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

[Thorn]

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom.  There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

They're both equally irreplacable. Sure, he could get another dog, but it would be just that: an other dog. Different name, different mannerisms, different tricks. The old dog is gone and could never be replaced. Likewise, you could find some other old lady and follow her around and call her mom and buy her stuff on mother's day, but she wouldn't be your real mom. So they're both irreplacable.

:rotflmao: They're both irreplaceable, not equally irreplaceable.

 

[Smoo]

Moreso than many, I suspect, because I feel from what I'm reading here like there aren't many around that truly value life -- they value labels ("son," "wife," "mom", etc.).

What is about the label "mammal" that makes it more than just a label for you?

 

[rolyaTy]

And I will be up front and say that if your mom (or anyone reading this thread's mom) was dying and could be saved by my dog being killed, I would not do it.  Your mom is a stanger to me.  Tying the stranger to someone I'm conversing with here does not make her any less of a stranger to me.  So, unless I know and care about your mom outside of this discussion, I will choose my dog over your mom.  Would I hold a grudge agaisnt you for doing the same?  I suppose I'd hope that you were less attached to your dogs than I am to mine, but ultimately, no grudge.

Well, that's an honest and telling statement. I dont know you, but i'd save your mom in a HEARTBEAT over saving a dog I had since I was three until I was over 18 years old. I dunno what more I can say. If you can make that statement and not have any problems with it, I dont think we can disagree any more. Also, I cannot accept the fact that you wouldn't hold a grudge against me for saving my dog instead of your mom.

vivian said it well, a few posts above. If you belive that I would make the decisions I am claiming I would make in this thread, then how could I hold a grudge against someone else for doing the same?

Because I feel that in making the decisions you claim, you aren't taking into consideration the value of the stranger. Also, because most things in your life are guided by personal value to you, you SHOULD in fact be mad that a stranger valued his own dog to which you attach no value, than your mom to which you attach great value (I imagine).

 

[Smoo]

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom.  There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

They're both equally irreplacable. Sure, he could get another dog, but it would be just that: an other dog. Different name, different mannerisms, different tricks. The old dog is gone and could never be replaced. Likewise, you could find some other old lady and follow her around and call her mom and buy her stuff on mother's day, but she wouldn't be your real mom. So they're both irreplacable.

:rotflmao: They're both irreplaceable, not equally irreplaceable.

Something is either replaceable or it's irreplaceable. There's no such thing as "sort of irreplaceable".

 

[rolyaTy]

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom. There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

They're both equally irreplacable. Sure, he could get another dog, but it would be just that: an other dog. Different name, different mannerisms, different tricks. The old dog is gone and could never be replaced. Likewise, you could find some other old lady and follow her around and call her mom and buy her stuff on mother's day, but she wouldn't be your real mom. So they're both irreplacable.

A dog and a mom are equally irreplacable? Maybe in the strictest LITERALY sense they both will never exactly be back. But which one is MORE replacable...the answer is easy. The dog. This means the dog is MORE replacable than the mother, therefore less valuable...imo of course.

 

[Thorn]

Moreso than many, I suspect, because I feel from what I'm reading here like there aren't many around that truly value life -- they value labels ("son," "wife," "mom", etc.).

Those aren't "labels," they are people. We use those words to highlight the fact that they are people who are important to other people. Dogs are not people; although I still love dogs, their lives don't compare to human life.

 

[rolyaTy]

There's nothing callous about it. If I felt nothing, it would be callous. I would feel very deeply, I assure you. I would grieve as deeply and sincerely as anyone. Moreso than many, I suspect, because I feel from what I'm reading here like there aren't many around that truly value life -- they value labels ("son," "wife," "mom", etc.).But WTF would anger solve? Mom's already feeding the fish. I'd miss her deeply, regret her loss, revere her memory, and understand that it was her life or another that another thinking, feeling, compassionate human being chose, knowing he could only choose one. WhoTF am I to take that choice from him, when he made it using values I cherish?

Actually, theoretically I can't argue with you here. But what if the guy who saved his dog over saving your mom didn't share your moral system? What if he simply thought your mom to be (insert bad thing here) and for that reason, he didn't like her and wanted her to die. I can see your point if the guy had the same moral system you do...but in this world, I doubt that's likely, especially considering the religious makeup of america. So basically, if I had your moral system, and someone else didn't...and they made a choice based on theirs...or not based on theirs, that put down my moms live and value thereof, i'd be mad.

 

[Smoo]

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom.  There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

They're both equally irreplacable. Sure, he could get another dog, but it would be just that: an other dog. Different name, different mannerisms, different tricks. The old dog is gone and could never be replaced. Likewise, you could find some other old lady and follow her around and call her mom and buy her stuff on mother's day, but she wouldn't be your real mom. So they're both irreplacable.

A dog and a mom are equally irreplacable? Maybe in the strictest LITERALY sense they both will never exactly be back. But which one is MORE replacable...the answer is easy. The dog. This means the dog is MORE replacable than the mother, therefore less valuable...imo of course.

No, the new dog is not the same dog. The old dog is just as replaceable as the mother.And besides, if the dog dies, I have to replace it. If the mother dies, that's some other schmuck's problem.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Moreso than many, I suspect, because I feel from what I'm reading here like there aren't many around that truly value life -- they value labels ("son," "wife," "mom", etc.).

What is about the label "mammal" that makes it more than just a label for you?

Ah, now here's a good question. This, I'm afraid, is just one of those lines I've had to draw in the sand. I can't revere all life equally, or I'd have to let myself die out of respect for the things I refused to eat. So I have to make choices. Many of mine are based on logic, many are based on places my conscience tells me to draw the lines. This goes back to an earlier post I made. All I can say on that is it's the place where my feelings about the potentially-doomed change. Mammal is where I drew that particular line. Taxonomic class-ism, I guess.All moral arguments turn grey somewhere. That's where mine does, and it can only be explained in terms of feeling. But at least I've examined my feelings (prior to this, I mean, so I've thought about life-value pretty deeply), so I feel that I can claim without it being too big a stretch that I do value life in a general sense deeper than what I see most doing. (And this statement too is relative of course -- I mean that I value life according to my own values more than I see most others doing according to what I value.) I have to admit, though, while it's an opinion I have some basis for, it's still just an opinion.

Good on ya. ***** in the armor, to be sure.

 

[the rover]

So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.

What exactly has your dog contributed to society?

Sometimes my wife & I bring my dog to nursing homes. The old people get the biggest kick out of it. Anybody who has a dog that's good with people should consider doing this. As soon as they see him their lonely, emotionless faces turn to smiles and laughter. It's amazing how a little dog can make them so happy, even if just for a little while. It's really very moving.

I would argue that it's not YOUR dog that brings this value, but simply A dog. Whereas the value to the family of the person whom you choose to let die, the value is attached to THAT specific person.

you're changing the question. it is the rescuer's dog. it isn't just a stranger dog.stranger human v. stranger dog is an entirely different situation.

Like I said, stranger removes all personality from a person. Simply because they dont have value to that specific person does NOT mean they lack value all-together. It helps in making the situation more real in thinking of the stranger as a person.For instance, change the situation. A stranger is drowning, and a strangers dog is drowning. I can only save one. I acknowledge that there is value attached to both, each to his/her family. I still save the person. You can't remove real value from someone simply by calling them a stranger...all that does is remove PERSONAL value to the person making the choice. If they were willing to acknowledge that in truth, the other person was someones son, father, mother or sister...would they make the same choice. I'd hope not.

again, you're forced to add to the human and subtract from the dog. you don't know if the stranger has a family. plenty of people go through life with no wives, no kids, and long-deceased parents. you don't know that he isn't drowning because he just raped someone's daughter and was thrown in the water and left to drown.adding addtional baggage changes the question. if you have to add characteristics to the person to make them worth saving, then the argument to save all people unconditionally must be flawed.

I really dont understand what you're saying here. My original point was that in the hypothetical case, would you save a stranger or your dog, it's too easy to think of the stranger as being worthless. This is primarily because the stranger has no value to you. I said that in making the choice of who to save, you have to take into consideration the total value of the two involved. This meant that I didn't think that most people making the choice of saving the dog, actually were thinking of the stranger as having value.

if you have to add characteristics to the person to make them worth saving, then the argument to save all people unconditionally must be flawed.

Actually, this is more to suiting my point than I think it suits yours. If someone has to remove all value from a stranger in order to facilitate them saving their dog, I think their answer is flawed. If they're willing to say that by choosing their dog, they're letting someones mom die, maybe a future friends mom, then they might have cause to reconsider. If not, then they're really hard-core.In order to give the stranger value, you have to think of them as an individual, just not some nebulous creature with no worth attached. In order to do so, think of them like someones brother, sister, dad, mom, son, daughter, best friend, wife, husband...etc. I said if you can still make the decision to drown someones mom/brother/etc at the expense of your own dog, then we can't really argue any more because we're just not living in the same realms of morality here.And truth be told, i'm not "adding the human and subtracting from the dog". I'm simply showing hte people that in fact, the human IS HUMAN. I mean to take away nothing from people and their love for their dogs. I absolutely ADORE dogs, had one growing up from the time I can remember being aware, until I left for college. I loved my dog, and I will get another one VERY soon and will love it and it'll be one of my closest companions. But still, I recognize the difference between my dog, and someones mother. I can get another dog very similar to the one I had, train it, love it, etc...but someone else can't get another mother.

you argued that characterizing someone as only a "stranger" somehow devalued them, and that they needed to be thought of in terms of other things--such as their relationships, including family.you're forced to assume these relationships, and to attempt to add additional value to the person's life via their affect on others. if the argument is that all human beings, unconditionally, should be saved over all dogs, you would not have to add these characteristics.you've attempted to add context to establish the value of the life--however, there is no context. the person is simply a random human being thrashing around in the water.at the same time, you've removed context re the dog. it is the very relationship that you feel the need to add to the human that is the basis for saving the dog, but you've been forced to try to avoid that, claiming that dogs are fungible. apparently, to many of their owners, they are not.

 

[rolyaTy]

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom.  There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

They're both equally irreplacable. Sure, he could get another dog, but it would be just that: an other dog. Different name, different mannerisms, different tricks. The old dog is gone and could never be replaced. Likewise, you could find some other old lady and follow her around and call her mom and buy her stuff on mother's day, but she wouldn't be your real mom. So they're both irreplacable.

A dog and a mom are equally irreplacable? Maybe in the strictest LITERALY sense they both will never exactly be back. But which one is MORE replacable...the answer is easy. The dog. This means the dog is MORE replacable than the mother, therefore less valuable...imo of course.

No, the new dog is not the same dog. The old dog is just as replaceable as the mother.And besides, if the dog dies, I have to replace it. If the mother dies, that's some other schmuck's problem.

Did you not read what I wrote? I said that in the STRICTEST sense, you're right...the old dog and the mother will NEVER be back exactly the same.However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

 

[Thorn]

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom.  There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

They're both equally irreplacable. Sure, he could get another dog, but it would be just that: an other dog. Different name, different mannerisms, different tricks. The old dog is gone and could never be replaced. Likewise, you could find some other old lady and follow her around and call her mom and buy her stuff on mother's day, but she wouldn't be your real mom. So they're both irreplacable.

:rotflmao: They're both irreplaceable, not equally irreplaceable.

Something is either replaceable or it's irreplaceable. There's no such thing as "sort of irreplaceable".

I find it hard to believe that most people would find that their mother would be "equally replaceable" compared to their (admittedly beloved) pet. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Smoo]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

 

[the rover]

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom. There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

They're both equally irreplacable. Sure, he could get another dog, but it would be just that: an other dog. Different name, different mannerisms, different tricks. The old dog is gone and could never be replaced. Likewise, you could find some other old lady and follow her around and call her mom and buy her stuff on mother's day, but she wouldn't be your real mom. So they're both irreplacable.

A dog and a mom are equally irreplacable? Maybe in the strictest LITERALY sense they both will never exactly be back. But which one is MORE replacable...the answer is easy. The dog. This means the dog is MORE replacable than the mother, therefore less valuable...imo of course.

No, the new dog is not the same dog. The old dog is just as replaceable as the mother.And besides, if the dog dies, I have to replace it. If the mother dies, that's some other schmuck's problem.

Did you not read what I wrote? I said that in the STRICTEST sense, you're right...the old dog and the mother will NEVER be back exactly the same.However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

this is an example of what I was saying before, which I wasn't able to make you understand. you have now added a biological component to the relationship component to try to make your point. if it wasn't my mom, but my friend, the answer would be "yes, I can get a new friend. it wouldn't be the same, but I can get a new friend."

but it isn't my mom, or my friend. it's my dog.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

There's nothing callous about it. If I felt nothing, it would be callous. I would feel very deeply, I assure you. I would grieve as deeply and sincerely as anyone. Moreso than many, I suspect, because I feel from what I'm reading here like there aren't many around that truly value life -- they value labels ("son," "wife," "mom", etc.).

But WTF would anger solve? Mom's already feeding the fish. I'd miss her deeply, regret her loss, revere her memory, and understand that it was her life or another that another thinking, feeling, compassionate human being chose, knowing he could only choose one. WhoTF am I to take that choice from him, when he made it using values I cherish?

Actually, theoretically I can't argue with you here. But what if the guy who saved his dog over saving your mom didn't share your moral system? What if he simply thought your mom to be (insert bad thing here) and for that reason, he didn't like her and wanted her to die.

I can see your point if the guy had the same moral system you do...but in this world, I doubt that's likely, especially considering the religious makeup of america.

So basically, if I had your moral system, and someone else didn't...and they made a choice based on theirs...or not based on theirs, that put down my moms live and value thereof, i'd be mad.

I reserve the right to be angry at, go to war with, disparage, or otherwise show ill feelings toward anyone who doesn't share my moral system. That's why it's a moral system -- it's about what you consider right versus wrong, in an absolute sense.So if, for example, the man let my mom drown and saved the dog out of spite, and I found out, I would probably perform unspeakable acts of vengeance upon him while he slept. (Or at least see what legal steps I could take to ensure he spent a good deal of time as a prison #####.) This does not violate my sense of moral well-being in the least.

If, to take another scenario, he let mom drown because the dog was easier to save, I'd be very sad (still), and probably very angry as well. But not like revenge-seeking angry. Just angry.

This is fun. Let's start another thread where we make other stuff drown.

 

[rolyaTy]

you argued that characterizing someone as only a "stranger" somehow devalued them, and that they needed to be thought of in terms of other things--such as their relationships, including family.you're forced to assume these relationships, and to attempt to add additional value to the person's life via their affect on others. if the argument is that all human beings, unconditionally, should be saved over all dogs, you would not have to add these characteristics.you've attempted to add context to establish the value of the life--however, there is no context. the person is simply a random human being thrashing around in the water.at the same time, you've removed context re the dog. it is the very relationship that you feel the need to add to the human that is the basis for saving the dog, but you've been forced to try to avoid that, claiming that dogs are fungible. apparently, to many of their owners, they are not.

First off, I hold to the idea that human life is inherently more valuable than a dogs life...or canine life. In any specific situation, I believe that saving a dog over a human is wrong. We're talking about two things. One is subjective value, what the dog's value is to the person choosing compared to a strangers value...and Objective value, which is mainly what i'm talking about and has to do with the value that society as a whole sees in the dog and the person.Society includes the family of the people, who are likely the ones who value that person the most. Society really cares very little for the dog i'd imagine (except for a few isolated cases).Now, i'm saying there is a disupte between subjective value and objective value, and for those that think that human life and canine life are inherently equally valuable, it's hard to argue that subjective value (the value of the dog to the person) is actually less valuable than the subjective value of the stranger (which has little-no personal value to the person choosing). My poitn was that in making this choice, you shouldn't ONLY consider subjective value, you should consider Objective value. IN order to do so, you have to think of where the other person dervies value from, and in general it's from the persons family. When you beging to "humanize" the stranger, the value gap should decrease. I'm in no way trying to devalue the dog, or add extra value to the person...i'm merely trying to point out that in an objective sense, which is the sense that this decision should be made, that one should consider the Objective value of each, and choose accordingly. This has nothing to do with changing the values of each involved, only in showing their TRUE values.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

This was big grins. Thanks. Out for now to go into the world and spread tree-hugging hippie propaganda and stuff.

 

[rolyaTy]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

I doubt you feel this way about your mother. If so, I feel sorry for her. She should feel happy that she's the old lady you chose to attach feelings to.

 

[rolyaTy]

This was big grins. Thanks. Out for now to go into the world and spread tree-hugging hippie propaganda and stuff.

Likewise.Dont forget your floaties.

 

[the rover]

out as well. need to buy a christmas tree so that the dog can knock it over and break all the ornaments.

 

[mojorizin]

So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.

What exactly has your dog contributed to society?

Sometimes my wife & I bring my dog to nursing homes. The old people get the biggest kick out of it. Anybody who has a dog that's good with people should consider doing this. As soon as they see him their lonely, emotionless faces turn to smiles and laughter. It's amazing how a little dog can make them so happy, even if just for a little while. It's really very moving.

Precisely! You take an old person to a nursing home and they just get all ##### about it. F'in old people.

 

[BoneYardDog]

I would let BoneYardDog drown while I saved another person I didn't know. I'm not sure if that's relevant here or not, jsut thought I'd share.

Well you fit right in here cause a lot of your friends here would save a freaking 4 legged animal and let your mother die...I repeat, morons...

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

I would let BoneYardDog drown while I saved another person I didn't know. I'm not sure if that's relevant here or not, jsut thought I'd share.

Well you fit right in here cause a lot of your friends here would save a freaking 4 legged animal and let your mother die...I repeat, morons...

I would save a 3 legged dog too.

 

[J-Co]

you argued that characterizing someone as only a "stranger" somehow devalued them, and that they needed to be thought of in terms of other things--such as their relationships, including family.you're forced to assume these relationships, and to attempt to add additional value to the person's life via their affect on others. if the argument is that all human beings, unconditionally, should be saved over all dogs, you would not have to add these characteristics.you've attempted to add context to establish the value of the life--however, there is no context. the person is simply a random human being thrashing around in the water.at the same time, you've removed context re the dog. it is the very relationship that you feel the need to add to the human that is the basis for saving the dog, but you've been forced to try to avoid that, claiming that dogs are fungible. apparently, to many of their owners, they are not.

First off, I hold to the idea that human life is inherently more valuable than a dogs life...or canine life. In any specific situation, I believe that saving a dog over a human is wrong. We're talking about two things. One is subjective value, what the dog's value is to the person choosing compared to a strangers value...and Objective value, which is mainly what i'm talking about and has to do with the value that society as a whole sees in the dog and the person.Society includes the family of the people, who are likely the ones who value that person the most. Society really cares very little for the dog i'd imagine (except for a few isolated cases).Now, i'm saying there is a disupte between subjective value and objective value, and for those that think that human life and canine life are inherently equally valuable, it's hard to argue that subjective value (the value of the dog to the person) is actually less valuable than the subjective value of the stranger (which has little-no personal value to the person choosing). My poitn was that in making this choice, you shouldn't ONLY consider subjective value, you should consider Objective value. IN order to do so, you have to think of where the other person dervies value from, and in general it's from the persons family. When you beging to "humanize" the stranger, the value gap should decrease. I'm in no way trying to devalue the dog, or add extra value to the person...i'm merely trying to point out that in an objective sense, which is the sense that this decision should be made, that one should consider the Objective value of each, and choose accordingly. This has nothing to do with changing the values of each involved, only in showing their TRUE values.

Not to sound like a broken record, and I don't doubt that would be a noble system of morals to live by (however unrealistic), but your $1000 is more valuable to my $100 in objective terms. There's no way around that. But I may very well decide I'd rather you lose your $1000 than I lose my $100. Is that wrong of me? I would argue that it is not.

 

[BoneYardDog]

I didn't admit that, i said it'd be a tough choice.

Sorry, was going on memory there.

But what I did say is that regardless of my choice in that situation, the one we're talking about is NOT the same.  We're talking about a dog here.  In the other situation we're talking about a person.  I believe inherently dogs are less valuable than humans.  So the situations are analogous.

We're just going in circles now. I agree, that as a rule of thumb, that random dog is worth less than random person. But, as with people in your family (and the two dogs in mine) , the people and dogs that I care about hold a mighty powerful trump card. And I will be up front and say that if your mom (or anyone reading this thread's mom) was dying and could be saved by my dog being killed, I would not do it. Your mom is a stanger to me. Tying the stranger to someone I'm conversing with here does not make her any less of a stranger to me. So, unless I know and care about your mom outside of this discussion, I will choose my dog over your mom. Would I hold a grudge agaisnt you for doing the same? I suppose I'd hope that you were less attached to your dogs than I am to mine, but ultimately, no grudge.

You are a sad sad excuse for a human being...Hey but I gotta admit you are changing my outlook, I would definitely save a dog or a dogs leavings rather than you, because you are a danger...

 

[rolyaTy]

you argued that characterizing someone as only a "stranger" somehow devalued them, and that they needed to be thought of in terms of other things--such as their relationships, including family.you're forced to assume these relationships, and to attempt to add additional value to the person's life via their affect on others.  if the argument is that all human beings, unconditionally, should be saved over all dogs, you would not have to add these characteristics.you've attempted to add context to establish the value of the life--however, there is no context.  the person is simply a random human being thrashing around in the water.at the same time, you've removed context re the dog.  it is the very relationship that you feel the need to add to the human that is the basis for saving the dog, but you've been forced to try to avoid that, claiming that dogs are fungible.  apparently, to many of their owners, they are not.

First off, I hold to the idea that human life is inherently more valuable than a dogs life...or canine life. In any specific situation, I believe that saving a dog over a human is wrong. We're talking about two things. One is subjective value, what the dog's value is to the person choosing compared to a strangers value...and Objective value, which is mainly what i'm talking about and has to do with the value that society as a whole sees in the dog and the person.Society includes the family of the people, who are likely the ones who value that person the most. Society really cares very little for the dog i'd imagine (except for a few isolated cases).Now, i'm saying there is a disupte between subjective value and objective value, and for those that think that human life and canine life are inherently equally valuable, it's hard to argue that subjective value (the value of the dog to the person) is actually less valuable than the subjective value of the stranger (which has little-no personal value to the person choosing). My poitn was that in making this choice, you shouldn't ONLY consider subjective value, you should consider Objective value. IN order to do so, you have to think of where the other person dervies value from, and in general it's from the persons family. When you beging to "humanize" the stranger, the value gap should decrease. I'm in no way trying to devalue the dog, or add extra value to the person...i'm merely trying to point out that in an objective sense, which is the sense that this decision should be made, that one should consider the Objective value of each, and choose accordingly. This has nothing to do with changing the values of each involved, only in showing their TRUE values.

Not to sound like a broken record, and I don't doubt that would be a noble system of morals to live by (however unrealistic), but your $1000 is more valuable to my $100 in objective terms. There's no way around that. But I may very well decide I'd rather you lose your $1000 than I lose my $100. Is that wrong of me? I would argue that it is not.

I dont know how you could say that my $1000 is objectively worth more than your $100. In this case, money has little value other than what it means to someone. If someone has 30 identical toys, 1 of those toys is objectively worth less than a person who only has 1 of the toys. If you were to take away one from each, one would be broke and hte other would have 29 of the same toys left.Same idea with money. While it could be true that objectively $1000 is worth more than $100, but if i'm bill gates, and you're a hobo on the street, i guarantee you that $1000 to me is worth less than $100 is to you. All value is in how it relates to people (absent other religious arguments). In this case, value is based on need.

 

[rolyaTy]

I think an interesting concept could come out of this, similar to the Draft Dominator.It would be based upon, Value Based Decision Making...and I guess a draft strategy would fall under its branches.I'd submit that in making choices based on value, you have to take into consideration not simply the value of the subject in question, but the relative value compared to what came before it and what could possibly come after it (if anything).In this situation, i'd suggest that the relative value here of a dog, compared to dogs that came before it, and dogs that come after it would be minimal, compared to the relative value of what losing a mom/brother/sister/dad would be. Therefore, in this casue, the relative value calculator would rank the value of one such person as being higher than that of a dog. If one were to take value into consideration in the decision making process, one should save the stranger who is someones brother/sister/dad/mom over choosing the dog.

 

[J-Co]

you argued that characterizing someone as only a "stranger" somehow devalued them, and that they needed to be thought of in terms of other things--such as their relationships, including family.you're forced to assume these relationships, and to attempt to add additional value to the person's life via their affect on others.  if the argument is that all human beings, unconditionally, should be saved over all dogs, you would not have to add these characteristics.you've attempted to add context to establish the value of the life--however, there is no context.  the person is simply a random human being thrashing around in the water.at the same time, you've removed context re the dog.  it is the very relationship that you feel the need to add to the human that is the basis for saving the dog, but you've been forced to try to avoid that, claiming that dogs are fungible.  apparently, to many of their owners, they are not.

First off, I hold to the idea that human life is inherently more valuable than a dogs life...or canine life. In any specific situation, I believe that saving a dog over a human is wrong. We're talking about two things. One is subjective value, what the dog's value is to the person choosing compared to a strangers value...and Objective value, which is mainly what i'm talking about and has to do with the value that society as a whole sees in the dog and the person.Society includes the family of the people, who are likely the ones who value that person the most. Society really cares very little for the dog i'd imagine (except for a few isolated cases).Now, i'm saying there is a disupte between subjective value and objective value, and for those that think that human life and canine life are inherently equally valuable, it's hard to argue that subjective value (the value of the dog to the person) is actually less valuable than the subjective value of the stranger (which has little-no personal value to the person choosing). My poitn was that in making this choice, you shouldn't ONLY consider subjective value, you should consider Objective value. IN order to do so, you have to think of where the other person dervies value from, and in general it's from the persons family. When you beging to "humanize" the stranger, the value gap should decrease. I'm in no way trying to devalue the dog, or add extra value to the person...i'm merely trying to point out that in an objective sense, which is the sense that this decision should be made, that one should consider the Objective value of each, and choose accordingly. This has nothing to do with changing the values of each involved, only in showing their TRUE values.

Not to sound like a broken record, and I don't doubt that would be a noble system of morals to live by (however unrealistic), but your $1000 is more valuable to my $100 in objective terms. There's no way around that. But I may very well decide I'd rather you lose your $1000 than I lose my $100. Is that wrong of me? I would argue that it is not.

I dont know how you could say that my $1000 is objectively worth more than your $100. In this case, money has little value other than what it means to someone. If someone has 30 identical toys, 1 of those toys is objectively worth less than a person who only has 1 of the toys. If you were to take away one from each, one would be broke and hte other would have 29 of the same toys left.Same idea with money. While it could be true that objectively $1000 is worth more than $100, but if i'm bill gates, and you're a hobo on the street, i guarantee you that $1000 to me is worth less than $100 is to you. All value is in how it relates to people (absent other religious arguments). In this case, value is based on need.

If the value of money is open to subjective context (which I agree), then certainly the value of a dog is as well. Likewise, if you can give objective value to the stranger, then the money has an objective value as well (printed right on it). I don't like this example as much as the children one because it trivializes it, but I think it models the situation just the same. Something of value has to be lost, either mine or someone elses. I am in position to decide which. There is a generally agreed upon objective value to both. What I stand to lose is of a lesser value. Subjectively, I may or may not have a higher value for what I stand to lose, but either way I am in position to decide whether I lose nothing and someone else loses something or I lose something and someone else does not. Having some concern for my fellow man, I am willing to make a sacrifice in certain circumstances but there are others where I am not. These tend to be things of high value to me. Money being something everyone can relate to, I would almost always choose to keep my $100 at the expense of someone else's $1000. My dog being something that I care about a hell of a lot more, I would be willing to allow something else of even greater value to be lost, in this case the stranger.

 

[rolyaTy]

Hah, well, I think i've contributed all I can in making this conversation last past 30 pages. I'll have to pass the argumentative torch on to someone else from this point on, although I'll still chime in around page 40 or so.From now on though, on my first dates, I WILL be asking the question "So, your dog and a stranger are both drowning. You can only save one. Which do you save?" This will likely be a make or break question in the potential relationship because it speaks to so many fundamental values. I dont think many women would save the dog though, but I could be wrong.My opinion hasn't changed on what I'd do, and I dont think anyone was trying to change my opinion really. However, it's really hard to logically defend a value system.

 

[Smoo]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

I doubt you feel this way about your mother. If so, I feel sorry for her. She should feel happy that she's the old lady you chose to attach feelings to.

I don't feel that way about my mother. I feel that way about somebody else's mother. Isn't that the point here? My mother's not a stranger, she's not the one drowning in this scenario.

 

[rolyaTy]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

I doubt you feel this way about your mother. If so, I feel sorry for her. She should feel happy that she's the old lady you chose to attach feelings to.

I don't feel that way about my mother. I feel that way about somebody else's mother. Isn't that the point here? My mother's not a stranger, she's not the one drowning in this scenario.

She could be, sure she's a stranger to someone.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What if the guy who was about to nuke Europe was innocent too? Like, he thought the button was to order a Fresca, but it actually was the "nuke Europe" button.

Where do they have buttons for ordering Frescas?Anyway, I'd kill him.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:

Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Is it a wanted human embryo, or an unwanted human embryo?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

How come whenever a Creationist says anything about evolution, it always, without fail, turns out not only to be flat wrong, but completely, ridiculously, humorously so?

 

[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.

How come whenever a Creationist says anything about evolution, it always, without fail, turns out not only to be flat wrong, but completely, ridiculously, humorously so?

:rotflmao:edit -> I think most of both sides of the discussion can take pause and appreciate that.

 

[Smoo]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

I doubt you feel this way about your mother. If so, I feel sorry for her. She should feel happy that she's the old lady you chose to attach feelings to.

I don't feel that way about my mother. I feel that way about somebody else's mother. Isn't that the point here? My mother's not a stranger, she's not the one drowning in this scenario.

She could be, sure she's a stranger to someone.

Sure, but then I'm not the one who has to make the rescue decision.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?"

But Vivian, this is based on ignorance."Huh. Wonder what happened?" is your reaction only because you don't know the guy. He's a stranger. You haven't played billiards with him while drunk, sung songs 'round the campfire with him while drunk, watched a Steelers game with him while drunk, or even done shots of tequila with him while drunk. If you had -- if this guy was your buddy -- you would feel a deeper loss for his death than for any dog's, no matter how well you knew the dog. If you knew everything there was to know about both the guy and the dog -- their fears, their hopes, their respective ball-licking capabilities -- I'm nearly certain that you'd value the guy's life more, and he's the one you'd save. This is because people are generally more valuable than dogs.

That doesn't cease being true just because you happen not to know this particular stranger very well. You are ignorant of this particular person's fears, hopes, and ball-licking aptitude; but don't let your ignorance lead you to make an incorrect decision. Do what you'd do if you had full information.

 

[rolyaTy]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

I doubt you feel this way about your mother. If so, I feel sorry for her. She should feel happy that she's the old lady you chose to attach feelings to.

I don't feel that way about my mother. I feel that way about somebody else's mother. Isn't that the point here? My mother's not a stranger, she's not the one drowning in this scenario.

She could be, sure she's a stranger to someone.

Sure, but then I'm not the one who has to make the rescue decision.

Which would you save...your mother or your dog? Just curious.

 

[Smoo]

Do what you'd do if you had full information.

Like, say, if he was an escaped child rapist? That kind of full information?"Full information" occupies the entire range of human worth. And as long as the levels of human worth and the levels of dog worth overlap then there is no "right" answer.And yes, to some people those worth levels overlap.

 

[Smoo]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

I doubt you feel this way about your mother. If so, I feel sorry for her. She should feel happy that she's the old lady you chose to attach feelings to.

I don't feel that way about my mother. I feel that way about somebody else's mother. Isn't that the point here? My mother's not a stranger, she's not the one drowning in this scenario.

She could be, sure she's a stranger to someone.

Sure, but then I'm not the one who has to make the rescue decision.

Which would you save...your mother or your dog? Just curious.

My mother. But that's an entirely different question.

 

[rolyaTy]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

I doubt you feel this way about your mother. If so, I feel sorry for her. She should feel happy that she's the old lady you chose to attach feelings to.

I don't feel that way about my mother. I feel that way about somebody else's mother. Isn't that the point here? My mother's not a stranger, she's not the one drowning in this scenario.

She could be, sure she's a stranger to someone.

Sure, but then I'm not the one who has to make the rescue decision.

Which would you save...your mother or your dog? Just curious.

My mother. But that's an entirely different question.

Who should I save out of the two (using your justification for picking the dog over a stranger)Your mom, or your dog? I can only save one.Since they're both equally non-valuable to me, it's entirely likely I might save neither as it's probly not worth my time...using the purley subjective value scale.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Do what you'd do if you had full information.

Like, say, if he was an escaped child rapist? That kind of full information?

Sure. Multiply the probability that he's a child rapist by the average value of child rapists, and add it to product of the probability that he's not a child rapist and the average value of non-child-rapists. That's his expected value.The chances that he's a child rapist are pretty slim, though; so the possibility is fairly irrelevant.

 

[mojorizin]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

I doubt you feel this way about your mother. If so, I feel sorry for her. She should feel happy that she's the old lady you chose to attach feelings to.

I don't feel that way about my mother. I feel that way about somebody else's mother. Isn't that the point here? My mother's not a stranger, she's not the one drowning in this scenario.

She could be, sure she's a stranger to someone.

Sure, but then I'm not the one who has to make the rescue decision.

Which would you save...your mother or your dog? Just curious.

My mother. But that's an entirely different question.

It flat depends on who you love the most and value the most. Thats what this whole thing boils down to. Its a choice of saving something I love over something/someone I don't give a #### about. No moral dilemna, no philosophical contemplation. Love Dog. Don't give a #### about Stranger. Smoo decides mom loved more than dog, he saves mom. Eminem hates mom, saves dog.

 

[Mr.Happy]

Is the Vivian Darkbloom implosion worth reading? And boy, this thread got some serious milage.

 

[rolyaTy]

Is the Vivian Darkbloom implosion worth reading? And boy, this thread got some serious milage.

Actually, yes, as are all his posts.

 

[Smoo]

However, you can get a new dog...can you get a new mother?

No, but as Vivian pointed out, "mother" is just a label. You can find a new older lady to love.Can I get a new "dog I've had since I was three"?

I doubt you feel this way about your mother. If so, I feel sorry for her. She should feel happy that she's the old lady you chose to attach feelings to.

I don't feel that way about my mother. I feel that way about somebody else's mother. Isn't that the point here? My mother's not a stranger, she's not the one drowning in this scenario.

She could be, sure she's a stranger to someone.

Sure, but then I'm not the one who has to make the rescue decision.

Which would you save...your mother or your dog? Just curious.

My mother. But that's an entirely different question.

Who should I save out of the two (using your justification for picking the dog over a stranger)Your mom, or your dog? I can only save one.Since they're both equally non-valuable to me, it's entirely likely I might save neither as it's probly not worth my time...using the purley subjective value scale.

I can't make that decision for you. I can only make decisions for me.

 

[Smoo]

Do what you'd do if you had full information.

Like, say, if he was an escaped child rapist? That kind of full information?

Sure. Multiply the probability that he's a child rapist by the average value of child rapists, and add it to product of the probability that he's not a child rapist and the average value of non-child-rapists. That's his expected value.The chances that he's a child rapist are pretty slim, though; so the possibility is fairly irrelevant.

Hey now, don't be quantifying my hyperboles. The fact is, even a large chunk of non-child-rapists will be less important to the rescuer that his dog.

 

[Mr. Vegas]

This question was posed to me a while back and I answered, without hesitation, that I would save my dog before I saved the stranger. I'm 100 % comfortable with my answer, but I've heard many people give the opposite response. Personally I see no right or wrong answer. Any thoughts?

If your the stranger then I would have my dog. :rotflmao:Knowing my dog,He was just faking you out.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Then again I am a guy who is against both the death penalty and abortion, so my views are somewhat shaded.

I must be Satan....I would save my dog....I'm for the death penalty....against abortion....

At least you've got the against abortion thing going for you...there is still hope.

 

[IanTucker]

you argued that characterizing someone as only a "stranger" somehow devalued them, and that they needed to be thought of in terms of other things--such as their relationships, including family.you're forced to assume these relationships, and to attempt to add additional value to the person's life via their affect on others. if the argument is that all human beings, unconditionally, should be saved over all dogs, you would not have to add these characteristics.you've attempted to add context to establish the value of the life--however, there is no context. the person is simply a random human being thrashing around in the water.at the same time, you've removed context re the dog. it is the very relationship that you feel the need to add to the human that is the basis for saving the dog, but you've been forced to try to avoid that, claiming that dogs are fungible. apparently, to many of their owners, they are not.

First off, I hold to the idea that human life is inherently more valuable than a dogs life...or canine life. In any specific situation, I believe that saving a dog over a human is wrong. We're talking about two things. One is subjective value, what the dog's value is to the person choosing compared to a strangers value...and Objective value, which is mainly what i'm talking about and has to do with the value that society as a whole sees in the dog and the person.Society includes the family of the people, who are likely the ones who value that person the most. Society really cares very little for the dog i'd imagine (except for a few isolated cases).Now, i'm saying there is a disupte between subjective value and objective value, and for those that think that human life and canine life are inherently equally valuable, it's hard to argue that subjective value (the value of the dog to the person) is actually less valuable than the subjective value of the stranger (which has little-no personal value to the person choosing). My poitn was that in making this choice, you shouldn't ONLY consider subjective value, you should consider Objective value. IN order to do so, you have to think of where the other person dervies value from, and in general it's from the persons family. When you beging to "humanize" the stranger, the value gap should decrease. I'm in no way trying to devalue the dog, or add extra value to the person...i'm merely trying to point out that in an objective sense, which is the sense that this decision should be made, that one should consider the Objective value of each, and choose accordingly. This has nothing to do with changing the values of each involved, only in showing their TRUE values.

I understand what you're saying. It would be great if we really were able to "humanize" in practice. But the world doesn't seem to work that way. It frequently operates on subjective interest.The U.S. doesn't put the same effort into saving starving Africans as it does Iraq because we have no national interest in Africa. We killed Iraqi citizens because it was in the government's view of greater national interest to take Saddam out. No humanizing here.We buy Christmas presents for each other while there are still homeless people freezing to death. Why? Self-interest.Should I give everything to the homeless? I give some but not enough. Should I save the drowning stranger? I'd love to, but not at the cost of my dog.Sometimes self-interest trumps objective value.