They're both drowning, you can save only one... (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

What if the child was adopted?

How would the circumstance of adoption in any way negate my inherent parental responsibilities? I am really baffled by how anyone answering this question would choose the 100 children over their own child if they have experienced parenthood.It can happen. Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac. God was willing to sacrifice Jesus. It is not a really popular choice though, by and large.

My point is that even if the child was adopted, you'd still have the parental instinct to save the child because upon adoption you accepted the responsibility to care for, raise and protect the child. Also, you love the child as if it were your own, even though in actuality you're not the biological father or mother. Thus, you'd save your own child before 100 children that you had no personal attachment to.People should, and do have those same responsibilities and attachments to their adopted puppy or dog. Why then, if one would save their 1 child over 100 other children, is it difficult to understand why someone would save their puupy, or dog over 1 complete stranger whom they have no attachment to?

Because it is a human versus a non-human decision. If you choose the dog, you are saying that the stranger has less intrinsic value than the dog. I believe Hitler felt Jews were less than dogs, so at least you know the company you keep in drawing out this analysis.If the question were worded whether I would save my dog over a stranger's dog, I would save either of my dogs. I don't know that my Cairn Terrier or my Boston are of any more worth than a stranger's dog, but they have more value to me and in this case I am not differentiating between species.

You've resorted to crying racism? In other words, you can no longer support your position with relevant, rational discussion. That was too easy.

Cry racism? I simply brought up the point that Hitler felt Jews were worth less than dogs. You have stated that a stranger (even though that stranger is human) is worth less to you than a dog. Am I wrong in viewing these two views as parallel. If so, please elaborate. I have not called you a racist, I simply pointed out an obvious case.You and your 40 percenters here are the ones that are arguing from absurdity, not I. From what I have read here humans are no better or worse than any other "animal". Laughable.

 

[CrossEyed]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

You're not helping our position.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Godwin's Law and a huge derailment all one the same page! By any measurable devices, this thread should be history.

 

[J-Co]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

:rotflmao: I really do think it would be more achievable to reason with a rock than to convince you to think beyond your blinders. Nobody has said that human beings are no more valuable than other animals and evolution certainly makes no claims to that end. But go ahead and live in a fairy tale world where the earth was created in seven days and dinosaurs are a myth.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Godwin's Law and a huge derailment all one the same page! By any measurable devices, this thread should be history.

Hey, this was a PERFECT place to roll out the Hitler reference, although I don't know if this specifically meets the criteria for Godwin's Law as I mentioned Hitler without bringing up nazism.Please disregard Hitler reference as this offends Satch.

 

[bueno]

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

So if somebody is about to nuke Europe, I can't morally kill him?

Who paid him to do it?

 

[bueno]

A.  Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

B.  The fact that a dog does, pretty much shoots down the intelligence thing.

Without getting into the obvious reasons of why you'd want to lick your own nuts, the point is that your ideas of what makes a species superior are humanocentric.

Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

As an outsider, perhaps you can't understand that it's the only perspective he has!

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

:rotflmao: I really do think it would be more achievable to reason with a rock than to convince you to think beyond your blinders. Nobody has said that human beings are no more valuable than other animals and evolution certainly makes no claims to that end. But go ahead and live in a fairy tale world where the earth was created in seven days and dinosaurs are a myth.

Excuse me for cutting in, but have you read all of the posts on this thread. To say that no one is making the claim that humans are not more valuable than other animals is wrong. Hint: Smoo has repeatedly asserted that we are no better or worse than any other animal.

 

[Smoo]

Excuse me for cutting in, but have you read all of the posts on this thread. To say that no one is making the claim that humans are not more valuable than other animals is wrong. Hint: Smoo has repeatedly asserted that we are no better or worse than any other animal.

Better or worse at what?

 

[bueno]

[

[i'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

Neither is a two year old.

A two-year old is viable.

But it is not self-sustaining.

Right. So?

You said it, I didn't:

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

 

[rolyaTy]

I dont care to wade through what's likely 20 pages of crap justifying an immoral and inhuman stance on choosing a dog over a stranger. Just consider this. At some point in your life, everyone you now know were strangers, your wives for those of you who aren't married, your best friends, heck, even most of your relatives.Also, consider this. When a dog dies, you go buy a new one. When a person dies (especially one over the age of 20), you can't replace them. There is no human pet store you go to where you can buy a new brother, or new mom or dad. And this is what the person you'd fail to save is to someone, a great friend, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter. The choice isn't even close, and I can honestly say, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a person who would HONESTLY save a dog over another human, nor should anyone else in the entire human race.

 

[J-Co]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

:rotflmao: I really do think it would be more achievable to reason with a rock than to convince you to think beyond your blinders. Nobody has said that human beings are no more valuable than other animals and evolution certainly makes no claims to that end. But go ahead and live in a fairy tale world where the earth was created in seven days and dinosaurs are a myth.

Excuse me for cutting in, but have you read all of the posts on this thread. To say that no one is making the claim that humans are not more valuable than other animals is wrong. Hint: Smoo has repeatedly asserted that we are no better or worse than any other animal.

Perhaps I should have said most have not as opposed to nobody. I do think that Smoo was playing devils advocate to prove some points. However, what I am saying is that I agree with you; I consider a human being of greater value than a dog. But again, I say what I said before:

The save your child or 100 other children parallel is a good example. Some of you have already said you would save your child. I think most people would. However, you would also agree that in general one child is no more valuable than another. To another person, your child would be just like the other 100. But you're making a decision to save your child because to you the parent, that child has much more value than any other, even the sum total of 100 children. Same thing goes with the dog. To almost anyone, a human life is more important than a dog life. A human is more advanced, more intelligent, more capable of doing a number of things. I don't think it's a reach to say that a human has capacity for a more "meaningful" life, whatever you choose that to mean. BUT......to the dog's master, the dog has more value than somebody else would consider. For the 40-something % of us that answered the way we did, the dog has more value to us than a random person we do not know. It is the exact same equation as the child vs. 100 other kids scenario, just with different weights and variables.

 

[TheIronSheik]

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Also, consider this. When a dog dies, you go buy a new one. When a person dies (especially one over the age of 20), you can't replace them.

What does age have to do with it?

 

[Smoo]

[

[i'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

Neither is a two year old.

A two-year old is viable.

But it is not self-sustaining.

Right. So?

You said it, I didn't:

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Yes, I did say that. And?

 

[rolyaTy]

Also, consider this. When a dog dies, you go buy a new one. When a person dies (especially one over the age of 20), you can't replace them.

What does age have to do with it?

Just so someone wouldn't say that if you lose a kid at a young age, you could just "have another one." It's true for them too, but I didn't want to argue that point.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Cry racism? I simply brought up the point that Hitler felt Jews were worth less than dogs. You have stated that a stranger (even though that stranger is human) is worth less to you than a dog. Am I wrong in viewing these two views as parallel. If so, please elaborate. I have not called you a racist, I simply pointed out an obvious case.

I think the Hitler parallel would be more appropriately drawn to somebody who said he'd save the dog...unless it were a poodle. Because poodles are disgusting, sub-canine wretches, and deserving of extermination.

You and your 40 percenters here are the ones that are arguing from absurdity, not I. From what I have read here humans are no better or worse than any other "animal". Laughable.

I don't see what's laughable. We all draw invisible lines. For some, all life is equal, and the only delineation is subjective -- i.e., if you 'love' one living thing, and not another, you save the one you love. Whether it's dog vs man, man vs man, or insect vs fish. For others, men are worth more than non-human animals across the board.I tend toward the all-life-is-equal side of things, and for the subjective reasons stated above, I'd save my dog (if I had one) over some pud who probably won't ever do anything worthwhile for me anyway. Nobody who can't swim has ever amounted to anything anyway. This is documented, and is irrefutable.I do, however, have certain prejudices in this situation. When it comes to drowning/saving scenarios, I'm biased toward my own taxonomic class. That is to say, I view all mammals as equally valuable lives, and would save dogs, rats, monkeys, cows, dolphins*, tapirs, and men all equally, till other factors (e.g., love) came into play. I would, however, choose to save the man before all but the coolest lizard or tarantula. Sue me.(* - Though, why a dolphin would need to be saved from drowning, and how I could possibly be of assistance, I can't imagine.)

 

[Smoo]

However, what I am saying is that I agree with you; I consider a human being of greater value than a dog.

Which human and which dog?

 

[rolyaTy]

The save your child or 100 other children parallel is a good example. Some of you have already said you would save your child. I think most people would. However, you would also agree that in general one child is no more valuable than another. To another person, your child would be just like the other 100. But you're making a decision to save your child because to you the parent, that child has much more value than any other, even the sum total of 100 children. Same thing goes with the dog. To almost anyone, a human life is more important than a dog life. A human is more advanced, more intelligent, more capable of doing a number of things. I don't think it's a reach to say that a human has capacity for a more "meaningful" life, whatever you choose that to mean. BUT......to the dog's master, the dog has more value than somebody else would consider. For the 40-something % of us that answered the way we did, the dog has more value to us than a random person we do not know. It is the exact same equation as the child vs. 100 other kids scenario, just with different weights and variables.

I dont know who said this but if you use the same justification of "what has the most value to me personally", most everyone else in the world fades, and it allows you to do whatever you want, without regarding the feelings of others.For instance, if I were to choose to rob an old lady of all her money and then kill her, I could logically justify it using this means. First off, she's old, she's lived much of her life, she's gonna die soon anyways. I"m young, the money would be better served helping me in my life, than helping some old lady live another year or so in bad health. She means nothing to me, she's just a stranger, however if I take her money, that will mean a lot to me...it will do great things for my life and, as it should be obvious, ALL i care about on earth is myself and how things directly affect me. When a situation arises, I will only think of what is in my best interest, and I will not think of anyone else. Same thing with the old lady.

If I ever met a person like that, I would be tempted to strangle them on the spot. Those are the types of sociopaths that spend their lives locked up in jail, or like Scott Peterson, get the death penalty. Sleep well in the knowledge that you're a smear on society's underwear.

 

[satch]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

You're not helping our position.

Neither is "Mr. Know it All" with his Hitler references. :rotflmao:

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

If you would lick your own nuts, that is disturbing to say the least. If someone WOULD really do that if they were able, I would have no problem with stating that I have no use for that person and I find that act alone to make that person repugnant to me.

 

[J-Co]

I dont care to wade through what's likely 20 pages of crap justifying an immoral and inhuman stance on choosing a dog over a stranger. Just consider this. At some point in your life, everyone you now know were strangers, your wives for those of you who aren't married, your best friends, heck, even most of your relatives.Also, consider this. When a dog dies, you go buy a new one. When a person dies (especially one over the age of 20), you can't replace them. There is no human pet store you go to where you can buy a new brother, or new mom or dad. And this is what the person you'd fail to save is to someone, a great friend, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter. The choice isn't even close, and I can honestly say, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a person who would HONESTLY save a dog over another human, nor should anyone else in the entire human race.

You don't seem to understand that people do grieve when they lose their dogs. It's not the same as losing a brother/sister/mom/dad/close freind/etc. but it is grieving. Again, going back to the point nobody wants to touch, it is the same thing as choosing to save your child over 100 other children. Those children are all someone's child and presumably were loved and will be grieved. You are sparing yourself the agony of the loss even though the loss felt by others will be 100-fold. The dog scenario is the same. I don't disagree that losing a loved one (human being) is more horrible than losing a dog (maybe 100-fold, probably much worse). You are sparing yourself a loss even though the loss to someone else will be greater.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

You're not helping our position.

Neither is "Mr. Know it All" with his Hitler references. :rotflmao:

Yeah, don't bother to answer my direct question. Smilies are so much more intelligent. So I will assume that you do not wish to refute my parallel between your position and the position that I asserted was held by a historical figure that shall not be named so as not to offend you?Editted so as not to offend.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

If you would lick your own nuts, that is disturbing to say the least. If someone WOULD really do that if they were able, I would have no problem with stating that I have no use for that person and I find that act alone to make that person repugnant to me.

Anyone who would willfully refuse to lick their own nuts is a fool.

 

[bueno]

[

[i'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

Neither is a two year old.

A two-year old is viable.

But it is not self-sustaining.

Right. So?

You said it, I didn't:

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Yes, I did say that. And?

A fetus is a viable self-sustaining life-form in its natural environment. It's natural environment is inside a liquid.

A person drowning is a viable self-sustaining life-form in its natural environmnet (which happens not to be inside a liquid).

To say you would value the drowning person because it has value as a viable, self-sustaining organism, but not a fetus is, IMO contradictory.

 

[J-Co]

The save your child or 100 other children parallel is a good example. Some of you have already said you would save your child. I think most people would. However, you would also agree that in general one child is no more valuable than another. To another person, your child would be just like the other 100. But you're making a decision to save your child because to you the parent, that child has much more value than any other, even the sum total of 100 children. Same thing goes with the dog. To almost anyone, a human life is more important than a dog life. A human is more advanced, more intelligent, more capable of doing a number of things. I don't think it's a reach to say that a human has capacity for a more "meaningful" life, whatever you choose that to mean. BUT......to the dog's master, the dog has more value than somebody else would consider. For the 40-something % of us that answered the way we did, the dog has more value to us than a random person we do not know. It is the exact same equation as the child vs. 100 other kids scenario, just with different weights and variables.

I dont know who said this but if you use the same justification of "what has the most value to me personally", most everyone else in the world fades, and it allows you to do whatever you want, without regarding the feelings of others.For instance, if I were to choose to rob an old lady of all her money and then kill her, I could logically justify it using this means. First off, she's old, she's lived much of her life, she's gonna die soon anyways. I"m young, the money would be better served helping me in my life, than helping some old lady live another year or so in bad health. She means nothing to me, she's just a stranger, however if I take her money, that will mean a lot to me...it will do great things for my life and, as it should be obvious, ALL i care about on earth is myself and how things directly affect me. When a situation arises, I will only think of what is in my best interest, and I will not think of anyone else. Same thing with the old lady.

If I ever met a person like that, I would be tempted to strangle them on the spot. Those are the types of sociopaths that spend their lives locked up in jail, or like Scott Peterson, get the death penalty. Sleep well in the knowledge that you're a smear on society's underwear.

It seems you are making quite a leap from the scenario I presented. The question was of saving your own child or 100 other children. Which do you do? Of course it has issues of self interest. It is however a matter of preventing a loss, not one of preying on others for selfish gain.

 

[bueno]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

You're not helping our position.

Neither is "Mr. Know it All" with his Hitler references. :rotflmao:

Yeah, don't bother to answer my direct question. Smilies are so much more intelligent. So I will assume that you do not wish to refute my parallel between your position and the position that Hitler held with regard to the worth of Jewish humans?

Your parallel is dumb.Hitler actively sought out and murdered Jews. A refusal to save a person is not murder. They cannot be morally equivalent.

 

[rolyaTy]

I dont care to wade through what's likely 20 pages of crap justifying an immoral and inhuman stance on choosing a dog over a stranger. Just consider this. At some point in your life, everyone you now know were strangers, your wives for those of you who aren't married, your best friends, heck, even most of your relatives.Also, consider this. When a dog dies, you go buy a new one. When a person dies (especially one over the age of 20), you can't replace them. There is no human pet store you go to where you can buy a new brother, or new mom or dad. And this is what the person you'd fail to save is to someone, a great friend, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter. The choice isn't even close, and I can honestly say, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a person who would HONESTLY save a dog over another human, nor should anyone else in the entire human race.

You don't seem to understand that people do grieve when they lose their dogs. It's not the same as losing a brother/sister/mom/dad/close freind/etc. but it is grieving. Again, going back to the point nobody wants to touch, it is the same thing as choosing to save your child over 100 other children. Those children are all someone's child and presumably were loved and will be grieved. You are sparing yourself the agony of the loss even though the loss felt by others will be 100-fold. The dog scenario is the same. I don't disagree that losing a loved one (human being) is more horrible than losing a dog (maybe 100-fold, probably much worse). You are sparing yourself a loss even though the loss to someone else will be greater.

I do know what losing a dog I loved was like, and I know there is grieving, as with anything you attach yourself emotionally too. But to compare the value of a dog to a human, to another human to a human, is absurd. The 100 children analogy is more on par with reason, although I doubt this case would EVER come up, but if it did, it would be a very hard decision to make.

 

[J-Co]

[

[i'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

Neither is a two year old.

A two-year old is viable.

But it is not self-sustaining.

Right. So?

You said it, I didn't:

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Yes, I did say that. And?

A fetus is a viable self-sustaining life-form in its natural environment. It's natural environment is inside a liquid.

A person drowning is a viable self-sustaining life-form in its natural environmnet (which happens not to be inside a liquid).

To say you would value the drowning person because it has value as a viable, self-sustaining organism, but not a fetus is, IMO contradictory.

oh boy. We may not want to open that can of worms.

 

[The_Man]

I've ignored this thread for days now and finally took the plunge after it reached 27 pages. Should have stuck with my first instinct.I will say, though - how often does a dog drown anyway? When I lived in Vermont, it seemed like once or twice every winter there was a story about a dog that fell through the ice on some pond. The owner would try to go save it, end up drowning themself, and the first indication the family got that anything was wrong would be the soaking wet dog walking home alone.Plus, you save a person and you're a hero. Save your dog and so what?

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Also, consider this. When a dog dies, you go buy a new one. When a person dies (especially one over the age of 20), you can't replace them.

What does age have to do with it?

I would just like to state here, even though it's not really in context, that age would come into play for me if I didn't know either the dog or the dude.Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers. Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining. If it were a really old, sickly-looking dude and a puppy, I'd probably take the puppy. If it were a 20-something guy, I'd probably save him, assuming he had a number of productive years mopping Starbucks bathrooms ahead of him yet, while the dog would likely kick off in another 10 or so.If I were unable to make a snap decision on life-expectancy, I'd go to the second tie-break, cuteness. (Most blokes wouldn't fare well here against cute-n-fuzzy little critters, I'm afraid, though children and womenfolk might tug at my heartstrings.)Unalbe to make an aesthetic decision, tie-break number three would probably be how much work it would be for me to execute each rescue.If the tie went beyond that, I'd probably freeze up at the magnitude of the coincidence. Just imagine, after all these years, I'm finally put in position to save a drowning dog-or-man, and when it happens, it turns out they're so evenly valuable under the rules of my tie-breaking system that they've exhausted the three criteria. How many people even have these tie-breakers in place? And here I'm put in a position to use them, and even they prove inadequate. Incredible! Billion to one, at least. I'd probably just shake my head and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and only later regret that they both sank to the bottom while I puzzled over the nature of fate. Then I'd have a martini, because liquor makes everything better.

 

[rolyaTy]

Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers. Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining.

Are you a vegetarian?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers. Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining.

Are you a vegetarian?

He's a cannibal.

 

[Smoo]

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

If you would lick your own nuts, that is disturbing to say the least. If someone WOULD really do that if they were able, I would have no problem with stating that I have no use for that person and I find that act alone to make that person repugnant to me.

I would just like to make it clear to you, then, that if I could lick my nuts I WOULD do so, frequently and for no good reason, and I would also happily save a dog over a human in certain situations.Can we be friends now?

 

[rolyaTy]

Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers.  Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining.

Are you a vegetarian?

He's a cannibal.

He must really live up to his values then

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers.  Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining.

Are you a vegetarian?

He's a cannibal.

But apart from that, yes. I am.

 

[bueno]

I've ignored this thread for days now and finally took the plunge after it reached 27 pages. Should have stuck with my first instinct.I will say, though - how often does a dog drown anyway? When I lived in Vermont, it seemed like once or twice every winter there was a story about a dog that fell through the ice on some pond. The owner would try to go save it, end up drowning themself, and the first indication the family got that anything was wrong would be the soaking wet dog walking home alone.Plus, you save a person and you're a hero. Save your dog and so what?

My daschund can't swim. Seriously. Back surgery. I know what the value of that animal is from the vet bill.

 

[J-Co]

I dont care to wade through what's likely 20 pages of crap justifying an immoral and inhuman stance on choosing a dog over a stranger.  Just consider this.  At some point in your life, everyone you now know were strangers, your wives for those of you who aren't married, your best friends, heck, even most of your relatives.Also, consider this.  When a dog dies, you go buy a new one.  When a person dies (especially one over the age of 20), you can't replace them.  There is no human pet store you go to where you can buy a new brother, or new mom or dad.  And this is what the person you'd fail to save is to someone, a great friend, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter.  The choice isn't even close, and I can honestly say, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a person who would HONESTLY save a dog over another human, nor should anyone else in the entire human race.

You don't seem to understand that people do grieve when they lose their dogs. It's not the same as losing a brother/sister/mom/dad/close freind/etc. but it is grieving. Again, going back to the point nobody wants to touch, it is the same thing as choosing to save your child over 100 other children. Those children are all someone's child and presumably were loved and will be grieved. You are sparing yourself the agony of the loss even though the loss felt by others will be 100-fold. The dog scenario is the same. I don't disagree that losing a loved one (human being) is more horrible than losing a dog (maybe 100-fold, probably much worse). You are sparing yourself a loss even though the loss to someone else will be greater.

I do know what losing a dog I loved was like, and I know there is grieving, as with anything you attach yourself emotionally too. But to compare the value of a dog to a human, to another human to a human, is absurd. The 100 children analogy is more on par with reason, although I doubt this case would EVER come up, but if it did, it would be a very hard decision to make.

So, are you saying that you are in the crowd that values the life of one human being over the lives of all dogs in existence? (I am giving you an easy out here). If not, then the parallel scenario is valid for you as well. You can say that your child vs. 100 children would be a difficult decision. I know I would save my own child. Perhaps your breaking point is different, but you KNOW that you would save your own child over two other children. Thus, you understand that despite two children's values being the same to an observing third party, those values are quite different coming from their parents. The dog scenario is the same with different variables. The human being is > the dog as far as almost anyone is concerned. But to the master, the dog's value is greater than the norm, the only question is to what degree. For some, it is still < the value of a stranger. To others it is >. The fact that the poll is relatively evenly split would suggest that on average, the real world perceived value is quite close.

 

[rolyaTy]

Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers.  Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining.

Are you a vegetarian?

He's a cannibal.

But apart from that, yes. I am.

Do you react the same way to seeing a dead dog on the side of a highway as you would to seeing a dead human on the side of a highway?

 

[Smoo]

[

[i'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

Neither is a two year old.

A two-year old is viable.

But it is not self-sustaining.

Right. So?

You said it, I didn't:

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Yes, I did say that. And?

A fetus is a viable self-sustaining life-form in its natural environment. It's natural environment is inside a liquid.

A person drowning is a viable self-sustaining life-form in its natural environmnet (which happens not to be inside a liquid).

To say you would value the drowning person because it has value as a viable, self-sustaining organism, but not a fetus is, IMO contradictory.

Yes, because all along I've been saying that viability and self-sustainment were always my only two criteria. All that stuff I repeated over and over again about how there are limitless variables and they cannot be isolated, that was all just a smokescreen to hide my secret agenda of viability and self-sustainment. Kudos for finding me out.

 

[TheIronSheik]

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

If you would lick your own nuts, that is disturbing to say the least. If someone WOULD really do that if they were able, I would have no problem with stating that I have no use for that person and I find that act alone to make that person repugnant to me.

Do you self gratify?

 

[rolyaTy]

I dont care to wade through what's likely 20 pages of crap justifying an immoral and inhuman stance on choosing a dog over a stranger.  Just consider this.  At some point in your life, everyone you now know were strangers, your wives for those of you who aren't married, your best friends, heck, even most of your relatives.Also, consider this.  When a dog dies, you go buy a new one.  When a person dies (especially one over the age of 20), you can't replace them.  There is no human pet store you go to where you can buy a new brother, or new mom or dad.  And this is what the person you'd fail to save is to someone, a great friend, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter.  The choice isn't even close, and I can honestly say, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a person who would HONESTLY save a dog over another human, nor should anyone else in the entire human race.

You don't seem to understand that people do grieve when they lose their dogs. It's not the same as losing a brother/sister/mom/dad/close freind/etc. but it is grieving. Again, going back to the point nobody wants to touch, it is the same thing as choosing to save your child over 100 other children. Those children are all someone's child and presumably were loved and will be grieved. You are sparing yourself the agony of the loss even though the loss felt by others will be 100-fold. The dog scenario is the same. I don't disagree that losing a loved one (human being) is more horrible than losing a dog (maybe 100-fold, probably much worse). You are sparing yourself a loss even though the loss to someone else will be greater.

I do know what losing a dog I loved was like, and I know there is grieving, as with anything you attach yourself emotionally too. But to compare the value of a dog to a human, to another human to a human, is absurd. The 100 children analogy is more on par with reason, although I doubt this case would EVER come up, but if it did, it would be a very hard decision to make.

So, are you saying that you are in the crowd that values the life of one human being over the lives of all dogs in existence? (I am giving you an easy out here). If not, then the parallel scenario is valid for you as well. You can say that your child vs. 100 children would be a difficult decision. I know I would save my own child. Perhaps your breaking point is different, but you KNOW that you would save your own child over two other children. Thus, you understand that despite two children's values being the same to an observing third party, those values are quite different coming from their parents. The dog scenario is the same with different variables. The human being is > the dog as far as almost anyone is concerned. But to the master, the dog's value is greater than the norm, the only question is to what degree. For some, it is still < the value of a stranger. To others it is >. The fact that the poll is relatively evenly split would suggest that on average, the real world perceived value is quite close.

Yes, you're right. The underlying problem is that dogs are less valuable in my view than humans. Also, I believe that anyone who doesn't share this view is terribly wron, and that it borders on, and delves into the realms of, immorality. Of course, most who would believe such a thing probably dont subscribe to a specific set of moral codes as taught by any specific religion, but at most would have moral codes defined by themselves. So basically, I see your point. The main thing is the inherent value attached to a person, compared to a dog. In the case of comparing 100 children to 1 child, it would be a lot more difficult. Maybe you could come up with a situation where this could actually occur, and we could talk about that. But it would be best done in a different thread, because this one is specifically comparing the value of a dog to the value of a stranger.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers.  Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining.

Are you a vegetarian?

He's a cannibal.

But apart from that, yes. I am.

Do you react the same way to seeing a dead dog on the side of a highway as you would to seeing a dead human on the side of a highway?

I've actually been witness to both scenarios. My reactions (draw your own conclusions)og - "Aw, look. Poor thing." *sniff*Man - "Huh. Wonder what happened?"I guess I tend to assume the dog ended up as a fuzzy stretch of asphalt because the nature of its intellect didn't quite grasp the dangers of interstate highways. Most people know not to lope out in front of Greyhound buses, so there's usually a story there. Dog: pity. Man: curiosity.

 

[Smoo]

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

If you would lick your own nuts, that is disturbing to say the least. If someone WOULD really do that if they were able, I would have no problem with stating that I have no use for that person and I find that act alone to make that person repugnant to me.

Do you self gratify?

Sorry, I had to put my pants back on to reply.The answer is 'yes'. And I'd save a dog over every one of those little sperm guys.

 

[Psychopav]

Welcome to the next level down the slippery slope. Please keep your hands and feet inside the moral toboggan at all times.

 

[rolyaTy]

Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers.  Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining.

Are you a vegetarian?

He's a cannibal.

But apart from that, yes. I am.

Do you react the same way to seeing a dead dog on the side of a highway as you would to seeing a dead human on the side of a highway?

I've actually been witness to both scenarios. My reactions (draw your own conclusions)og - "Aw, look. Poor thing." *sniff*Man - "Huh. Wonder what happened?"I guess I tend to assume the dog ended up as a fuzzy stretch of asphalt because the nature of its intellect didn't quite grasp the dangers of interstate highways. Most people know not to lope out in front of Greyhound buses, so there's usually a story there. Dog: pity. Man: curiosity.

This is interesting. Someone can consider the value of a human and a dog to be the same. I'm interested to know how you came to the conclusion that all mammals should share in the same value. What causes the values of other mammals to be equal to those of humans?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I had to put my pants back on to reply.

Why?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

You're not helping our position.

Neither is "Mr. Know it All" with his Hitler references. :rotflmao:

Yeah, don't bother to answer my direct question. Smilies are so much more intelligent. So I will assume that you do not wish to refute my parallel between your position and the position that Hitler held with regard to the worth of Jewish humans?

Your parallel is dumb.Hitler actively sought out and murdered Jews. A refusal to save a person is not murder. They cannot be morally equivalent.

Not that I asked for your opinion, but I was not paralleling the acted posed here, but his belief that a stranger's life was worth less than that of a dog. But thanks for your input for whenever I do try to draw the parallel you are demeaning here.

 

[Smoo]

I had to put my pants back on to reply.

Why?

I have no willpower. Children don't stop playing with toys until you actually take them away.