They're both drowning, you can save only one... (2 Viewers)

[Smoo]

You're not morally wrong for choosing one over the other.

Yeah, you are. If you choose the dog, you're morally wrong. It's pretty straightforward.

Are you saying that's a moral absolute?

More like a moral imperative.

Whatever. I think he's wrong. I think that's his own morality and won't always apply to others.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I think some people voting dog, if really put in the position of doing this would save the person.I mean, you have a screaming, drowning human being in front of you and you save a dog?  Come on.

If I push them under while I'm saving the dog, I won't hear them scream anymore.

More evidence that the some dog voters aren't taking the poll seriously.NTTATWTT

Why can the human guys joke but the dog guys not?

 

[Politician Spock]

You're not morally wrong for choosing one over the other.

Yeah, you are. If you choose the dog, you're morally wrong. It's pretty straightforward.

Are you saying that's a moral absolute?

More like a moral imperative.

A moral imperative based on what?

Whatever morals you have don't have to be absolute to have an imperative answer, such as what Psychopav claimed.

 

[Mr.Happy]

And to add, I think religion has zero to do with this.J

Explain? Ethical, moral, and social rules don't create themselves. The existence of religion in a modern society has greatly influenced what we believe is moral, and what we believe is not moral.

Hi MrH,Maybe on some deeper level I guess. But this seems like the "right thing" to me and not connected at all to my religious beliefs.J

Introduction:Human beings always strive to do the right thing. Doing the right thing means you have the better chance of survival, which means a better chance of reproducing._________________________________Now that I said that, the main reason religion has spread is because people want to do the right thing. I also believe the will to do the right thing has noble roots and emotionally rewarding roots.The concepts in religion have spread into culture and have continued to this day into modern culture. Many of the concepts in religion are actually extremely successful.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi MrH,Maybe on some deeper level I guess. But this seems like the "right thing" to me and not connected at all to my religious beliefs.J

I think you're wrong. I think at least some part, if not all, of your immediate valuing of a human over a dog, as if human life is more important than animal life, has major religious overtones.

Hi Smoo,Could well be. How would you describe it though?I don't conciously feel like that but as you say, perhaps it's a deeper rooted thing. I have only been a Christian for a few years. But I think my answer on the dog question would have been exactly the same before I was a Christian as well. I guess that's where I'm coming from. I don't see how being "religious" made any difference. But maybe it's there deep down. Is that what you mean?J

 

[drpill]

Whatever morals you have don't have to be absolute to have an imperative answer, such as what Psychopav claimed.

I apologize in advance for being a little dumb, but could you briefly explain to me how this works?

 

[Mr.Happy]

Hi MrH,Maybe on some deeper level I guess. But this seems like the "right thing" to me and not connected at all to my religious beliefs.J

I think you're wrong. I think at least some part, if not all, of your immediate valuing of a human over a dog, as if human life is more important than animal life, has major religious overtones.

Hi Smoo,Could well be. How would you describe it though?I don't conciously feel like that but as you say, perhaps it's a deeper rooted thing. I have only been a Christian for a few years. But I think my answer on the dog question would have been exactly the same before I was a Christian as well. I guess that's where I'm coming from. I don't see how being "religious" made any difference. But maybe it's there deep down. Is that what you mean?J

JoeB, check my post I made to you. I connect most of our moral obligations and feelings toward religion, but the satisfaction I get from helping someone is not something I believe can be taught. There are noble roots in all of us.

 

[bueno]

I'd save my dog for the sole fact that a dog can't sue me for any injuries that may be (and most likely would be) incurred during the rescue.

That was my first reaction. Is the stranger a lawyer? If yes, let him drown.Does he know any lawyers? If yes, let him drown.Am I in a state wih good samaratan laws? If yes, make an attept.Will the mob trying to drown the stranger react badly if I save him? If yes let him drown.Does trying to save him involve risk to my own life? If yes let him drown.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I feel, in this situation, that there is no wrong or right answer.

What does that mean? You think it's just a matter of taste?If you and a dog are drowning and some guy decides to rescue the dog, you wouldn't hold it against him any more than you'd hold a preference for carrots over chocolate against him? Deciding between a dog's life and a human's goes into the carrots/chocolate category of decisions instead of the moral category of decisions?

 

[Smoo]

Hi MrH,Maybe on some deeper level I guess. But this seems like the "right thing" to me and not connected at all to my religious beliefs.J

I think you're wrong. I think at least some part, if not all, of your immediate valuing of a human over a dog, as if human life is more important than animal life, has major religious overtones.

Hi Smoo,Could well be. How would you describe it though?I don't conciously feel like that but as you say, perhaps it's a deeper rooted thing. I have only been a Christian for a few years. But I think my answer on the dog question would have been exactly the same before I was a Christian as well. I guess that's where I'm coming from. I don't see how being "religious" made any difference. But maybe it's there deep down. Is that what you mean?J

I just mean that religion is very specific about humans being in God's image and all that, and being the preferred form, and that animals are here simply to serve and feed us. Humans are definitely aside from other animals, to the point where even believers who accept the bulk of evolution still won't accept that humans fall onto the evolutionary tree as well. Humans are different and above the rest of the animals.Outside of religion, humans are no more special or deserving of life than any other animal. We obviously tend to prefer them because, hey, that's us, that's the home team, but there's not really any scientific reason for thinking that a human is more worthy of life than a dog.My conclusion came from how absolute and quick your decision seemed to be. Like it was no question to you, always a human all the time. That's just more compatible with the religious view of the human/animal dynamic than the natural one.

 

[Grackle Squad]

All you uptight "Moral Majority" people make me laugh. Anyone in this thread who has said "You dog voters are morally wrong", I ask you: Why is it morally wrong to save a dog instead of a person? Why are we so much better than dogs? Because we can drive? What if the dog was really God, and it just looked like a dog? Or what if dogs are really superior beings to us? How do you know that they aren't? What makes you so much smarter that you know all the answers?Basically, my point is this - nobody knows all the answers, especially not you. Just because somebody doesn't look at things the way you do, doesn't mean that they are wrong. You are not always right. The sooner you realize that, the happier you will be.You can make all the arguments that you want. I'd still save my dog.

 

[Politician Spock]

Whatever morals you have don't have to be absolute to have an imperative answer, such as what Psychopav claimed.

I apologize in advance for being a little dumb, but could you briefly explain to me how this works?

I have moral "ABC". Moral "ABC" does not have to be absolute for me to be imperative about it. Perhaps moral "ABC" = "You save a human's life before saving a dog's life".

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

From a secular perspective, though, I'd be interesting in hearing if anybody can come up with a reason why saving a human over a dog is the "right" thing to do.

Because humans have a greater capacity for the appreciation and enjoyment of life than dogs do.

 

[Smoo]

Deciding between a dog's life and a human's goes into the carrots/chocolate category of decisions instead of the moral category of decisions?

Yes. We shouldn't be required to prefer humans over dogs simply because we are human.

 

[drpill]

I feel, in this situation, that there is no wrong or right answer.

What does that mean? You think it's just a matter of taste?If you and a dog are drowning and some guy decides to rescue the dog, you wouldn't hold it against him any more than you'd hold a preference for carrots over chocolate against him? Deciding between a dog's life and a human's goes into the carrots/chocolate category of decisions instead of the moral category of decisions?

Of course you would be pissed at the guy for not resuing you instead of the dog; you have a vested interest in staying alive. That does not make it ultimately WRONG to save the dog however.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You're not morally wrong for choosing one over the other.

Yeah, you are. If you choose the dog, you're morally wrong. It's pretty straightforward.

Yes. There are hard moral questions and easy moral questions. This shouldn't be a hard one. I'm at somewhat of a loss to explain the poll results.

 

[Smoo]

From a secular perspective, though, I'd be interesting in hearing if anybody can come up with a reason why saving a human over a dog is the "right" thing to do.

Because humans have a greater capacity for the appreciation and enjoyment of life than dogs do.

Oooh, you're trying to bring us back to that brainless baby, aren't you? Clever boy, MT! Clever!

 

[drpill]

Whatever morals you have don't have to be absolute to have an imperative answer, such as what Psychopav claimed.

I apologize in advance for being a little dumb, but could you briefly explain to me how this works?

I have moral "ABC". Moral "ABC" does not have to be absolute for me to be imperative about it. Perhaps moral "ABC" = "You save a human's life before saving a dog's life".

Ah, of course. But he is attempting to claim that his morality is universal, and that those who do not share it are morally inferior. Totally different issue.

 

[Smoo]

I feel, in this situation, that there is no wrong or right answer.

What does that mean? You think it's just a matter of taste?If you and a dog are drowning and some guy decides to rescue the dog, you wouldn't hold it against him any more than you'd hold a preference for carrots over chocolate against him? Deciding between a dog's life and a human's goes into the carrots/chocolate category of decisions instead of the moral category of decisions?

Of course you would be pissed at the guy for not resuing you instead of the dog; you have a vested interest in staying alive. That does not make it ultimately WRONG to save the dog however.

Winnipeg people are smart, even if they do keep your X-Box games for months and months and months.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I have only been a Christian for a few years.

Don't mean to hijack, but what were you before Joe? Or does this refer to being born again or experiencing a religious epiphany?

 

[bueno]

Some developmental psychologists who study moral development show that as a person develops morally, what they call the "circle of concern" grows and is extended further and further. So someone who is relatively undeveloped morally only extends their concern to immediate family or tribe, and as you move up the developmental hierarchy you become more and more inclusive: all the people of my ethnicity or religion, all the people in my country, all people regardless of nationality or ethnicity... Eventually those who are more highly developed morally have a "circle of concern" which includes non-humans as well.Following this line of reasoning one could argue that someone who considers the dog's life as worthy of saving as the human's is more moral, not less.

But it isn't a strange dog that you are saving. It's the old "I will sacrifice my life for two brothers or eight cousins argument."I think each of us instinctively have a hierarchy when it comes to rescues.A mother will try to save her children first, then her husband, before a sister or brother. A husband's priorities might be the wife first, I'm not sure. I think it is instinct.Would you not try to save your 80 year old grandfather before a 30 year old stranger?We try to save that which is closest to us before a stranger. For some people, that might include a family pet, for others, it's just a dog. Most of us don't do triage - we act on instinct in these situations.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This shouldn't be a hard one. I'm at somewhat of a loss to explain the poll results.

Well that's just great MT. I'm screwed then as I was pretty much waiting for you to pop in here with the patented Maurile answer that would help me understand this one. J

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Of course you would be pissed at the guy for not resuing you instead of the dog; you have a vested interest in staying alive.

I have a vested interest in acquiring great wealth, too, but I won't be pissed at some random rich guy for leaving everything to his family instead of to me.Likewise, if I'm drowing in one lake and seven other people are drowning in another, I wouldn't be pissed at a stranger for deciding to save the seven others instead of me.I get pissed at people for doing things that are wrong, not for doing things that are contrary to my vested interests. I imagine you operate the same way. So why would you be pissed at someone for saving a dog instead of you if he's not wrong to do so?

 

[bueno]

From a secular perspective, though, I'd be interesting in hearing if anybody can come up with a reason why saving a human over a dog is the "right" thing to do.

Because humans have a greater capacity for the appreciation and enjoyment of life than dogs do.

Oooh, you're trying to bring us back to that brainless baby, aren't you? Clever boy, MT! Clever!

Maurile has never seen a dog with a tbone steak, obviously.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog?

No. If you save the dog, everyone will think you're a schmuck. In Darwinian terms, this would be bad.

 

[Grackle Squad]

But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog?

No. If you save the dog, everyone will think you're a schmuck. In Darwinian terms, this would be bad.

And that's the important thing here. What everyone thinks of you.

 

[Politician Spock]

Whatever morals you have don't have to be absolute to have an imperative answer, such as what Psychopav claimed.

I apologize in advance for being a little dumb, but could you briefly explain to me how this works?

I have moral "ABC". Moral "ABC" does not have to be absolute for me to be imperative about it. Perhaps moral "ABC" = "You save a human's life before saving a dog's life".

Ah, of course. But he is attempting to claim that his morality is universal, and that those who do not share it are morally inferior. Totally different issue.

He made no claim that his morals are superior to other morals. All he said is that it's morally wrong and that it's pretty straightforward. You do realize that like you I voted for the dog, so I disagree with him. However, just because someone does not use politically correct verbage does not mean that assumptions of absolutes should be made.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Would you not try to save your 80 year old grandfather before a 30 year old stranger?

I think I'd save the stranger in this situation. Especially if I knew the 30 year-old had a family.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I feel, in this situation, that there is no wrong or right answer.

What does that mean? You think it's just a matter of taste?If you and a dog are drowning and some guy decides to rescue the dog, you wouldn't hold it against him any more than you'd hold a preference for carrots over chocolate against him? Deciding between a dog's life and a human's goes into the carrots/chocolate category of decisions instead of the moral category of decisions?

See my above post. No. I would not hold it against. One, I would be dead.

But more importantly, wouldn't I be selfish for expecting the person to sacrifice his dog to save me, a stranger?

Didn't we already say that selfishness plays the part in this? As a drowning stranger, why should I expect another stranger to sacrifice his best friend to save my life? And why should I resent him for his choice? That's his choice. To expect anything from that stranger is selfish, and, as proven in this thread, is immoral.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I have only been a Christian for a few years.

Don't mean to hijack, but what were you before Joe? Or does this refer to being born again or experiencing a religious epiphany?

Hi Fatguy,Yes, I was referring to a religious epiphany / born again experience.That reminds me of a topic I've been wanting to ask you and the other Jewish folks that I was thinking about this weekend. Lemme finish something and I'll post. J

 

[Mr.Happy]

But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog?

No. If you save the dog, everyone will think you're a schmuck. In Darwinian terms, this would be bad.

correct. Darwinism is still alive and well in us.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Doing the right thing means you have the better chance of survival, which means a better chance of reproducing.

No it doesn't. Doing the right thing often involves making sacrifices, up to and including sacrificing your life.

 

[Ibis81]

After reading this thread, I'd save my dog because I am 100% sure that if roles were reversed my dogs would come in after me. On the other there is a good chance the stranger would leave me with the fishes.

 

[bueno]

Would you not try to save your 80 year old grandfather before a 30 year old stranger?

I think I'd save the stranger in this situation. Especially if I knew the 30 year-old had a family.

By definition you wouldn't know that because he is a stranger (unless you saw his family on the shore making no attempt to save him).I think in a rational world, saving the30 year old is the right thing to do. Grandpa has lived a good life, the 30 year old might have people depending on him for survival, etc. I just think instinct will kick in and you will not act on reason, but instinct.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog?

No. If you save the dog, everyone will think you're a schmuck. In Darwinian terms, this would be bad.

And that's the important thing here. What everyone thinks of you.

Thanks for following along.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Would you not try to save your 80 year old grandfather before a 30 year old stranger?

I think I'd save the stranger in this situation. Especially if I knew the 30 year-old had a family.

By definition you wouldn't know that because he is a stranger (unless you saw his family on the shore making no attempt to save him).

Hmmm, you're probably right that "stranger" means we don't know anything about him. I think I'd still save the stranger.

 

[Grackle Squad]

But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog?

No. If you save the dog, everyone will think you're a schmuck. In Darwinian terms, this would be bad.

And that's the important thing here. What everyone thinks of you.

Thanks for following along.

Please enlighten me as to how I haven't been.

 

[Mr.Happy]

Doing the right thing means you have the better chance of survival, which means a better chance of reproducing.

No it doesn't. Doing the right thing often involves making sacrifices, up to and including sacrificing your life.

I am saying in Darwinist terms. The reality is, people say they are doing something for a noble purpose, when the reality is they are doing it for themselves.Also, you would be hard pressed to find people here who would sacrifice their life for a dog or a stranger, or a dog and a stranger.PS, as shown by this thread, the "right thing" is very viewpoint oriented and your opinion that doing the right thing can include sacrificing your life will not be shared by some people here.With that said, I believe in Heaven and I have been a good person. Ultimately on the grand scale of humanity, right now I am a faint blip. If doing the right thing requires me to sacrifice my life............

 

[Berger]

From a secular perspective, though, I'd be interesting in hearing if anybody can come up with a reason why saving a human over a dog is the "right" thing to do.

Because humans have a greater capacity for the appreciation and enjoyment of life than dogs do.

Is that a fact?

 

[Politician Spock]

But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog?

No. If you save the dog, everyone will think you're a schmuck. In Darwinian terms, this would be bad.

According to this poll only 59% could think your a schmuck, and even then there are probably some who voted for the human but wouldn't think you're a schmuck for saving the dog.

 

[drpill]

Of course you would be pissed at the guy for not resuing you instead of the dog; you have a vested interest in staying alive.

Why would you be pissed at him? I have a vested interest in acquiring great wealth, too, but I won't be pissed at some random rich guy for leaving everything to his family instead of to me.Likewise, if I'm drowing in one lake and seven other people are drowing in another, I wouldn't be pissed at a stranger for deciding to save the seven others instead of me.I get pissed at people for doing things that are wrong, not for doing things that are contrary to my vested interests. I imagine you operate the same way. So why would you be pissed at someone for saving a dog instead of you if he's not wrong to do so?

I wouldn't be pissed; I would be dead. Your argument hasn't offered anything as I far as I can tell. You are taking a utilitarian stance that relies on the assumption that a human life is worth more than a dog's, right? This is based on some sort of value which you are ascribing that you claim is relevant and significant. There is no valid way as far as I can tell that you can claim that your standards of value are better than anyone else's and unbiased by your status as a human being. You will take capacity for enjoying life, I will take the ability to pleasure oneself orally. Who wins?

 

[Politician Spock]

From a secular perspective, though, I'd be interesting in hearing if anybody can come up with a reason why saving a human over a dog is the "right" thing to do.

Because humans have a greater capacity for the appreciation and enjoyment of life than dogs do.

Is that a fact?

Not according to my dog's tail.

 

[bueno]

Doing the right thing means you have the better chance of survival, which means a better chance of reproducing.

No it doesn't. Doing the right thing often involves making sacrifices, up to and including sacrificing your life.

I am saying in Darwinist terms. The reality is, people say they are doing something for a noble purpose, when the reality is they are doing it for themselves.Also, you would be hard pressed to find people here who would sacrifice their life for a dog or a stranger, or a dog and a stranger.PS, as shown by this thread, the "right thing" is very viewpoint oriented and your opinion that doing the right thing can include sacrificing your life will not be shared by some people here.With that said, I believe in Heaven and I have been a good person. Ultimately on the grand scale of humanity, right now I am a faint blip. If doing the right thing requires me to sacrifice my life............

Yet people sacrifice themselves for strangers.I remember that happening with a KC running back a few decades ago. His son was also in the NFL - pretty good kick returner, but I can't remember the name.

 

[drpill]

From a secular perspective, though, I'd be interesting in hearing if anybody can come up with a reason why saving a human over a dog is the "right" thing to do.

Because humans have a greater capacity for the appreciation and enjoyment of life than dogs do.

Is that a fact?

And even if it is, so what? The capacity to enjoy life is not inherently worth diddly-squat.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog?

No. If you save the dog, everyone will think you're a schmuck. In Darwinian terms, this would be bad.

And that's the important thing here. What everyone thinks of you.

Thanks for following along.

Please enlighten me as to how I haven't been.

drpill wrote:"But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog? Natural selection = let the ******* save himself, and if he can't, so much the better for me and my spermatozoa."His statements about what natural selection implies were incorrect, and I pointed this out. My statement about what natural selection implies was correct, and that's as far as I went. So please take your rolled eyes elsewhere.

 

[bueno]

Would you not try to save your 80 year old grandfather before a 30 year old stranger?

I think I'd save the stranger in this situation. Especially if I knew the 30 year-old had a family.

By definition you wouldn't know that because he is a stranger (unless you saw his family on the shore making no attempt to save him).

Hmmm, you're probably right that "stranger" means we don't know anything about him. I think I'd still save the stranger.

What if grandma is watching and will write you out of the will if you don't dsave your poor grandpappy?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Would you not try to save your 80 year old grandfather before a 30 year old stranger?

I think I'd save the stranger in this situation. Especially if I knew the 30 year-old had a family.

By definition you wouldn't know that because he is a stranger (unless you saw his family on the shore making no attempt to save him).

Hmmm, you're probably right that "stranger" means we don't know anything about him. I think I'd still save the stranger.

What if grandma is watching and will write you out of the will if you don't dsave your poor grandpappy?

I don't know. How rich is gramps?

 

[Mr.Happy]

But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog?

No. If you save the dog, everyone will think you're a schmuck. In Darwinian terms, this would be bad.

And that's the important thing here. What everyone thinks of you.

Thanks for following along.

Please enlighten me as to how I haven't been.

drpill wrote:"But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog? Natural selection = let the ******* save himself, and if he can't, so much the better for me and my spermatozoa."His statements about what natural selection implies were incorrect, and I pointed this out. My statement about what natural selection implies was correct, and that's as far as I went. So please take your rolled eyes elsewhere.

Wait Tremblay. Maybe Darwinism can be applied to both, and we are looking at divergent paths. Both have the same goal, but different means to reach that goal.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Doing the right thing means you have the better chance of survival, which means a better chance of reproducing.

No it doesn't. Doing the right thing often involves making sacrifices, up to and including sacrificing your life.

I am saying in Darwinist terms.

I don't know what that means. Darwin was a scientist, not a moral philospher, so the phrase "in Darwinist terms" doesn't seem to have any direct bearing on what's right or wrong.What is most conducive to propagating one's own genes, however, often involves making sacrifices, up to and including sacrificing one's own life. So even if we define "doing the right thing" as "propagating one's genes as effectively as possible," the claim that sacrificing one's own life is never doing the right thing would be incorrect.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Would you not try to save your 80 year old grandfather before a 30 year old stranger?

I think I'd save the stranger in this situation. Especially if I knew the 30 year-old had a family.

By definition you wouldn't know that because he is a stranger (unless you saw his family on the shore making no attempt to save him).

Hmmm, you're probably right that "stranger" means we don't know anything about him. I think I'd still save the stranger.

What if grandma is watching and will write you out of the will if you don't dsave your poor grandpappy?

I don't know. How rich is gramps?

AND....There goes morals right out the window.