Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
They're both drowning, you can save only one... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter satch
- Start date
Humans also provide more harm/evil/negative value. You cannot look at anyone else's split second decision, and say whether it's wrong or right when there are 2 options and:1. One involves great emotional loss, and the other doesn't involve any.2. One solid is a known value, and the other isn't.I'd get the one who I know is going to provide me with something I need and is supportive. For example:Our dog was the best man in our wedding - he was my wife's dog originally. We had (mostly her) relatives who threatened not to show up and to not allow their kids to be involved in the wedding in any way (including being bridesmaids, my wife's niece/godchild being flower girl, etc.) due to us being married outdoors - including her brother. I told them simply that if they didn't want to come, that was fine and if they want to deny their kids the right to be part of the wedding, that was fine too. I don't cave in to someone else's demands regarding something they have essentially zero interest in - it was my wife's day to have the way she wanted. So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.
Vivian Darkbloom
Footballguy
This is so ####ing cool I just crapped myself.
M
mojorizin
Guest
French Poodles and butt sniffin' at the bachelor party....good times!
Vivian Darkbloom
Footballguy
Bear with me. I only picked this up around page 26, and I was damned if I was going to go back and read the rest. Is there beer? I wasn't told I'd need to factor beer into my morality. This is hard.I'd make a really lousy holy man.
rolyaTy
You're Heinous
For those of you leaving the other person to drown I have a few questions. Do you accept that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" should be a guiding principle of life in most situations. If so, read on, if not...I guess you can ignore the following.First, does the do unto others situation apply to only humans, or does it apply to all animals? If it applies to all animals, and you're not a vegetarian and dont believe that every time a pig is slaughtered it's tantamount to murder, I think you're not being consistant. So, i'm left to believe that either you're a vegetarian and you believe that the "do unto others" motto should apply to all living things, or that you eat meat and believe that it should only apply to humans. If you're in the latter category, I dont think there's any justifiable reason to let the human drown.Second, is there any reason not to believe that this maxim should not apply in this situation. Are there any self-preservation issues at stake (my main hangup)? If there is, whether or not you believe animals should have that motto applied to them or not desn't matter, if it shouldn't be applied here at all. I can't think of a reason it shouldn't be.Finally, how many of you will admit that you're simply going against your moral code in order to save the dog because you like the dog more than most anything else?
This may push it to 30
This needed to be said. Simplicity is not necessarily the mark of correctness. The geocentric model and before that, the belief that the earth was flat, were simple yet later proven untrue. Some/all of the things that you believe to be fact without any factual evidence may eventually be proven to be just as archaic (if they haven't been already).
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
Dear lord, aren't you guys missing a therapy session with Dr. Phil on Oprah or something. I mean, I like dogs, but geez.
Vivian Darkbloom
Footballguy
No way. You save one of those guys, and you are so cool. It'd be worth it just for the prison cred. You pull Charlie out of the drink, you get a free pass on shower rape for life, I bet.
M
mojorizin
Guest
I would be the first to admit I would save my dog regardless of usual moral standing. I'd go so far as to say that if no one was there to witness it, I'd save the dog over most people I DO know. Any other case, I save the human.
Smoo
Fear the Beaver
I think I was really the only one pining for the "none of the above" option (the beer was my idea, never part of an official scenario, I just assumed I'd have a beer if I was near a lake with my dog). That had more to do with the fact that I swim about as well as your average, well, something that can swim but not well. My ability to save a drowning anything will be slightly lower than my ability to wind up killing myself in the attempt.
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
If this is the first thing I've said that makes sense then you haven't read many posts with the "open-mindedness" everyone here loves to proclaim.
Everyone may come to their own conclusions, but my opinion won't change to fit someone else's moral relativism. Aren't we all judging here? How am I any more guilty of judging by stating my opinion than you are? Or was that a rhetorical question?
rolyaTy
You're Heinous
That depends on whether i'm a millionare and the other person only has 1000 to his name, or the reverse is true. Like I said, there are some situations where the "do unto others" is harder to apply. I asked if there was any reason why it shouldn't apply here, other than "it'd be tough."
AhrnCityPahnder
Yinz-o-riffic
We planned on having our dog bring the rings down the aisle, but I was sure she's take a #### in the church, so we opted to use my nephew. He was slighlty less likely to poop during our ceremony.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
So if we stop eating cows, tigers won't attack humans anymore?I'll look ya right in your face and tell ya, "The hell with morality, that's my best friend!"Call it what you will, I don't care. While saving the stranger may be the so called 'moral' thing to do, letting my dog die will not make me happy. Sure, their family will be happy that I saved their father/sister/brother/daughter, I still lose. And why should I be expected to make someone else happy over my own happiness? Where in your books does it say, "Sacrifice your own happiness to appease everyone else around you."?Me wanting to be happy has nothing to do with morals. It's personal choice. If you don't like it, I suggest you buy some water wings.
Vivian Darkbloom
Footballguy
I wear water wings everyplace I go, just in case.
M
mojorizin
Guest
My Uncle Carl would tell me he was the tooth fairy when he came to me in the night.....Yeah, Tooth Fairy gotta go.
Vivian Darkbloom
Footballguy
I assumed the toothfairy was some homicidal movie maniac I'd never heard of. No? If not, man, that is some weird ####.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
If you are saying that its up to the individual to decide, then we're agreeing on the same thing. But if you are saying its my choice to be immoral, than you are judging me. Names are running together again, so I'm not sure which you did. That's a serious question.If this is the first thing I've said that makes sense then you haven't read many posts with the "open-mindedness" everyone here loves to proclaim.
I had a feeling I'd hear something on this. Your question is only half the issue, but I'll answer that half first.My dog is good looking, freindly, well liked, has helped (by barking loudly) scare off burglars, and is a good source of fertilizer.The other half of the question is what detriment has the person played to society? And that can be anything from being a sponge for government handouts because they are too lazy to work while being personally obnoxious and rude to being a multi-offense voilent criminal.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Are they normal water wings or in the shape of an animal?
rolyaTy
You're Heinous
At least you admit that you have no concerns about morality or doing the right thing, only in doing what makes you happy. That's being honest and good luck with that philosophy. I wont take the time to point out "where in my book" it says to do those things, because you've already expressed that you dont care, and odds are you wouldn't care even if it did say that...so it's a lose-lose situation. And also, you wanting to be happy has nothing to do with morals. But making yourself happy however, that can have an impact on your morality, whether it's a certain religion, or just one you subscribe to. Making ones self happy can often come at other peoples expenses, as in this case. It's not always "right" to do this, conversely it's not always "wrong" either. But making yourself happy DOES have a bearing on morality.I still subscribe to the idea that most people who would choose to save their dog would do it in spite of believing it's the wrong thing morally to do. In this case, I would like to know a little more about how they define a "moral" action...specifically where it involves ones happiness and how that relates to other people.
Yes, there are reasons, and I agree there are situations where my choice may be different (if my dog is old and sick for instance).While I see "do unto others" as a good principle, I don't read it as "hurt yourself so others don't get hurt" and that's what I would be doing if I save the stranger instead of my dog. It would be wrong of me to drown a stranger so that I can rob him and better my financial situation and I certainly would not want someone to do that to me. But in the scenarios I have given, I could not fault someone for saving their own child instead of mine and other children; I could not fault them for saving their own $100 instead of my $1000; and I could not fault them for saving their dog instead of me or a loved one. Self interest plays a role and there isn't anything malicious about. There may be times of course, when I am willing to sacrifice something of my own for the betterment of someone else; if that sacrifice is succiciently small and/or the loss to the other is sufficiently large. But, if you are always willing to fully overlook the self interest side of it, then you are willing to give up everything no matter what (every cent of your $ so more families in Ethiopia can eat; your child to save 2 children elsewhere; I could go on). If this is not the case, then you recognize the relative nature of the situation and the role of self interest.
BoneYardDog
Footballguy
Hmmmm are any of you Fido lovers hunters?????I seriously cannot believe a lot of the thinking in this thread, it is of a concern to me...Hopefully you or a friend or family member is not a "stranger" to someone who could save their lives and choose to save FiFi instead...Morons... 
rolyaTy
You're Heinous
I dont think any of the "good" things you listed had any impact on society. Basically the entire impact of the dog was confined to your house and your family.The other half of the question should be what bad things has the dog done for society. I think maybe barking might annoy the neighbors, pooing on their yards might be bad, maybe he attacks other animals in the neighborhood. Really though, it doesn't matter much. Dogs have basically no ability to impact society, so I think that argument is DOA.
Twilight
Footballguy
This is truly a worthy HOF post, so I guess I should throw something here.My whole thought is this.Later in the day, after the choice is made, would you rather face an empty house with no dog in it, or the strangers wife, or children, or parents, and answer why you didn't even try to save his life when it was easily possible.Makes it pretty easy for me.
I'm not a hunter. I'm not a moron. And I wouldn't want anyone to drown. But I can pick who I want to save, and simply put - it's my dog.Hmmmm are any of you Fido lovers hunters?????I seriously cannot believe a lot of the thinking in this thread, it is of a concern to me...Hopefully you or a friend or family member is not a "stranger" to someone who could save their lives and choose to save FiFi instead...Morons...
the rover
Footballguy
I hunt and fish. Am I saving the dog or the stranger? I have no idea what you're trying to say with your comment.Hmmmm are any of you Fido lovers hunters?????I seriously cannot believe a lot of the thinking in this thread, it is of a concern to me...Hopefully you or a friend or family member is not a "stranger" to someone who could save their lives and choose to save FiFi instead...Morons...
BoneYardDog
Footballguy
Your opinion...I'm not a hunter. I'm not a moron. And I wouldn't want anyone to drown. But I can pick who I want to save, and simply put - it's my dog.Hmmmm are any of you Fido lovers hunters?????I seriously cannot believe a lot of the thinking in this thread, it is of a concern to me...Hopefully you or a friend or family member is not a "stranger" to someone who could save their lives and choose to save FiFi instead...Morons...
He's a twelve pound maltese - he doesn't attack anything. I let him go on my lawn only, and he's not really doing anything else. So really no negatives, although he's just a dog - and that seems to be the problem you have with him. I guess I should say he's a positive value on the micro-society of my old neighborhood.Your original question only asked about the value of the person to society while not noting that a person can have a huge negative value to society. And that's fine.
rolyaTy
You're Heinous
I see your points. One of them I already talked about and I dont think it necessarily applies in the self-preservation situation. As with all ideals, and I do think this is an ideal, it basically sets up the BEST way to treat people. We all likely fall short of our ideal conduct in relation to other people, but at least this way we have a scale bar by which to measure our action. In the case of saving the dog, the scale bar tells us the best thing we can do would be to save the other human. If we choose differently, we do so knowing that our choice goes against the ideal. If we can come up with sufficient reason to justify our choice, we might be able to sleep at night (which btw, doesn't make it any more "right" or correct). The justification I see occuring most often is that in doing so, they are sacrificing their own hapiness, for the happiness of others. The odd thing is, in doing the right thing, this often occurs. So simply saying that you're having to give up your own happiness in order to do the right thing, isn't enough reason to say that what you're doing is actually right.This is why I asked, how many people who saved the dog actually admit that what they're doing would be going against their moral ideas. If this is the case, they're simply bad people according to their own moral codes. If that's not the case, I wonder what their moral code actually consists of.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Actually, its one thing to cause harm to someone in order to make yourself happy. That is wrong. But I didn't throw the stranger in the water. I'm merely choosing one of the two choices that was thrust upon me.I do not think by picking my happiness that I am wrong. My point is exactly that. You, or anyone else, can do whatever they see fit in that position. You can not ask someone to let a loved one die in order to make another family happy.How would you feel if the guy who saved you over his dog committed suicide the next week because he lost his best friend?
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
He once saved another dog while a stranger drowned.
Yup it is. Enjoy having others make your decisions for you.Your opinion...I'm not a hunter. I'm not a moron. And I wouldn't want anyone to drown. But I can pick who I want to save, and simply put - it's my dog.Hmmmm are any of you Fido lovers hunters?????I seriously cannot believe a lot of the thinking in this thread, it is of a concern to me...Hopefully you or a friend or family member is not a "stranger" to someone who could save their lives and choose to save FiFi instead...Morons...
Vivian Darkbloom
Footballguy
Later in the day, you would, 100% certainly, have to face a home without your beloved dog. There's no reason to think you'd have to face the stranger's family at all, and even if you ran into them at Taco Bell, there's no reason you'd know it was them, or they'd know it was you. That's why it's a stranger.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Once again, please explain why other people's happiness overrides my family's happiness?
rolyaTy
You're Heinous
You choosing to save the dog kills the stranger. It's that simple. Likewise, choosing to save the stranger kills the dog. If a parent decides to not feed his child, he is essentially killing the child. It's true, it's not a direct action of his that is killing the child, it's merely his inaction that's doing it...but it's the same.I could CERTAINLY ask someone to let their dog die in order to save my son or mother or father, and EXPECT that to happen.As far as the whole suicide thing, if a guy commits suicide over losing his dog, he has problems. And honestly, I can only stick to one absurd hypothetical at a time.
rolyaTy
You're Heinous
Also equally put, you're condemning my mom to drown.I'm not a hunter. I'm not a moron. And I wouldn't want anyone to drown. But I can pick who I want to save, and simply put - it's my dog.Hmmmm are any of you Fido lovers hunters?????I seriously cannot believe a lot of the thinking in this thread, it is of a concern to me...Hopefully you or a friend or family member is not a "stranger" to someone who could save their lives and choose to save FiFi instead...Morons...
AhrnCityPahnder
Yinz-o-riffic
>>>>>First, does the do unto others situation apply to only humans, or does it apply to all animals? If it applies to all animals, and you're not a vegetarian and dont believe that every time a pig is slaughtered it's tantamount to murder, I think you're not being consistant.<<<<<I apply it mostly to humans. Not to all animals, just the ones that I have lived with for years. I do not set a consistant value to all animals. I don't see any inconsistancy here. I guess that would make me a lousy cattle farmer, but since I didn't go down that career path, I don't mind a whole lot. >>>>>>Finally, how many of you will admit that you're simply going against your moral code in order to save the dog because you like the dog more than most anything else?<<<<<<I really don't think that I am going against my moral code here. My morals tell me to save the thing that is most important to my life. That's not you (in the generic sense), Shlubby.
rolyaTy
You're Heinous
I think it either applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. A maxim isn't any good unless it applies across the board, or not at all. Maybe you should adapt the maxim to being "Do unto those you love as you would have those you love do unto you"...a case can be made that you should love all man, but I think that point would be lost here.
Similar threads
