Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

dgreen

Members
  • Content Count

    23,852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dgreen

  1. Fatguy chose an absurd example (on purpose). To show that love of something isn't necessarily a good reason to save one over the other. Of course it isn't. Neither is species. That's where there is huge disagreement.
  2. Fatguy chose an absurd example (on purpose). To show that love of something isn't necessarily a good reason to save one over the other. There's been so much disagreement on whether saving a dog is okay and you think it's reasonable to bridge the next gap? I say: Who cares what a loon defines as being looney?
  3. When presented with the thought of someone loving a pencil so much that they'd save it over a human, the response came down to:
  4. If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay. That doesn't follow. Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground? The guy is not immoral for wanting his life to be saved. So, then why would it be selfish for a man to want his best friends life to be saved? Does "best friend" = dog?
  5. Can you justify your pencil love in a way that doesn't make you a total loon? Those pencils are my business. I sell them. Those pencils provide my income and without them my business would collapse. Say my pencil factory is burning down and I run in to save all the pencils and leave the human trapped and he dies. Do you believe that your business is more important than life? If so, be my guest. I don't, but I'll drop that in the judgement call realm. So, saving a business over a human is a judgement call when it comes to morals? Can be. Depends how losing the business would affect your life and ability to sustain yourself. Does it depend on how losing life would affect that person?
  6. Is it the last dog? No. Is the guy in the lake the last person? If the guy in the lake was the last person, there wouldn't be me to save him. Last female then. If the dog was the last dog, most of its value is based on that fact. The value of the human isn't determined as much by quantity.If it was the last dog on earth, and didn't have the cure to cancer, and one of 3 billion women, I'd save the woman. If the dog did hold the cure to cancer, and was the only one, that would probably change my answer.
  7. Can you justify your pencil love in a way that doesn't make you a total loon? Those pencils are my business. I sell them. Those pencils provide my income and without them my business would collapse. Say my pencil factory is burning down and I run in to save all the pencils and leave the human trapped and he dies. Do you believe that your business is more important than life? If so, be my guest. I don't, but I'll drop that in the judgement call realm. So, saving a business over a human is a judgement call when it comes to morals?
  8. Is it the last dog? No. Is the guy in the lake the last person? If the guy in the lake was the last person, there wouldn't be me to save him.
  9. Can you justify your pencil love in a way that doesn't make you a total loon? Those pencils are my business. I sell them. Those pencils provide my income and without them my business would collapse. Say my pencil factory is burning down and I run in to save all the pencils and leave the human trapped and he dies.
  10. What distinguishes a "valid" position from an invalid one? Or are there no invalid positions? If you really, really, really love the pencil you're using, and the only way to keep it is to nuke all of Europe, would dropping the bomb be a valid position? Do you believe love is the only basis for morality? Your example is silly. You were the one who suggested that love for your dog could make an action moral that might otherwise be immoral. Yes, I did. And? Suddenly that makes nuking Europe moral? He's asking how you distinguish between morally valid and morally invalid choices. You suggested that loving the dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die. So is loving a pencil a valid reason to let Europe die?The answer is probably no. So you either need to distinguish between the dog situation and the pencil situation, or you need to withdraw the claim that loving a dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die. The distinguisher is easy: numbers. I'm extremely surprised that had to be pointed out to you. How about 50 million pencils you love and one human stranger?
  11. The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy. No, it's really not, and you're not explaining why you disagree any better than Psychopav.It's not the kind of thing anyone should have to explain. You should be able to get the answer right on your own just by examining your own conscience.But I can get you pointed in the right direction, I hope, by listing a couple relevant factors to consider: Which animal, dog or human, has a greater capacity for conscious thought, reflection, appreciation, joy, and so on? (Isn't the reason we don't care about killing ants that the ants have so little capacity for thought, and therefore such a limited quality of life? This is why a hamster life is worth more than an ant life. And a dog life is worth more than a hamster life. And a human life is worth more than a dog life.) Which animal, dog or human, has more invested in its life in terms of personal relationships, family obligations, and so on? Whose death will cause more suffering to his or her loved ones? (Would you rather lose your dog or your brother? The drowning stranger probably has a brother or sister, not to mention a mother and possibly a wife and children.)I'm sure you can come up with some other relevant factors on your own. And so by extension if the choice were between 2 drowning people we should always save the person who has a greater capacity for thought? If you took the time to figure that out, they'd probably both die.