A few people have been labelling those providing arguments against organ donation as extremists. This does absolutely nothing to diminish any case of any argument from any side. People everywhere call vegans extremist, but this does not diminish any argument for it, so why should it be applied here? Let's stop the smearing, and concentrate on the arguments.
Chewie, you've often been repeating that donated organs could potentially save a pedophile or murderer, but this does not stop us from giving organs, so why should being a meat eater stop us? Well, let's take a look at probabilities. The probability that your organ goes to a murderer or pedophile is incredibly small, and most definitely not enough to base an entire moral decision in all cases on such a small possibility. On the other hand, the probability it goes to a meat eater is so incredibly high it's almost certain. That's why the possible saved pedophile argument fails.
Now as for Chewie saying "You're not a higher person than a meat eater for not eating meat, and the life of a meat eater is not less important. I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation to be honest.", you're missing the point. The life of the meat eater them self is no less important then my own, I agree completely with you. But what I am asking you is: Is the life of a potential (but highly probable) 800+ animals worth less then the one meat eater? If yes, I don't understand why you're vegan. If no, what could warrant such a exception? We don't just make ethical decisions by looking at the immediate effects of our actions, we must also analyse the repercussions of those actions in themselves!
To the people asking whether it would then be moral to give blood, well it's the exact same argument, so it depends on which side of the debate you're on. If you're on the 'organ donations to meat eaters aren't ethical' side, well then that rules out donating blood as well.
I must remind people that I have provided a counter argument to this though, which argues that not donating organs will lower peoples perception of veganism in the general public, thereby lowering the probability people will go vegan in the long term future. Hedwig touched on this thread earlier when she said "I'm not going to force everyone I know to stop eating meat," realising that militant proselytizing actually makes people resent vegans even more, and is in the end self defeating.
It's self righteous that someone refuses to save a human life solely on the fact that they may eat meat.
You're continual use of the word 'may' makes it sound like the probability is not high at all. Let me remind you that we are an EXTREMELY small part of the population. I could just as easily say: "It's speciesm that someone refuses to refrain from donating organs solely for the fact that one human life is at stake."
Actually, if you read through this thread again, you'll find numerous reasons given by numerous people as to why you shouldn't not donate your organs on the chance it will be given to save someone who eats meat. Just because someone thinks they should save a meat eater doesn't mean they're fine with suffering, either.
No, it doesn't, but we're trying to show you're contradicting yourself, because saving a meat eater results in more suffering.
So how far does this go? Vegans and vegetarians can still buy clothes made in sweat shops, hit people with their cars, eat at KFC, join the army, support war and genocide, etc. Would one have to fill out some sort of a questionnaire in order to be considered worthy enough to be saved?
I think a key word in the this is 'can.' Just because they have the capacity to do something it doesn't necessarily commit them to doing it. Yes, as a 'vegan' you are free to lie, cheat and steal from other humans, but as an 'ethical person' who is a vegan because of that, then you don't do those things because they're unethical.
I'll say on the subject of pacifism that I don't think it results in the least possible suffering in each and every case of possible intervention.
One person dying because a vegan didn't want them to have their organ causes significant suffering. Suffering for them, suffering for the life of their unborn child their now widowed wife has in their womb, suffering for their also sick mother or family who relied on them financially, suffering for their community, etc. It's a matter of preventing the most suffering possible. Simple equation. Prevent the most suffering possible.
And one meat eater living because an organ was given to them causes a lot more suffering then if they were to die, because of the great amount of funding they provide for the torture and death of animals.
If I can't see past human suffering why am I vegan? I just believe it's wrong to let people die because they don't live the same lifestyle as you do. Also that people should be given a chance to change.
But why are you vegan if you place more importance on the annihilation of human suffering then animal suffering in certain cases? It's not a simple case of lifestyle, it's of the consequences of a particular lifestyle's actions. Just because someone may be happy to see a serial killer accidentally die it doesn't mean they hate people with different lifestyles. Yes they should be given a chance to change, but when the system's designed so that there is minimal contact between parties, almost anonymous, etc. then there is a very small probability of change, not enough to have a moral argument based on.
