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

[Mr. Know-It-All]

The pro-stranger folks sure have had to add a lot of characteristics to the stranger--now he/she has a family, and the rescuer needs to face them. It seems like if the argument to save all human life was really that strong, these additions would be unnecessary.Nobody has to justify why their dog deserves saving, but a whole lot of hypothetical baggage has been added to the stranger to make a stronger moral case for saving him.Irrelevant fact: My dog is trained as both a rescue dog and a therapy dog. He has a lot to offer society.

The argument is that strong but we are dealing with Neaderthal tree huggers who have to have things clearly spelled out for them. I wonder how many of you if faced with this situation would be so cavalier about your decision as you saw the dead person being hauled into the fire rescue boat. If I saw a drowned animal, I would feel sorrow for it...even grief if it were one of my pets. The sight of a drowned human who I had the capacity to save would be too much to take.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

bottom line: You're the stranger.Now choose.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

bottom line: You're the stranger.

Now choose.

I'd choose to be saved by a dog. A dog whose life I saved.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

BTW, whoever came up with the notion that "mother" is just a label...WTF is up with that. My mother is the person that carried me, birthed me, raised me, etc. How is that "just a label". To ascribe the term "mother" to anyone else (except in the case of adoption) is labelling - but in all other cases it is the essence of who that person is in relation to you.I actually agree with Maurile on this (which is highly unusual). In almost any scenario when you have to make a snap judgement on the relative value of human to dog, the human SHOULD win hands down. I am not discounting the grief you would feel at the loss of your beloved pet, but I have to believe that humans would look out for each other on a level greater than what we are seeing in these poll resuklts (which I think are directly tied to the anonymity of the message board).

 

[J-Co]

The pro-stranger folks sure have had to add a lot of characteristics to the stranger--now he/she has a family, and the rescuer needs to face them.  It seems like if the argument to save all human life was really that strong, these additions would be unnecessary.Nobody has to justify why their dog deserves saving, but a whole lot of hypothetical baggage has been added to the stranger to make a stronger moral case for saving him.Irrelevant fact:  My dog is trained as both a rescue dog and a therapy dog.  He has a lot to offer society.

The argument is that strong but we are dealing with Neaderthal tree huggers who have to have things clearly spelled out for them. I wonder how many of you if faced with this situation would be so cavalier about your decision as you saw the dead person being hauled into the fire rescue boat. If I saw a drowned animal, I would feel sorrow for it...even grief if it were one of my pets. The sight of a drowned human who I had the capacity to save would be too much to take.

I have :rotflmao: at the irony of being on the supposed tree hugger side when I'm usually on the dishing out end of that particular insult. Seriously, there may be a couple of them in this half, but I think you would be surprised that it really isn't that many. I can only speak for myself but I think most of us just really like our dogs. oh, as far as having to see the result of my choice, it makes absolutely no difference.

 

[Psychopav]

The way I see it, the fundamental divide here is between people who understand morality is a relative concept and those who refuse to admit it because it would toss their belief system entirely out of whack and they would have to... I don't know, become serial killers or something.

The thing about relativity though, is that it doesn't mean truth is arbitrary; all it means is no position is ever final. Everything is relative, but this does not preclude something being relatively better than something else. It very well might be demonstrable that saving the human is a relatively more moral decision than saving the dog, but this has to be demonstrated via reason, not arbitrary proclamations based on ancient mythologies...

Paragraph 1: :rotflmao: Paragraph 2: So if you're going to use reason, you're going to have to start with a definition of "morality". Do you have one?

No, I can't say that I do. Not yet anyway. Actually, I think the onus is on you to define morality, because you are the one claiming that there is no doubt that saving the human is the more moral decision. All I have ever said is that it is open to question.

I'm arguing that morality does not need to be based solely upon reason, and that moral decisions may not be accessible by reason alone. Your position is that moral decisions must be based on reason.I'm not concerned so much with who the "onus" is on to come up with a definition of morality because I don't think reason alone is sufficient to determine a moral position. Since you do, it seems to me that a definition for morality is in your own best interests...in fact, I'm genuinely surprised that you don't already have one.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

The pro-stranger folks sure have had to add a lot of characteristics to the stranger--now he/she has a family, and the rescuer needs to face them.   It seems like if the argument to save all human life was really that strong, these additions would be unnecessary.Nobody has to justify why their dog deserves saving, but a whole lot of hypothetical baggage has been added to the stranger to make a stronger moral case for saving him.Irrelevant fact:  My dog is trained as both a rescue dog and a therapy dog.  He has a lot to offer society.

The argument is that strong but we are dealing with Neaderthal tree huggers who have to have things clearly spelled out for them. I wonder how many of you if faced with this situation would be so cavalier about your decision as you saw the dead person being hauled into the fire rescue boat. If I saw a drowned animal, I would feel sorrow for it...even grief if it were one of my pets. The sight of a drowned human who I had the capacity to save would be too much to take.

I have :rotflmao: at the irony of being on the supposed tree hugger side when I'm usually on the dishing out end of that particular insult. Seriously, there may be a couple of them in this half, but I think you would be surprised that it really isn't that many. I can only speak for myself but I think most of us just really like our dogs. oh, as far as having to see the result of my choice, it makes absolutely no difference.

Okay, tough guy. I would bet your answer would be different the first time you witnessed a drowned person pulled in. Like I said, message board bravado goes a long way in diluting the answer to this hypothetical.

 

[Psychopav]

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 would agree that there are far too many variables involved in judging a specific person making a specific choice in a specific situation like this. But we can still argue about the objective moral choice and whether it is generally right or wrong.For example, let's assume for the sake of argument in this post that morally, it's correct to save the dog and not the stranger. It could still be morally OK for an individual to save the stranger rather than the dog if:(1) The person had just recently lost a loved one to drowning and was emotionally influenced by that loss, and was rendered incapable of making an objective moral decision, or(2) The stranger had the cure for cancer and the dog carried the first known dog-man transmittable strain of Ebola, and the person followed his conscience and saved the stranger even though it was morally wrong to do so, for his own reasons.We're discussing objective morality, attributable to the general circumstances in a normal situation, which should dictate how anyone should react if they are choosing the good, as opposed to subjective morality which would dictate how the actions of an individual in the situation should be judged.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

OK, so I lied...I'm checking this thread before going to sleep. .

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).

Actually, I am suprised that you are not understanding why I woudn't hold a grudge. It occurs to me that if you think that I should save the stranger, of course YOU would be mad if someone saved their dog when it was your (mom/dad/wife/daughter/son) that didn't get saved. Conversely, because I would choose to save my dog, I can completely understand the person who makes that same decision. I do love my mom very much, but if my mom if just some stranger to someone else who is watching their dog die -- what can I do? I'd be very sad I lost my mom. Not angry with the person who made the same decision I would if the roles were reversed.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

You are a sad sad excuse for a human being...

I'm honestly not concerned with your opinion of me, but thanks for the input.

 

[rolyaTy]

OK, so I lied...I'm checking this thread before going to sleep. .

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).

Actually, I am suprised that you are not understanding why I woudn't hold a grudge. It occurs to me that if you think that I should save the stranger, of course YOU would be mad if someone saved their dog when it was your (mom/dad/wife/daughter/son) that didn't get saved. Conversely, because I would choose to save my dog, I can completely understand the person who makes that same decision. I do love my mom very much, but if my mom if just some stranger to someone else who is watching their dog die -- what can I do? I'd be very sad I lost my mom. Not angry with the person who made the same decision I would if the roles were reversed.

Haha, i knew you'd be back.Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I answered this question and most subsequent questions regarding something VD said that was similar. Anyhow, I have faith in you and all the others on the board that if this was REALLY something that happened, you would make the RIGHT choice and save the human, in spite of what you think you would do now. I have faith in ya

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I'll go back and reread -- thanks. And then I'm going to bed for real.

 

[Psychopav]

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.

This is you valuing life more than most people do?

I've actually been witness to both scenarios. My reactions (draw your own conclusions):

Dog - "Aw, look. Poor thing." *sniff*

Man - "Huh. Wonder what happened?"

Interesting...

 

[Psychopav]

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.

Agreed. But that doesn't make it right.

 

[rolyaTy]

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.

I dont agree with this. Primarily because in most of the situations cited, you're not FACING the person that's having something wrong done to them, in the drowning situation, you are. Most of us have very little impact directly on things that go on in these situations, however in the hypothetical one, you'd be THE one making the call. THAT makes a big difference.Self-interest does most often trump objective value, only when things are not in plain sight. Sure, somoene can eat a sandwich with homeless people starving in their city, but if there was a guy starving AT THE TABLE, i doubt many people here would not give them something to eat.

 

[J-Co]

The pro-stranger folks sure have had to add a lot of characteristics to the stranger--now he/she has a family, and the rescuer needs to face them.   It seems like if the argument to save all human life was really that strong, these additions would be unnecessary.Nobody has to justify why their dog deserves saving, but a whole lot of hypothetical baggage has been added to the stranger to make a stronger moral case for saving him.Irrelevant fact:  My dog is trained as both a rescue dog and a therapy dog.  He has a lot to offer society.

The argument is that strong but we are dealing with Neaderthal tree huggers who have to have things clearly spelled out for them. I wonder how many of you if faced with this situation would be so cavalier about your decision as you saw the dead person being hauled into the fire rescue boat. If I saw a drowned animal, I would feel sorrow for it...even grief if it were one of my pets. The sight of a drowned human who I had the capacity to save would be too much to take.

I have :rotflmao: at the irony of being on the supposed tree hugger side when I'm usually on the dishing out end of that particular insult. Seriously, there may be a couple of them in this half, but I think you would be surprised that it really isn't that many. I can only speak for myself but I think most of us just really like our dogs. oh, as far as having to see the result of my choice, it makes absolutely no difference.

Okay, tough guy. I would bet your answer would be different the first time you witnessed a drowned person pulled in. Like I said, message board bravado goes a long way in diluting the answer to this hypothetical.

Don't know what more I can say. I don't claim to be on the "tough" side of this issue. The question has been the choice of two bad things from the start. But I guess I can't prove my standpoint to you no matter what, not that it really matters. Yes, seeing a corpse pulled from the water would be a terrible thing to see. Seeing my dog drown would be worse. Matter of fact, just got back from going on a walk with him at the park nearby. Two fairly big ponds there, just starting to freeze over. At 12:00am, in the pitch black and about 15 degrees out, you get the sense that they are dangerous. Couldn't help but think about this thread a little and how certain I am what my decision would be.

 

[Psychopav]

Matter of fact, just got back from going on a walk with him at the park nearby. Two fairly big ponds there, just starting to freeze over. At 12:00am, in the pitch black and about 15 degrees out, you get the sense that they are dangerous. Couldn't help but think about this thread a little and how certain I am what my decision would be. As I pet my dog and gazed deep into his eyes, looking back and forth from the blue eye to the brown one, the electricity that had always been there between us was finally too much to resist. When we kissed, it was like being kissed for the first time. I knew then that I would never love another human being the same way again...

Er, sorry. Something about that post got me to daydreaming...Mods, please delete this post.

 

[J-Co]

Matter of fact, just got back from going on a walk with him at the park nearby. Two fairly big ponds there, just starting to freeze over. At 12:00am, in the pitch black and about 15 degrees out, you get the sense that they are dangerous. Couldn't help but think about this thread a little and how certain I am what my decision would be. As I pet my dog and gazed deep into his eyes, looking back and forth from the blue eye to the brown one, the electricity that had always been there between us was finally too much to resist. When we kissed, it was like being kissed for the first time. I knew then that I would never love another human being the same way again...

Er, sorry. Something about that post got me to daydreaming...Mods, please delete this post.

:rotflmao: You should write romance novels, or maybe just ones that cater to certain, um, fetishes.

 

[rolyaTy]

Matter of fact, just got back from going on a walk with him at the park nearby. Two fairly big ponds there, just starting to freeze over. At 12:00am, in the pitch black and about 15 degrees out, you get the sense that they are dangerous. Couldn't help but think about this thread a little and how certain I am what my decision would be. As I pet my dog and gazed deep into his eyes, looking back and forth from the blue eye to the brown one, the electricity that had always been there between us was finally too much to resist. When we kissed, it was like being kissed for the first time. I knew then that I would never love another human being the same way again...

Er, sorry. Something about that post got me to daydreaming...Mods, please delete this post.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[Smoo]

In almost any scenario when you have to make a snap judgement on the relative value of human to dog, the human SHOULD win hands down.

Finally! PROGRESS! Your use of 'almost' and 'should' finally show that you're getting the point, that it is NOT a slam dunk every time. That's all I'm sayin', anyway.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

In the spirit of fatguy, when this thread hits 60 pages, we're starting to post porn in here.

Done.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

In almost any scenario when you have to make a snap judgement on the relative value of human to dog, the human SHOULD win hands down.

Finally! PROGRESS! Your use of 'almost' and 'should' finally show that you're getting the point, that it is NOT a slam dunk every time. That's all I'm sayin', anyway.

Yes I used almost and SHOULD to account for that .00000000001% of the population that I could see there being a case made that the person does not deserve to live (i.e., hard core criminal, child rapist, etc.). Don't reead any more into it than that. Trust me, my opinion is that my "almost and should" accounts for less than 1%...hardly a number worth gambling against.

 

[satch]

In almost any scenario when you have to make a snap judgement on the relative value of human to dog, the human SHOULD win hands down.

Finally! PROGRESS! Your use of 'almost' and 'should' finally show that you're getting the point, that it is NOT a slam dunk every time. That's all I'm sayin', anyway.

Progress indeed. That one phrase, "in almost any scenario", is why all of the blanket statements regarding morals, values, ethics, right, wrong and absolute truths should not be referred to as fact.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

In almost any scenario when you have to make a snap judgement on the relative value of human to dog, the human SHOULD win hands down.

Finally! PROGRESS! Your use of 'almost' and 'should' finally show that you're getting the point, that it is NOT a slam dunk every time. That's all I'm sayin', anyway.

Progress indeed. That one phrase, "in almost any scenario", is why all of the blanket statements regarding morals, values, ethics, right, wrong and absolute truths should not be used in this debate.

I agree there are times where saving the dog might be the right thing to do. But the hypothetical is pretty clear. The human is a stranger (i.e. you don't know anything about him). The dog is your dog. In that particular instance, I think it's immoral to save the dog. We're not asking about the entire range of possible choices between human and dog lives.

 

[Smoo]

In almost any scenario when you have to make a snap judgement on the relative value of human to dog, the human SHOULD win hands down.

Finally! PROGRESS! Your use of 'almost' and 'should' finally show that you're getting the point, that it is NOT a slam dunk every time. That's all I'm sayin', anyway.

Yes I used almost and SHOULD to account for that .00000000001% of the population that I could see there being a case made that the person does not deserve to live (i.e., hard core criminal, child rapist, etc.). Don't reead any more into it than that. Trust me, my opinion is that my "almost and should" accounts for less than 1%...hardly a number worth gambling against.

But you're acknowledging that there's an overlap. Now you just have to acknowledge that said overlap may be larger for some people, smaller for others.

 

[Smoo]

In that particular instance, I think it's immoral to save the dog.

I agree. I agree that you think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine. I also think that other people may not think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine, too.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

In that particular instance, I think it's immoral to save the dog.

I agree. I agree that you think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine. I also think that other people may not think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine, too.

That's not the way I look at morality. If it's immoral for me to do something, I also think it's immoral for you to do the same thing.

 

[saintsfan]

Matter of fact, just got back from going on a walk with him at the park nearby.  Two fairly big ponds there, just starting to freeze over.  At 12:00am, in the pitch black and about 15 degrees out, you get the sense that they are dangerous.  Couldn't help but think about this thread a little and how certain I am what my decision would be.  As I pet my dog and gazed deep into his eyes, looking back and forth from the blue eye to the brown one, the electricity that had always been there between us was finally too much to resist.  When we kissed, it was like being kissed for the first time.  I knew then that I would never love another human being the same way again...

Er, sorry. Something about that post got me to daydreaming...Mods, please delete this post.

:rotflmao: You should write romance novels, or maybe just ones that cater to certain, um, fetishes.

Dear Penthouse Forum,I used to think all these letters were fake until it happened to me...

 

[IanTucker]

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.

I dont agree with this. Primarily because in most of the situations cited, you're not FACING the person that's having something wrong done to them, in the drowning situation, you are. Most of us have very little impact directly on things that go on in these situations, however in the hypothetical one, you'd be THE one making the call. THAT makes a big difference.Self-interest does most often trump objective value, only when things are not in plain sight. Sure, somoene can eat a sandwich with homeless people starving in their city, but if there was a guy starving AT THE TABLE, i doubt many people here would not give them something to eat.

Its sad isn't it?Out of sight, out of mind is as far as some people's "moral correctness" goes.

 

[[icon]]

What's really ####### sad is the fact that this thread hit 34 pages and is still going strong.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

After reading the last few pages of this, I hugged my dog and a stranger. My dog licked me, the stranger punched me.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Let me ask something to everyone here basing their decision on religious beliefs:If, when you die, you go to heaven, the greatest, most wonderful place ever imagined, then wouldn't you, being upset over her death, only be showing what a selfish person you are?And, if dog's don't go to heaven, then aren't you being extremely selfish, since eventually, being the moral person you are, you will spend the rest of eternity with your lost loved one? Meanwhile, a person with low morals, like I and many others have been accused of, only has a short time, here on Earth, with my dog. While we're in hell and our dog is God knows where, you and your mom will be in heaven FOREVER!Don't you think that makes you just a little bit selfish? Is that what they're teaching at the Church's these days?

 

[Smoo]

In that particular instance, I think it's immoral to save the dog.

I agree. I agree that you think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine. I also think that other people may not think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine, too.

That's not the way I look at morality. If it's immoral for me to do something, I also think it's immoral for you to do the same thing.

Of course you do. This is what Viv's been saying, and I agree with it. You can think that everybody who performs that act is doing an immoral thing. That's just being consistent and there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody's stopping you. But I may not think the same way. I may have a different morality. And what you think is immoral, I may not think is immoral. And that's fine. Neither of us is empirically "right" or "wrong".

 

[TheIronSheik]

In that particular instance, I think it's immoral to save the dog.

I agree. I agree that you think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine. I also think that other people may not think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine, too.

That's not the way I look at morality. If it's immoral for me to do something, I also think it's immoral for you to do the same thing.

So you're way is the right way?If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger? By your definition, it is.

 

[satch]

In almost any scenario when you have to make a snap judgement on the relative value of human to dog, the human SHOULD win hands down.

Finally! PROGRESS! Your use of 'almost' and 'should' finally show that you're getting the point, that it is NOT a slam dunk every time. That's all I'm sayin', anyway.

Progress indeed. That one phrase, "in almost any scenario", is why all of the blanket statements regarding morals, values, ethics, right, wrong and absolute truths should not be used in this debate.

I agree there are times where saving the dog might be the right thing to do. But the hypothetical is pretty clear. The human is a stranger (i.e. you don't know anything about him). The dog is your dog. In that particular instance, I think it's immoral to save the dog. We're not asking about the entire range of possible choices between human and dog lives.

"I think it's immoral" as opposed to "it is immoral". Thank you for acknowledging the difference. It makes your comments much more interesting and thought provoking.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

In that particular instance, I think it's immoral to save the dog.

I agree. I agree that you think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine. I also think that other people may not think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine, too.

That's not the way I look at morality. If it's immoral for me to do something, I also think it's immoral for you to do the same thing.

Of course you do. This is what Viv's been saying, and I agree with it. You can think that everybody who performs that act is doing an immoral thing. That's just being consistent and there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody's stopping you. But I may not think the same way. I may have a different morality. And what you think is immoral, I may not think is immoral. And that's fine. Neither of us is empirically "right" or "wrong".

Morality isn't something that can be evaluated by empirical evidence. That doesn't mean there's no right and wrong answers.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger?

Yes.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

In almost any scenario when you have to make a snap judgement on the relative value of human to dog, the human SHOULD win hands down.

Finally! PROGRESS! Your use of 'almost' and 'should' finally show that you're getting the point, that it is NOT a slam dunk every time. That's all I'm sayin', anyway.

Progress indeed. That one phrase, "in almost any scenario", is why all of the blanket statements regarding morals, values, ethics, right, wrong and absolute truths should not be used in this debate.

I agree there are times where saving the dog might be the right thing to do. But the hypothetical is pretty clear. The human is a stranger (i.e. you don't know anything about him). The dog is your dog. In that particular instance, I think it's immoral to save the dog. We're not asking about the entire range of possible choices between human and dog lives.

"I think it's immoral" as opposed to "it is immoral". Thank you for acknowledging the difference. It makes your comments much more interesting and thought provoking.

I just put in "I think" to distinguish myself from the people arguing with me that disagree. Those people are wrong. There is no significance to the distinction you're trying to make by parsing my language.

 

[Smoo]

Those people are wrong.

And I think you're wrong for thinking they're wrong. This is called an impasse.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Those people are wrong.

And I think you're wrong for thinking they're wrong. This is called an impasse.

I'm still not sure of your position though. Is it that moral choices are never right and wrong? Or is something special about the dog/stranger hypo?

 

[TheIronSheik]

If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger?

Yes.

What you don't realize is, just because you don't answer the question right, it still proves my point.Knowing that you are bull headed enough to think that only your religion can pave the way to acceptable morality takes you from a person debating an issue, and moves you to a person preaching and pushing his belief system on others.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger?

Yes.

What you don't realize is, just because you don't answer the question right, it still proves my point.Knowing that you are bull headed enough to think that only your religion can pave the way to acceptable morality takes you from a person debating an issue, and moves you to a person preaching and pushing his belief system on others.

I'm an atheist.

 

[TheIronSheik]

If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger?

Yes.

What you don't realize is, just because you don't answer the question right, it still proves my point.Knowing that you are bull headed enough to think that only your religion can pave the way to acceptable morality takes you from a person debating an issue, and moves you to a person preaching and pushing his belief system on others.

I'm an atheist.

Choosing no religion is still a choice, and therefore constitutes a religion.Your religious beliefs are that you have none. And if you are atheist, please tell me where you are getting these "Rules of Morality"?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger?

Yes.

 

[TheIronSheik]

If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger?

Yes.

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Choosing no religion is still a choice, and therefore constitutes a religion.

Choosing no religion doesn't constitute a religion.

And if you are atheist, please tell me where you are getting these "Rules of Morality"?

Same place you're getting them from. To think that morality comes from religions is wrong. Monkeys evolved a moral sense long before they invented religions. (Edit: There are many silly rules, like not eating shellfish, that various religions have promoted. But they aren't really moral rules: they're pseudo-moral. Moral rules come from our conscience.)

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Choosing no religion is still a choice, and therefore constitutes a religion.

Ummm, not according to the dictionary.

And if you are atheist, please tell me where you are getting these "Rules of Morality"?

From my brain.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

 

[TheIronSheik]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

What your saying is that his religion is wrong then. Because his set of morals says God before family. Wait. Doesn't Christian, Muslim, and almost every other religion put God first? Where is the immorality?

 

[Berger]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

According to who?