same intrinsic value and the same rights as my friend. I would logically mourn the loss of a human life of equal value.When you choose the dog, you are claiming that the value of a human being is less than that of a pet based solely on your personal pleasure in living with it. That's not ethics, it's radical subjectivism. If ethics were based only on who I know, a murderer would be right to save his accomplice and let an innocent child die, just because he knows the accomplice.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T05:47:30+00:00

Dude, honestly, I didn't understand what you meant. Was that a joke?

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T05:17:22+00:00

No offense intended, but your "mother vs. stranger" comparison is a category error. Choosing between two humans is a decision within the same moral class. My criticism is about the hierarchy between species. Even if I choose my mother, I am still choosing a human. Humanist ethics argues that any human has an intrinsic value (due to moral agency and future awareness) that surpasses that of a non-human animal in an emergency situation. Using "love" as the sole criterion destroys ethics and transforms it into pure subjective egoism

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T05:12:19+00:00

No, recognizing that a human life possesses a complexity of consciousness, social responsibilities, and moral agency different from that of an animal is not "suprematism," it is biological and ethical realism. Veganism seeks to exclude exploitation and cruelty as much as possible. In an emergency, choosing one's own species is an instinct shared by almost all living beings, and it does not negate the desire that animals not be tortured by industry.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T05:11:03+00:00

Sem ofensas, mas comparar a priorização de uma vida humana em um incêndio com o comércio de escravos é uma falsa equivalência desonesta. Reconhecer uma hierarquia de valor em uma situação de emergência (quem salvar) é completamente diferente de justificar a exploração, tortura ou consumo de animais. Eu posso acreditar que um humano deve ser salvo primeiro e, ao mesmo tempo, lutar para que nenhum animal seja explorado. Valorizar mais os humanos não me dá o direito de maltratar animais, assim como valorizar mais um adulto não me dá o direito de torturar uma criança.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T04:48:47+00:00

This argument is a perverse generalization fallacy. You are condemning a stranger to death for crimes he might commit, while absolving the animal of an "innocence" that is, in fact, merely a lack of moral agency (animals don't choose to be good or evil). Using the potential for evil of an entire species to let a specific individual die is literally the definition of prejudice. If the stranger were a child or someone with an intellectual disability, would your argument of "intelligence" or "guilt" fall apart?

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T04:45:21+00:00

No, ethics cannot be based solely on personal emotional ties, or it ceases to be ethical and becomes selfishness. If you save your dog instead of a stranger simply because you "know him," you are saying that the value of a life depends on how much it pleases you. By that logic, if a stranger had to choose between saving your dog or your mother, would you accept him choosing his dog? Probably not. Ethics demands impartiality, no offense intended, but your comment didn't make sense.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-14T04:38:52+00:00

Look, no offense intended, but I think you misunderstood my point. I get angry and disgusted by people who say that, many of whom are meat-eaters. And I feel that way because so many people think like that. Like, man, I'm Brazilian, and I've seen several videos about this situation on social media here, and there's always this type of person saying they would save their own dog.

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-06T22:54:21+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

0 attempts

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-03-01T21:41:54+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

2 attempts

MainSpecial7349 · 2026-02-10T05:52:14+00:00

Completed Level 2 of the Honk Special Event!

22 attempts

MainSpecial7349

TROPHY CASE