Oxford research fellow says vegans justified in letting meat-eaters drown
The College Fix recently reported on Michael Plant, a research fellow at Oxford University's Wellbeing Research Center. The Oxford University "philosopher" argued, in the aptly named Journal of Controversial Ideas, that there is a "plausible" moral case for letting meat-eaters drown.
Not surprising, given that his last name is "Plant," and radical vegan Peter Singer is on the editorial board of the Journal of Controversial Ideas.
Plant avers that, in a given hypothetical situation, it could be justified to let people who eat meat drown, rather than attempt to save them, because they cause "suffering" to animals.
Per The College Fix, Plant wrote that many people accept a duty to save strangers' lives, such as a child drowning in a pond, while also accepting that it is wrong to cause the suffering of animals in factory farms. Ergo, according to Plant, this creates a major problem for those who accept and practice the vegan lifestyle. Why? Because these moral principles are in conflict with each other if the person in danger is a meat-eater and therefore the cause of continued animal suffering.
You've gotta be kidding me.
It is okay to let a fellow human drown because of his diet? Really? So is it similarly immoral to rescue a carnivorous or omnivorous animal? Or to prevent it from suffering?
It seems that the higher up one is in today's educational system, the lower one's I.Q. — and the more one lacks in wisdom, rationality, morality...and sanity. It appears that Oxford's Wellbeing Research Center has a lot more work to do when it comes to its research fellows.
Or maybe it's part of the illness, not the cure.
If the Journal of Controversial Ideas were really brave, really wanted to push the envelope, especially among the academic community, it would publish ideas such as "is there a moral case for capitalism," "is it plausible that there are two — and only two — genders," or "could it be that people have inalienable rights granted to them by a Creator." Maybe it could even purport to defend Christianity, federalism, the Electoral College, or Thomas Jefferson.
Nah. No academic journal could ever be that controversial, could it?
Image via Pixabay.