Talk:Causal impotence objection

The corollary to this is that convincing other people to live responsibly is more important than doing the responsible thing yourself. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And the corollary to this corollary is that it's important to keep people ignorant of the causal impotence objection; else hardly anyone will abide by the morals they preach. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In regard to the first corollary, it is often wisest to do as you preach, since ad hominem inconsistency attacks often carry great weight to the untrained and fallible mind. For example, many people would rather focus on Leonardo DiCaprio's wealthy and relatively extravagant lifestyle than acknowledge the truth and exigence of his message, that we must act promptly to combat climate change. It would simply be more effective to practice as you preach, in terms of collective and even individual impact, as per the threshold argument. In regard to the second corollary, I believe we can adequately dismiss the causal impotence objection, even after bringing it to light. Namely, by the threshold argument, which I have shown to be statistically accurate, given that the average American consumes roughly 27 chickens per year, a 1 in 10,000 chance of saving 250,000 lives is logically and mathematically equivalent to saving 25. Though the unconscientious meat-eater might still deny the validity of this response, I always pose a challenge to them--to find an action just as easy or easier than going vegetarian or vegan that saves just as many or more lives and reaps just as many if not more benefits. No one, not even my best philosophy teachers, have discerned an action so simple yet of such profound impact as going vegetarian or vegan, save suicide, which we generally rule out as "the absurd", as Albert Camus writes, and in deference to the principle that we should protect "innocent" life, whether or not that "innocent life" is directly or indirectly responsible for the termination of hundreds if not thousands of other lives. Though I could raise several other compelling criticisms of the causal impotence objection, I will end on the note there are virtually endless reasons to go vegetarian or vegan, and that someone who believes in the causal impotence objection had better apply it to other issues where individual impact is far more marginal, not vegetarianism, to which he or she cannot even muster a single, practical action of as great or greater impact for as little or less energy expended and within the writ of commonsense.--Animalian (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)