I re-encountered this story tonight and have been thinking about a comment I saw on facebook or somewhere that represents the near-universal negative backlash PETA got: "They should just pay those poor people's water bills because it's the right thing to do!"
I am so confused.
Background: Detroit went bankrupt last year. One of the ways it decided to make back some money was to come down hard on people who had been using the city's water without paying for it (presumably because they really couldn't afford to, though I haven't actually researched that this is the case).
PETA, with its flair for no press is bad press, offered to pay the water bills of these people for any month in which they ate no meat, or something along those lines. Everyone, naturally, got mad at PETA.
Now, I can get why, sort of, people would be mad at PETA. If you view water as a human right, attaching strings to water is immoral. But let's examine that.
t=0 Detroit residents have no water, because the city government is finally trying to exercise fiscal restraint. The situation is, in a word, terrible.
t=1 PETA offers them water, with the caveat that they can't eat meat. [As an aside, meat is kinda expensive. So maybe this is a good sacrifice to make. Counterpoint, of course, that when you're poor is when you are least likely to have the luxury of thinking about what you eat every meal. And meat isn't that much pricier than comparable protein sources; sometimes it's cheaper.]
t=2 Everyone who has the luxury of being able to pay their water bill gets righteously angry on behalf of these poor Detroit residents. Most call for PETA to fuck off. If t=3 is PETA fucking off ... well, water bill still needs to be paid. Nothing has changed.
So I'm writing this at 4am, but it really baffles me. What I don't understand is what exactly is wrong with PETA's offer. It is not, despite what that angry quote above says, PETA's responsibility to pay anyone's water bill. It may be the government's responsibility to provide its citizens with water; that's another debate. But PETA does not enter into that equation. PETA's offer does not somehow remove water from Detroit citizens. At worst, it does no harm, does not change the status quo. At best, someone in Detroit -- maybe a couple of these poor water-users is already a vegetarian -- gets free water out of nowhere.
So, hubski, question: if PETA had never gotten involved, it would never have occurred to anyone on the planet that a controversial animal rights organization had a duty to pay someone's water bill. That is nonsensical. PETA creates what it sees as a win-win situation (and I'm inclined to agree that at the very least no one can lose); everyone gets mad at PETA. What am I missing?
EDIT: here is a sample article, and the caveat is actually vegan, not vegetarian. Which is a bit more complicated, but still worth the $145 water bill (?!) this woman wants paid.
Not vegetarian, vegan. As a vegetarian myself, I say this campaign is bullshit. Being vegan (and healthy) is expensive and time-consuming, more expensive than paying for water. It's cruel to dangle luxury morality consumerism in front of poor people who can't afford it as a test for assistance. Maybe you could do it cheaply for a month but if you kept eating like that you'd end up with vitamin or protein deficiency. I'm pretty enraged by conditional assistance anyway. Conditions that are modeled on what rich liberals like to pat themselves on the back for are doubly enraging. If it's truly a superior way, then make it financially feasible for everyone instead of paternalistically teasing a city of vulnerable people.
Vegetarian to vegan changes things a lot (and is kind of pointless -- the amount of people who would probably have tried to go vegetarian is a lot higher than those who would try vegan ... the net gain to animals is probably to ask people to go vegetarian). But the basic question is still there. I don't know what "paternalistically teasing a city of vulnerable people" means, but I can recognize the offering of a potential contract to be turned down or not. Presumably those who value being able to eat meat etc over paying their water bill will turn it down, and if there are people on the other side, they won't. You ignored my point: no one loses, assuming that PETA wasn't going to run around paying people's water bills to begin with. In other words, I guess I have absolutely no problem with conditional assistance (although in this case, veganism is a somewhat ridiculous condition -- I maintain that vegetarianism would be a fine one). EDIT: and being enraged by conditional assistance seems like something a rich liberal would say, though I know you aren't one. It's easy to be righteously angry, as I said above, when you've never had trouble paying your water bill.
I would say that in this case, the exact terms of the conditional assistance makes a difference. If the population that you're trying to get on board with veganism doesn't understand the shear challenge of maintaining a vegan diet, if the population has essential zero culture centered non-meat, non-dairy, non-fish-oil, non-honey foods, then you're going to see a lot of malnutrion-related sicknesses down the road. For the less-informed, the deal has the potential to do a lot of harm. Many would call that the condescending liberal attitude, but I'm of the opinion that it's simply not fair to expect people to understand the risks involved without the proper resources and knowledge base. Which PETA is certainly not providing in this scenario. (There is also the distinction that no one here is arguing that the assistance be made illegal, we're only debating the ethical (moral?) side of it)In other words, I guess I have absolutely no problem with conditional assistance (although in this case, veganism is a somewhat ridiculous condition -- I maintain that vegetarianism would be a fine one).
Good points. I will note that according to the article I dug up at the end of my post, PETA sent some sort of preparatory materials, which presumably include a list of vegan foods, some recipes, etc. No details given about that. You are all generally right that being vegan is almost impossible for someone who is poor, but even if the language said "vegetarian," I suspect you would still disagree on principle. That's what I'm trying to understand. True. I would like to register the opinion, which I haven't put enough thought into probably, that no voluntary contract can be immoral in the sense that you mean it. (That is, you can voluntarily contract to kill someone, which is immoral, but the immorality isn't in the contract, like everyone seems to be saying it is in this scenario, it's in the action.)(There is also the distinction that no one here is arguing that the assistance be made illegal, we're only debating the ethical (moral?) side of it)
I have less objections, veganism just gives me a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, since it's not for the faint of heart. I'll leave it to others to debate the topic of vegetarianism since it gets into more specifics (i.e. are the people lactose-intolerant) and I honestly don't know what side I would lean towards if that were the case.but even if the language said "vegetarian," I suspect you would still disagree on principle.
Vegan, vegetarian, hand jobs... Each misses the point. The point is that it is exploitative to say "I have tons of money. Take on my cause, and I'll make your problems disappear." Opportunism, war profiteering, etc., are always offensive, because they can be seen as taking advantage of the less fortunate to advance yourself. In this case the fact that they ostensibly want to advance the cause of animal suffering muddies the waters, because some people think their cause is a just one. Some people think that converting people to Christianity is a just cause. Would it have been appropriate for the Vatican to step up and say, "We'll make your water bill disappear every month that you come to church at least 6 times"? Could Sheldon Adelson say he'll pay the water bill of anyone who votes republican? We come from a nation of charitable people, and I think we should be proud of that. Most people who can afford to give some amount of charity do so, and those that do rarely ask for anything in return. It's part of our being to help the needy, so to dangle the carrot that's only available for a quid pro quo is inherently offensive, not offensive on the merit of the cause.
Wrote a long reply explaining why I disagreed with you, then decided I agreed with you anyways. I'm suddenly and strangely reminded of the dentistry programs targeting the subsidized poor, who over treat then over bill under the guise of helping those in need. Without them there would be a gap in aid, but you still wish they wouldn't be predatory in the process of being charitable...
Aye, being vegetarian is relatively easy: just don't eat meat, you can still get protein from any form of dairy, albeit with increased fat content. Being vegan means having to find substitutes every time you want to bake, cook, or buy anything from the store. I have a friend who's been a hardcore vegan for years and even she needs an app on her phone to filter food for her. That aside, this is also one of the least enforceable contracts out there. Want to half your water bill? Pair up with a neighbor: you buy the veggies, they buy the meat, split the saving from water at the end of the month. Still I'm happy to see that PETA is at least re-directing their attention away from promoting the assault of scientists...
I've accepted an invitation to participate at a conference in Oxford next summer on the ethics of using animals for scientific research. According to my friend, who is a member of the organization who puts it on, it's a dog and pony show for militant vegans. The scientist in me wants to hear their side, and try to educate about what I do and why. The asshole side of me is really looking forward to trolling some college students.Still I'm happy to see that PETA is at least re-directing their attention away from promoting the assault of scientists...
#PETA# [celebrity] dilettantes annoy the living snot out of those of us who actually know everything. If they had a truly intelligent strategic platform, they'd be screaming bloody murder about the quality of public education -- which is where civilized ethics ought to be taught, and taught properly at that. Raise a generation or two of critical thinkers who have intelligent and civilized ethical principles drilled into their heads in school and problems like Detroit would never occur in the first place[*]. PETA is mostly about band-aid solutions and copious amounts of media exposure. Poorly educated college students are easy meat for celebrity propaganda; trolling them should be almost too easy but you might get laid anyhow if you play your cards right. [*] non-trivial political objective. I think we'll have to get rid of organized religion first.
I wish you luck. A part of me feels like it's a futile task to convince some people of the value of animal research. The same vegan friend as above tried to convince me that animal research was unnecessary because we can just do the experiments on cells in a petri dish...
Exactly. Well put, I'm deleting my comment below because you said it much better.
There is outrage because PETA is using financial hardship to coerce an ethical choice. Imagine for a minute if ISIS made the same deal in exchange for living under Sharia law for a month or if the FFRF paid a water bill in exchange for a public pledge disavowing God. Adding insult to injury, PETA isn't offering to pay the water bill of everyone willing to agree to their terms - they'll do it for ten people they pick. In other words, you aren't surrendering your own code of ethics in exchange for money, you're surrendering your own code of ethics in exchange for being judged worthy or unworthy of PETA's money. Finally, PETA has framed it as a sop to the indigent - the "struggling families" canard they start their pitch with leaves no doubt that this is the rich degrading the poor for fun and pageviews. It's a craven grab for attention, as everything PETA does tends to be - they're pretty much the liberal Westboro Baptist Church. What they could have done is driven around Detroit with their "baskets of vegan food" and handed them out to anyone who could show them an overdue water bill until they ran out. They could have even dragged a camera crew around with them. They would have gotten a lot more press, and the majority of it would have been positive. There also would have been zero outrage about PETA enforcing their ethics on anyone - there's a world of difference between "going vegan" and "not looking a gift tofurky in the mouth." But they didn't do that for the exact reason Mormons send their kids out on Mission - getting doors slammed in your face when you're "trying to do a good deed" is the most effective way to turn the young and impressionable inward and away from the temptations and trials of secular life. So PETA figures out a way to deliver charity in the best possible way to deliver maximum outrage so that they can point out to their members that the meat-murderers are so blind with rage they can't even see a gift for what it is.
Well, think about it. Is PETA offering their deal to people who aren't in arrears on their bills? Is PETA offering their deal to people who aren't in an economically blighted community? No, they're seeking out the indigent and unfortunate. Payday loan companies don't approach people with savings, either - they provide ruinous loans to people who think they have no other options. I disagree with the first paragraph -- what coercion exists is created by poverty, not PETA
That particular side effect of Mormon missions had never occurred to me.
PETA is certainly exploiting leverage. But the leverage is not PETA created. As cgod says somewhere down there, the whole thing would be weird and crazy if the government, who took the water away in the first place, was now offering it back with strings attached. But PETA is a third party with no responsibilities in either direction. I just don't see the immorality. I think the instinctive liberal howl of "how awful" is based on a) PETA's prior reputation (fair) and b) an unwillingness to indulge in consequentialism (also generally fair, but maybe not in this case). I should watch that, I really know almost nothing about the Mormons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_influence Because the leverage was not created by PETA, they are not guilty of coercion. However, those with overdue water bills could argue duress. The success of that argument would determine whether or not PETA practiced undue influence over those they are attempting to "help." But the legal definitions don't really matter. The fact is, PETA is claiming "charity" while everyone watching is arguing about whether their actions are kinda shitty, shitty, really shitty or mondo shitty. It's like this: you've been flooded out of your apartment and are floating down the river. I've got a 20' Zodiac with an Evinrude and a full tank of gas. If I roll up on you and help you on my boat, I'm doing you a favor. I'm performing an act of charity. On the other hand, if I roll up on you and offer to help you into my boat if you accept Our Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior, I'm entering into a contract. And I'm notably not knocking on your door before the flood to make you the same offer - I'm waiting until there's a substantial amount of pressure for you to accept my help. It's shitty. There are ample arguments to be made as to how shitty it is, but there are few arguments to be made that it's unshitty. Here's the thing about rationalism: There's no long game. In order to build up societal constructs out of rationalism that are typically built up out of hardwired human emotional response, one has to delve deeply into social economics and psychology. In order to operate as human without the rational baggage, one need only ask "is this a dick move?" and trust your gut. You're having trouble with this because you're balls deep in rationalist thinking. Rationalist thinking, from my overview of it, breaks social functions down into problems of logic. Problems of logic are always easier to solve when you tightly constrain their boundary conditions... and ethical problems are rarely tightly constrained. Just because PETA didn't create the leverage does not mean that PETA is free and clear to exploit that leverage. Uber didn't take hostages in Sydney either but exploiting human tragedy for your own financial advantage is one of the quickest ways there is to find yourself the subject of a fiery sermon on Sunday. As it was, so shall it ever be, amen. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform. The notion of duress must be distinguished both from undue influence in the civil law and from necessity.
In jurisprudence, undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person.
When someone describes "a human right to health care" or a "living wage" or "housing" (or even paid holidays) I don't hear anything more than "it sure would be great if everyone had these things." Is it a human right to have access to breathable atmosphere? To Vitamin D? To not being struck by meteorites? These things are necessary to live, that's simple enough. If people really believed that water was a human right, they would be incensed at Detroit, and every other municipality, for daring to charge money for water. It would be like charging people money to not torture them. Along with others here, I think this is a publicity stunt by PETA, and we don't like it because it is in bad taste. When there was discussion here about Ebola, I thought the prediction of "millions" of deaths grossly overstated. I thought I would say so, and use that crude economist's tool of "putting my money where my mouth is" by offering to bet on what would happen. But it seemed too crass to involve my prediction and especially money with such suffering. I am nevertheless relieved to see that this awful tragedy has not been nearly as awful as the worst predictions had it.water as a human right
I think this language is empty. I suppose many would agree that "water is necessary to human life, and it is a shame that some people suffer due to relatively low access to clean water." The "rights" language has the advantage of being shorter and more likely to attract funding, but it doesn't convey any meaningful information.
In fairness, the disease modelers were working with current trends, before the West had started pouring serious money into the fight, and before the messages had been widely understood by the people about what they can do to help. I suppose the economist looks at the situation and assumes that conditions on the ground will change, but the disease modelers are important to get us to recognize what will happen if we don't alter the trajectory--and the trajectory isn't going to be altered without active participation and resources. I'm hesitant to jump into the water debate, because I'm intimately familiar with it, and completely sick of it, as well. What I can say is that a lot of people have been stealing a lot of resources from all of us for a long time, and the small percentage of people who actually can't pay are being used as pawns in a political game fought by many outside interests, PETA being one insignificant and negligible player among many.
That's not how the conversation reads to me. There's a difference between Disease models project a rapidly rising toll and Disease modelers project a rapidly rising toll. I am happy to see that the WHO director, for the moment, appears to be the more rational, scientific authority, and the horror-story author was the one who Worst-case scenarios can be effective motivators to action, but we should remember that diverting resources toward Ebola prevents them from being used for other valuable ends, perhaps including fighting AIDS. If we simply chase after sensational and misleading headlines, we will focus on child homelessness one week and drug policy the next.the disease modelers were working with current trends, before the West had started pouring serious money into the fight
And still the WHO director was on NPR this morning projecting that we could see up to 10,000 deaths in the next 6-9 months. It's like she's living in another universe, one in which reality is one possibility among many, a choose-your-own-adventure horror edition of sorts.
figured it'd probably crest around 4m next year, hundreds of millions the year after
Certainly I'm glad my words turned out to be hyperbolic, but it's not really a fair comparison between AIDS and ebola, epidemiologically speaking. AIDS is a slow progress towards awareness, prevention, treatment. Ebola is an acute crisis that requires active mitigating steps stem its spread. Also, there's lots of evidence that it's not really being contained in Sierra Leone, so we shouldn't pretend that just because it's out of the daily headlines that there isn't still a significant threat to countless Africans. Also, one would hope that the WHO director is a better scientific authority than I am on infectious disease. But that doesn't mean that the efforts of the WHO were adequate in the beginning, or that she wasn't right by luck rather than science. At that time, everything the WHO was saying seemed to be contradicted by doctors and nurses on the ground. Since that time, we've seen a herculean effort by the US, EU and many NGOs that have paid dividends. Her projections are looking good in hindsight, but could she have foresaw this global response, a response that, you'll remember, wasn't in place at that time? Perhaps. I don't know. To me, she sounded like a politician denying that sky is blue.
I don't know if it's that simple. Some contracts can be offensive in nature. If PETA said that they would pay the water bill for anyone that would give a handjob, then it would entirely consensual for both parties, but very upsetting. Not that this is that upsetting. Still, I think PETA are pretty effective at getting a rise out of people for PR. It's tough to find someone that doesn't know who PETA is. I suspect that is their main motivation, which is a bit offensive to me, but not terribly so.
Whaaatttt? Why is giving HJ's for an economic benefit offensive? If I had to get my water bill paid and my only two options were hand jobs or veganism I'd go with the HJ. It'd be over quicker and would disrupt my life less. If PETA controlled the water supply and said that the only way to get water was to stop eating meat or give HJ's than the whole thing would be creepy and corrosive, as it stands it just provides another option for obtaining an essential service that some people might find preferable to either going without water or spending money that they might use more happily on some other thing.
I understand the argument but I disagree. There's a correlating argument about the morality of prostitution. I just don't see any reason to be upset if my beginning state is "no water" and my ending state is "no water but with an option to get water which I under no circumstances have to acknowledge."I don't know if it's that simple. Some contracts can be offensive in nature. If PETA said that they would pay the water bill for anyone that would give a handjob, then it would entirely consensual for both parties, but very upsetting.