They're both drowning, you can save only one... (3 Viewers)

[Punk]

So since you voted human, you are just arguing to hear yourself argue now?

I'm done with this thread.

I voted human because that's my personal choice. Others are asserting that it should be everybody's personal choice based on some unwritten (or written, in Cross-Eyed's case) law and objectively obvious truth. That's what I disagree with. It's a legitimate debate, but feel free to run away if you think you're not doing well.

LOL

So you believe that I don't actually hold the position I'm arguing for? You'd be wrong. Or am I misunderstanding your definition of 'fishing'? This is not fishing by any definition I'm familiar with, but you OBC chaps aren't above re-writing the rules from time to time to keep us on our toes, so please clarify.

It had more to do with the running away from not doing well statement, GB. I felt I did fine, but am choosing to not continue the argument because I feel I have made my point, and that my opinion is pretty clear on the matter.

 

[Gringoloco]

My point here is that almost all of us choose humanity over the animal kingdom, whether that is right or wrong. We know this for a variety of reasons, such as our desire for meat. Most of us would be against the murder of humans to feed us. We see that murdering animals is a much better alternative. We might not be sure why, be it's a little hypocritical for anyone to question why someone would choose a stranger over a dog, when in reality most of us would do the same thing.

If you knew no other information, would you save an animal or a human? Again, there is no other information available to you. That animal could be anything from a dog to a fly to a mouse to a horse. That human could be anything from your mother to a 60 year old murderer. My hunch is that almost all of you would choose to save the human.

The problem in this specific scenario of this thread is that there are emotions involved. It is personal here, when we are asking would you save your dog over a stranger. This presents a difficult scenario and one where a logical person understands that a wise decision is never one that involves emotion. Emotional responses, while they may sometimes be good ones, are never better responses than non-emotional ones. The bottom line is that you are much more prone to make the wrong decision when emotions are involved than when they are not. The wise man understands this and tries to prevent him or herself from letting emotions take too much control when it is time for an important decision.

And because I think emotions need to be removed here, most of would believe that saving a human is better than saving a dog. Why that's the case is obviously the cause of great debate here, but even those of us non-religious (a category I put myself into) likely value human life over animal life. I imagine I could prove those who disagree with that statement wrong. Again, I'm not trying to get into why this is the case...it just is. And once we are past that, and once we understand that emotions should be removed from the decision making process, we should understand that saving the human is something we should all do.

I'm not arguing if that's right or not, but since we all (or almost all) value human life over animal life, then that makes this decision better.

 

[Smoo]

So because you have made up your own rules for life, they are inherently better than the rules I happen to live by? You are "smarter" because I choose to follow what I believe to be the word of God.

Well, yeah. Unless you've thought through all the rules you're asked to follow and internally agreed that they are consistent with your own morality, then yes, I don't think your way is worth taking as seriously because you're just reciting rather than thinking.

 

[CrossEyed]

So because you have made up your own rules for life, they are inherently better than the rules I happen to live by? You are "smarter" because I choose to follow what I believe to be the word of God.

Well, yeah. Unless you've thought through all the rules you're asked to follow and internally agreed that they are consistent with your own morality, then yes, I don't think your way is worth taking as seriously because you're just reciting rather than thinking.

And where does "morality" come from?

 

[Smoo]

So since you voted human, you are just arguing to hear yourself argue now?

I'm done with this thread.

I voted human because that's my personal choice. Others are asserting that it should be everybody's personal choice based on some unwritten (or written, in Cross-Eyed's case) law and objectively obvious truth. That's what I disagree with. It's a legitimate debate, but feel free to run away if you think you're not doing well.

LOL

So you believe that I don't actually hold the position I'm arguing for? You'd be wrong. Or am I misunderstanding your definition of 'fishing'? This is not fishing by any definition I'm familiar with, but you OBC chaps aren't above re-writing the rules from time to time to keep us on our toes, so please clarify.

It had more to do with the running away from not doing well statement, GB. I felt I did fine, but am choosing to not continue the argument because I feel I have made my point, and that my opinion is pretty clear on the matter.

Fair enough. If your point was just that saving the human was a valid choice, then we were in agreement all along anyway.

 

[Smoo]

So because you have made up your own rules for life, they are inherently better than the rules I happen to live by?  You are "smarter" because I choose to follow what I believe to be the word of God.

Well, yeah. Unless you've thought through all the rules you're asked to follow and internally agreed that they are consistent with your own morality, then yes, I don't think your way is worth taking as seriously because you're just reciting rather than thinking.

And where does "morality" come from?

It's a combination of what's taught and shown to you, and your own critical reasoning. My parents taught me right and wrong, and I took their input and combined it with my own thoughts to create my moral slate, whichis also continuously changing based on new input and new reasoning.It's fine that you're using religious instruction as another source of input, but until you've processed it through your own critical reasoning centers, it's pretty meaningless.

 

[Smoo]

Ahhh... so are humans objectively more valuable than dogs because they can critically reason? Does the fact that they are able to develop a moral slate at all make them more worthy of life than animals?

Could be, could be. I'm not sold yet, but it's a nice angle.

 

[bostonfred2]

Do you believe murder is morally wrong in all scenarios?

And just to get you to address the follow-up now, what part does the word "unlawful" play in what murder is?

It doesn't matter if murder is wrong in all scenarios. It matters if it's wrong when the alternative is letting a dog die. And in case I haven't answered that, yes, it's wrong to let a human die in lieu of a dog. The word unlawful is part of the definition of murder because it is unlawful to murder people. Lawfully killing people is given other names, like euthenasia, capital punishment, or war. I don't understand why you're asking though. Are you asking if it is illegal to choose the dog over the person?

I'm hijacking, but you're not working with me here.It matters if murder is wrong in all scenarios because that's the specific question I'm asking and I don't feel like starting a new thread. Now answer the question.

It is unlawful to murder people, and murder is defined as an unlawful killing. That's circular. If you define 'murder' as any type of killing which is illegal, you have to realize that laws are flexible and man-made. So saying 'murder' is always wrong is basically uniformative, it's an empty and meaningless statement.

Are there ways to take a life which are always immoral, regardless of whether it's legal or not?

Yes. It's probably easier to describe when it is morally correct or ambiguous for someone to die, though.

 

[Smoo]

Are there ways to take a life which are always immoral, regardless of whether it's legal or not

Yes.

I disagree.(edited because I'm seriously quote-bubble challenged. )

 

[Grackle Squad]

I'm not the one proclaiming outrage at those that are "morally wrong" for thinking in a way that I don't agree with. I'm also not proclaiming that I know what's right and wrong

Although I never accused you of such a thing, I will point out that you questioned why one would value a human over a dog. My point was that I bet you do. That in itself is interesting evidence.

I never said that you did. I merely quoted something I said to Psychopav (who has been preaching since last night) that showed that I am not trying to say that I KNOW what is right and wrong. When I first got in this thread, I said that I would save my dog. I was and am still perfectly fine with that (slept like a baby last night). Whether it is right or wrong is an OPINION that people have. I have lots of opinions about lots of things, but I don't go around telling people that my opinions are facts, and that they are wrong if they don't agree with me. So, my point is, it doesn't really matter what my opinion of that is. I'm not the one trying to pass my opinions off as facts.(*** Sorry that it took so long to reply, I've had people in my office ***)

 

[Gringoloco]

When I first got in this thread, I said that I would save my dog. I was and am still perfectly fine with that (slept like a baby last night).

And my point remains that you should understand that it is a bad decision. That you likely agree that saving a human is better than saving a dog, in general. You or I might not be sure why that is the case, but that does not distract from the fact that it is indeed the case.Clearly, the reason you chose your dog is because emotions are involved. After all, it's your dog. But allowing emotions to intercede in a decision is never the correct thing to do. Although there's a chance you still end up making the correct decision, you are never making a better decision by allowing your emotions to come into play.

And when all emotions are removed (my example of any random animal vs any random human), almost all would choose the human.

 

[Grackle Squad]

When I first got in this thread, I said that I would save my dog. I was and am still perfectly fine with that (slept like a baby last night).

And my point remains that you should understand that it is a bad decision. That you likely agree that saving a human is better than saving a dog, in general. You or I might not be sure why that is the case, but that does not distract from the fact that it is indeed the case.Clearly, the reason you chose your dog is because emotions are involved. After all, it's your dog. But allowing emotions to intercede in a decision is never the correct thing to do. Although there's a chance you still end up making the correct decision, you are never making a better decision by allowing your emotions to come into play.

And when all emotions are removed (my example of any random animal vs any random human), almost all would choose the human.

. . . . in your OPINION (which, I don't mean to burst your bubble here, I really don't care about). You think I'm a heathen because I would save my dog. So what? That's your opinion. Here we are at Page 15, and nobody has said anything to prove why I am wrong for doing so. I think you are wrong for saying I'm wrong. Is that going to change the way you think? Should I try to save your soul? What if I'm right and you're wrong? Can you prove that I'm not?

 

[wadegarrett]

Can't all dogs swim?

my cousin's bulldog can't swim

 

[Psychopav]

. . . . in your OPINION (which, I don't mean to burst your bubble here, I really don't care about).

I'm wondering why you continue to reply if you don't care about his opinion?Do you care about my opinion?

 

[Gringoloco]

You think I'm a heathen because I would save my dog. So what?

A heathen? Hardly. I have no idea what I said that would lead you to believe that I was religious enough to call you or anyone else a heathen. Nor did I assume one side was morally right or wrong. Did you read my post? If so, you clearly did not understand it. Let me reiterate:You chose your dog because emotion were involved. Period. My point was that when emotions are involved, the likelihood for bad decisions increases tenfold. Removing all emotions here is akin to asking whether or not you would save a random animal (dog, spider, fly, anything) over a random human (mother, murderer). I bet you choose the human.Therefore, your decision here should be stranger over the dog.

 

[IanTucker]

When I first got in this thread, I said that I would save my dog. I was and am still perfectly fine with that (slept like a baby last night).

And my point remains that you should understand that it is a bad decision. That you likely agree that saving a human is better than saving a dog, in general. You or I might not be sure why that is the case, but that does not distract from the fact that it is indeed the case.Clearly, the reason you chose your dog is because emotions are involved. After all, it's your dog. But allowing emotions to intercede in a decision is never the correct thing to do. Although there's a chance you still end up making the correct decision, you are never making a better decision by allowing your emotions to come into play.

And when all emotions are removed (my example of any random animal vs any random human), almost all would choose the human.

What a sad commentary!Is that how you make other decisions in life? Is that how you would choose a wifel? Emotionless? Name your child?

 

[satch]

Why do most of us (from those I've questioned personally) feel so sad when an animal dies on the news, in a movie or tv show, yet, when we see people die on the news, movies or tv it has virtually no effect on us at all? If a human life is so precious, why doesn't it bother us more to see a human life lost? If an animals life is so insignificant, why does it make us so sad to see one lost? Which movie is more likely to bring a tear to your eye: "Old Yeller" in which 1 dog dies, or "Diehard" in which many humans die? (In this scenario, all parties are strangers.)

 

[Grackle Squad]

Therefore, your decision here should be stranger over the dog.

You may claim to not be religious enough to call me a heathen, but you sure are trying to tell me right and wrong like a religious nut.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Can't all dogs swim?

my cousin's bulldog can't swim

Basset hounds cannot swim very well at all. They'll stay afloat for a while but because of their bodyweight ratio to leg length, its a losing battle.

 

[Gringoloco]

What a sad commentary!Is that how you make other decisions in life? Is that how you would choose a wifel? Emotionless? Name your child?

So you believe it is wiser to let emotions rule your decisions?As for how I chose my wife, I absolutely tried to remove emotions as much as possible to make sure she was right for me. I think those that married for emotional reasons without examining whether or not it made sense are more likely to end up divorced than those who at least attempt to work things out rationally.I love my wife, and this subject would not be a wise one for you to pursue. But that does not mean you should marry anyone simply because you love them.Choosing a child's name? :rotflmao:

 

[Grackle Squad]

. . . . in your OPINION (which, I don't mean to burst your bubble here, I really don't care about).

I'm wondering why you continue to reply if you don't care about his opinion?Do you care about my opinion?

Because it's just so much FUN. No, you're opinion is wrong, and that's that. I'm not going to back up why it's wrong, you should just realize that it is wrong because I say so. I am qualified to say who is right and wrong without question, and will continue to do so, no matter how many people point out how ridiculous I sound.

 

[Grackle Squad]

Can't all dogs swim?

my cousin's bulldog can't swim

Basset hounds cannot swim very well at all. They'll stay afloat for a while but because of their bodyweight ratio to leg length, its a losing battle.

Exactly.That's why I would save mine.

 

[Gringoloco]

You may claim to not be religious enough to call me a heathen, but you sure are trying to tell me right and wrong like a religious nut.

LOL @ being called a religious nut. I think that might possibly be the first time in my life anyone has referenced me that way.I never once told you right from wrong based on my opinion. I'm saying it based on yours. I am only accountable for how I feel. I'm about as least judgemental person that you will find. You still are having difficulty understanding what I wrote, aren't you?

 

[Grackle Squad]

You may claim to not be religious enough to call me a heathen, but you sure are trying to tell me right and wrong like a religious nut.

LOL @ being called a religious nut. I think that might possibly be the first time in my life anyone has referenced me that way.I never once told you right from wrong based on my opinion. I'm saying it based on yours. I am only accountable for how I feel. I'm about as least judgemental person that you will find. You still are having difficulty understanding what I wrote, aren't you?

I said "like a religious nut". See, it goes both ways.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

I put the o/u on this thread at 28.5 pages.

 

[Gringoloco]

Why do most of us feel so sad when an animal dies on the news...yet, when we see people die on the news...it has virtually no effect on us at all?

For me, I think it has to do with a certain innocence of an animal over a human. But I feel worse for when a child dies more than an animal, likely because of the innocence involved with young children too.

 

[Grackle Squad]

Why do most of us feel so sad when an animal dies on the news...yet, when we see people die on the news...it has virtually no effect on us at all?

For me, I think it has to do with a certain innocence of an animal over a human. But I feel worse for when a child dies more than an animal, likely because of the innocence involved with young children too.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Why do most of us feel so sad when an animal dies on the news...yet, when we see people die on the news...it has virtually no effect on us at all?

For me, I think it has to do with a certain innocence of an animal over a human. But I feel worse for when a child dies more than an animal, likely because of the innocence involved with young children too.

This is true. If it was a dog and a baby, I would save the baby.Innocence is the key. The human should be smart enough to know, if he can't swim, stay the hell away from water!

 

[Gringoloco]

I said "like a religious nut". See, it goes both ways.

What goes both ways? Your lack of understanding of my meaning? I still understood yours.

 

[Gringoloco]

Which part confuses you?

 

[IanTucker]

What a sad commentary!Is that how you make other decisions in life? Is that how you would choose a wifel? Emotionless? Name your child?

So you believe it is wiser to let emotions rule your decisions?As for how I chose my wife, I absolutely tried to remove emotions as much as possible to make sure she was right for me. I think those that married for emotional reasons without examining whether or not it made sense are more likely to end up divorced than those who at least attempt to work things out rationally.I love my wife, and this subject would not be a wise one for you to pursue. But that does not mean you should marry anyone simply because you love them.Choosing a child's name? :rotflmao:

Ah its good to see you laughing at least!

 

[Grackle Squad]

I said "like a religious nut". See, it goes both ways.

What goes both ways? Your lack of understanding of my meaning? I still understood yours.

Obviously not.

 

[Grackle Squad]

Which part confuses you?

Probably the part where you failed to show why a child is more innocent than an animal.

 

[satch]

Why do most of us feel so sad when an animal dies on the news...yet, when we see people die on the news...it has virtually no effect on us at all?

For me, I think it has to do with a certain innocence of an animal over a human. But I feel worse for when a child dies more than an animal, likely because of the innocence involved with young children too.

Could it be that same innocence that justifies saving the dog over the stranger?

 

[Gringoloco]

Obviously not.

I understood you were not literally calling me a religious nut. The reference was there, though, and I expanded only minimally on it.Now, will you address the thoughts I posed on you?

 

[Grackle Squad]

Obviously not.

I understood you were not literally calling me a religious nut. The reference was there, though, and I expanded only minimally on it.Now, will you address the thoughts I posed on you?

I'm sorry, I thought I already did and was labeled wrong with no explanation as to why. Could you be a bit more specific what I haven't addressed?

 

[Gringoloco]

Probably the part where you failed to show why a child is more innocent than an animal.

I don't believe that a child is more innocent that an animal. I believe (and I meant very young children) the innocence is relatively equal. And since I tend to value human life over an animal's, I would save the child over the animal.

 

[Gringoloco]

Could it be that same innocence that justifies saving the dog over the stranger?

Justifies? No. Explains? Yes. Although I agree with the sentiment that I actually feel worse sometimes when I hear about a dog's death, I understand it is simply my emotions taking hold. If faced with this actual scenario, I would have a tough time saving a stranger over my dog. I love my dog. But I still undestand that it is not the correct thing for me to do, based on my general opinions of human life vs animal life.

 

[Grackle Squad]

Probably the part where you failed to show why a child is more innocent than an animal.

I don't believe that a child is more innocent that an animal. I believe (and I meant very young children) the innocence is relatively equal. And since I tend to value human life over an animal's, I would save the child over the animal.

Then I retract. It sounded like you were saying that a child was more innocent. Since you clarified, I now I realize you were merely stating your opinions.

 

[Grackle Squad]

But I still undestand that it is not the correct thing for me to do, based on my general opinions of human life vs animal life.

We're so close to seeing "almost" eye to eye. My point is that there is no "right" or "wrong" answer here. There are only opinions. You have yours, and I have mine. I'd be happy if you (and some others) would just admit that they aren't qualified to judge who is right and who is wrong.

 

[bakes]

I'd save the stranger for two reasons, with one caveat:1. If I save the stranger, he might get me another dog out of gratitude. I don't know what my dog would give me, but if it were a stranger I don't know that I'd trust the dog's judgment to at least bring me a *hot female* stranger.2. I'm not a big fan of dogs.Caveat: If the dude's like 300 pounds, attempting to save his ### would drown me which would be NO good at all. Then the dog lives.

 

[Psychopav]

. . . . in your OPINION (which, I don't mean to burst your bubble here, I really don't care about).

I'm wondering why you continue to reply if you don't care about his opinion?Do you care about my opinion?

Because it's just so much FUN. No, you're opinion is wrong, and that's that. I'm not going to back up why it's wrong, you should just realize that it is wrong because I say so. I am qualified to say who is right and wrong without question, and will continue to do so, no matter how many people point out how ridiculous I sound.

Then you are different from me. I don't think you should realize you're wrong because I say so. I don't think you will, either. But just because you say I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong. That's debatable.But it's immoral to allow the stranger to die and save the dog. That's obvious. You may have a deficient conscience, or you may be more comfortable making shocking statements when it's hypothetical. I don't really know, but it doesn't bother me. All I'm doing is putting the truth out there. You're the one that gets bent out of shape about it.

 

[satch]

Why do most of us feel so sad when an animal dies on the news...yet, when we see people die on the news...it has virtually no effect on us at all?

For me, I think it has to do with a certain innocence of an animal over a human. But I feel worse for when a child dies more than an animal, likely because of the innocence involved with young children too.

Even if it was a dog and a child, couldn't the concept of "save the innocent" still apply? The dog will forever remain innocent, unless that innocence is stolen by human by means of provocation, abuse, etc. The child is far more likely to bring negative thoughts, deeds, actions & consequences into the world than the dog. In other words, which species brings more bad, more harm, more evil into the world. A dog, or a human? Would the world be a better place, for all living species, if humans were were eliminated, or if dogs were eliminated?

 

[Grackle Squad]

. . . . in your OPINION (which, I don't mean to burst your bubble here, I really don't care about).

I'm wondering why you continue to reply if you don't care about his opinion?Do you care about my opinion?

Because it's just so much FUN. No, you're opinion is wrong, and that's that. I'm not going to back up why it's wrong, you should just realize that it is wrong because I say so. I am qualified to say who is right and wrong without question, and will continue to do so, no matter how many people point out how ridiculous I sound.

Then you are different from me. I don't think you should realize you're wrong because I say so. I don't think you will, either. But just because you say I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong. That's debatable.But it's immoral to allow the stranger to die and save the dog. That's obvious. You may have a deficient conscience, or you may be more comfortable making shocking statements when it's hypothetical. I don't really know, but it doesn't bother me. All I'm doing is putting the truth out there. You're the one that gets bent out of shape about it.

 

[Grackle Squad]

All I'm doing is putting my opinion out there and then telling anyone who doesn't agree with it that they are wrong.

fixed

 

[Smoo]

But it's immoral to allow the stranger to die and save the dog. That's obvious.

If you haven't realized yet that this much disagreement obviously means it is far from obvious, then I think you're misassessing who's likely deficient in this scenario.

 

[Gringoloco]

Could you be a bit more specific what I haven't addressed?

Sure. You said you would save yourt dog. That's fine. What I said was that you should realize, based on your own values, that this is not the correct decision for you. And correect me if you believe I am wrong on any of these points:1) I believe you value human life over animal life, in general. There are many ways I could show this as the case. The simplest, perhaps, is the scenario where

you would choose a human over an animal in a random situation. The animal is random (dog, spider, fly, ant, horse, etc). The human is random (your mother, a newborn child, a child molester, a 90 yeard old etc). If you knew no other thing, I believe you choose the human. I'm not asking you to explain why, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

2) The answer above (if my assumptions are correct) likely means, in general, you value human life over animal life.

3) The reason, therefore, that you chose your dog in this thread is based purely on emotion. Since we know that emotional reasons are rarely, if ever, the best approach to making decisions, we can then look back and reason that our decision should not include emotion if we wish to make the best decision truest to us.

4) So, for you, the best decision would be to save a stranger, since you value human life over animal.

 

[Psychopav]

My point is that there is no "right" or "wrong" answer here. There are only opinions. You have yours, and I have mine.

And we finally get to the first assertion. Can you prove that there is no right or wrong answer here? You haven't given any reasons to back that up, other than to say that it's your opinion.Question: Is there ever a morally right or wrong answer in your paradigm?

 

[Gringoloco]

My point is that there is no "right" or "wrong" answer here.

Yes, there is, but that answer only should reflect your values, not everyone else's. There is a right answer for you. If and if value human life over an animal's, there you have it.

 

[Psychopav]

But it's immoral to allow the stranger to die and save the dog. That's obvious.

If you haven't realized yet that this much disagreement obviously means it is far from obvious, then I think you're misassessing who's likely deficient in this scenario.

That may be worth examining on my part.In general though I don't think every moral dilemma is so cut and dried. This one is, though, and it should be obvious.