Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
They're both drowning, you can save only one... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter satch
- Start date
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Who's morals?
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
:rotflmao: at people who would save their dog over another human.
Giant Wooden Badger
the Beav
You won't be laughing when you're drowning next to my dog.
This is just moral relatavism. Are you saying that saving the dog isn't "wrong" because nothing is really right or wrong, including cold-blooded murder, because no one set of moral standards can be shown to be better than any other?If so, that's fine. I won't argue the point in this thread. If I can't convince you that cold-blooded murder is wrong, I wouldn't expect to be able to convince you that saving a dog is wrong.
Or were you getting at something else?
Last edited by a moderator:
Grackle Squad
Ninjas are so sweet
at moral opinions from someone who posts this:
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Exactly.It was wrong for me to pick my dog out of love, but money! F*** yeah! That's the way to decide!
drpill
Footballguy
Yes, ultimately I suppose I am asking for whatever it is that you consider to be absolute, and to justify why you choose it. I need proof that humans are worth more than dogs somehow.I am not necessarily a moral relativist; I don't believe that cold-blooded murder is morally correct, but my moral hierarchy is based on other factors, and these factors lead me to conclude that it is not any more moral to let a dog drown than a human. If you have to choose between the two, it sucks to be you, but it is not possible to make a wrong choice. IMO.
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
He was already dead and the guy that killed him was 100% wrong. Bottom line, the guy from Pantera is dead, that is just a stone cold fact. I think it's horrible he was killed, but he was.As far as why I think saving a dog over a human is wrong, I don't really know why, I just do. Maybe placing more value on a human life over a dog is wrong, and if it is then i'm wrong.Sometimes I ask myself if i'd kill a complete stranger lowlife for 100 million dollars. I couldn't, why I don't know. But I could kill someone if they endangered my life or others. Maybe my morals are screwed, so be it.
No.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Seems to me the owner of this lake (or water body of water this is) is in the biggest trouble. What safety policies did this owner violate that my dog and some stranger could be drowing at the exact same time?
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
I've had dogs my whole life.I just couldn't live with myself knowing I watched a human drown while I saved my dog. I'd definitely try to save the human quickly so I could get to my dog, but my first choice would be human over animal.
Grackle Squad
Ninjas are so sweet
So, if the same question was asked, if your dog is drowning and Dimebag Darrell from Damageplan is drowning, which do you save? Or what about if the human is his killer? Going by your logic, you should save him because he is human.He was already dead and the guy that killed him was 100% wrong. Bottom line, the guy from Pantera is dead, that is just a stone cold fact. I think it's horrible he was killed, but he was.As far as why I think saving a dog over a human is wrong, I don't really know why, I just do. Maybe placing more value on a human life over a dog is wrong, and if it is then i'm wrong.Sometimes I ask myself if i'd kill a complete stranger lowlife for 100 million dollars. I couldn't, why I don't know. But I could kill someone if they endangered my life or others. Maybe my morals are screwed, so be it.
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
I would save Dimebag Darrell over my dog, he was an innocent person. I would not save the killer because he was endangering others lives. Like I said the only way I could justify killing someone is if they endangered my life or others, which a "killer" is doing.So, if the same question was asked, if your dog is drowning and Dimebag Darrell from Damageplan is drowning, which do you save? Or what about if the human is his killer? Going by your logic, you should save him because he is human.He was already dead and the guy that killed him was 100% wrong. Bottom line, the guy from Pantera is dead, that is just a stone cold fact. I think it's horrible he was killed, but he was.As far as why I think saving a dog over a human is wrong, I don't really know why, I just do. Maybe placing more value on a human life over a dog is wrong, and if it is then i'm wrong.Sometimes I ask myself if i'd kill a complete stranger lowlife for 100 million dollars. I couldn't, why I don't know. But I could kill someone if they endangered my life or others. Maybe my morals are screwed, so be it.
bueno
In a class by himself
So for $100 million, you wouldn't kill Osama bin Laden?Where do I sign?He was already dead and the guy that killed him was 100% wrong. Bottom line, the guy from Pantera is dead, that is just a stone cold fact. I think it's horrible he was killed, but he was.As far as why I think saving a dog over a human is wrong, I don't really know why, I just do. Maybe placing more value on a human life over a dog is wrong, and if it is then i'm wrong.Sometimes I ask myself if i'd kill a complete stranger lowlife for 100 million dollars. I couldn't, why I don't know. But I could kill someone if they endangered my life or others. Maybe my morals are screwed, so be it.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Was the stranger or the dog drowning first?If my dog was drowning first and the stranger was trying to save him, maybe I would try and save the stranger first.Of course, he was already sacrificing his life for my dog, why deny him?I don't think there's enough info to answer this correctly. I'd like to pull my vote back until I can get more info.
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
He endangers many innocent people's lives, and I said I could justify killing then.So for $100 million, you wouldn't kill Osama bin Laden?Where do I sign?He was already dead and the guy that killed him was 100% wrong. Bottom line, the guy from Pantera is dead, that is just a stone cold fact. I think it's horrible he was killed, but he was.As far as why I think saving a dog over a human is wrong, I don't really know why, I just do. Maybe placing more value on a human life over a dog is wrong, and if it is then i'm wrong.Sometimes I ask myself if i'd kill a complete stranger lowlife for 100 million dollars. I couldn't, why I don't know. But I could kill someone if they endangered my life or others. Maybe my morals are screwed, so be it.
I don't consider any particular goal or value to be absolute in the sense that utilitarians consider happiness to be absolute. I don't think morality can be reduced to a formula that seeks to maximize any particular thing -- happiness, freedom, etc. It's always more complicated than that, and instead of coming up with some kind of simple rule that always works in every situation, I think we have to take things on a case-by-case basis by consulting our conscience.
Compare the average price of a human (when slavery was legal) to the average price of a dog.Or more seriously, just check your conscience. But do so after considering the issue carefully, trying to look at it from all the angles. What makes dogs valuable? What makes anything valuable? Is a dog more valuable than a spider? If so, why? Does the reason you gave make sense when it's applied to other comparisons as well? If your brother died, would that be a greater loss than if your dog died? Not just to you, but to everybody involved (including your brother and your dog)? And so on . . .There is no simple formula or list of rules that can provide good answers to all moral questions. The world is more complicated than a list of rules can anticipate, so if you have a brain, use your brain, not a list of rules.
Boxy Brown
Footballguy
Dimebag Darrell was an innocent person
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Like that matters in a court of law.People have succesfully sued companies they broke into. Where is the fence around the lake? The warnings to stay out of the lake?This is an complete and utter outrage.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Doesn't matter. A guy sued a home owner after getting locked in his garage while the home owner was on vacation. The guy got locked in the garage while breaking into the house.
Expanding on what I said earlier, I would like to say that I mean it in absolute seriousness. It's not something where if in that situation I would change my mind and it's certainly not a joke or fishing trip. Those of you that have seen me post for a while can probably tell the difference. If I take the time to put together a semi-lengthy statement, I'm probably being serious. If I post a quick 1-liner about putting pill boxes on the Rio Grande for instance, good chance I'm kidding around. I have to
at some of the responses. Lot of posts saying that a lot of us "dog people" would change our minds. I can say the same thing; that some of the dog owners that say they would let their pet die couldn't do it when push comes to shove. Short of doing an actual study on this sort of thing which is morally and legally impossible, taking people at their word and assuming that the errors will wash each other out is the best we can do. I also find it amusing how many people are making the moral judgement that the opposite course of action from what they would do is absolutely wrong. As I said before, there's a question of your personal belief on the sanctity of human life and there's a relative issue. If you believe that all human lives are equally sacred, then I can come up with hypotheticals that test your principles just as easily. For example, someone has a gun to your brother's (or father's, friend's, etc) head and his partner has two guns to two strangers heads. He will either kill your family member or the two strangers and it's your choice. If you believe that all lives are equally sacred then choosing your family member is in effect damning an additional life. But your loved one has much more value to you then a complete stranger. Perhaps you choose him? What about if it's 5 strangers, or 10, or 100, or 1000, or an entire country. Perhaps you choose to save your loved one, but only up to a certain point. The relative value from your perspective is a factor whether you want to admit it or not.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Expanding on what I said earlier, I would like to say that I mean it in absolute seriousness. It's not something where if in that situation I would change my mind and it's certainly not a joke or fishing trip. Those of you that have seen me post for a while can probably tell the difference. If I take the time to put together a semi-lengthy statement, I'm probably being serious. If I post a quick 1-liner about putting pill boxes on the Rio Grande for instance, good chance I'm kidding around. I have to
I, too, am being serious, but have used humor to make some points. In no way did it mean that I wasn't serious.I go back to my point that it all depends on how you look at this scenario. I went to the police academy back in the day and they had a set of questions they asked, similar to this one, that had NO ANSWER. They sat you in a room with 4 officers. They would ask the question. No matter how you answered, they would tell you you were wrong. The point was that in a split second, you have to make a decision. Once you make that decision, you cannot be swayed by someone second guessing your command decision. People will argue these to the death, but in all honesty, all they are trying to see is if you will falter on your own decision making.
The one I remember was that you pull over a car for swerving. You suspect the driver of DUI. When you walk up to the car, you realize its your mom. You are a mile from her house. She is obviously drunk. What do you do?
No matter what you said, they would rapid fire to try and get you to waiver. This seems eerily close to those questions.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
When I was a teenager back in Wisconsin I saw a young boy, turns out he was seven, fall through the thin November ice on the local skating pond. His dog, a Newfie, went in after him, dragged him to the edge of the hole in the ice, but was unable to climb out of the ever increasing in size icey hole. I sent my brother running for help, and I went in after the kid. The pond was not deep and I was able to stand on the bottom with my head only inches below the surface. (I knew the depth prior to going in from playing in the pond as a boy.) I was able to shove the boy up onto the ice, and the dog kind of helped himself up by stepping on my head. The dog dragged the boy off the ice to a small crowd that was gathering and then came back out onto the ice. When he did I was able to grab his collar, and with that leverage to drag my freezing, drenched carcass onto the ice shelf and eventually back to shore. Absent the dog coming out onto that ice I do not know if I would have had the necessary purchase to get out of the water on my own. I later found out that among those in the crowd was the kid's uncle who had made no apparent attempt to help the kid, the dog, or me.I don't have a moral to this story though there are likely many. I do, now, however, have a great foundness for Newfies.
Last edited by a moderator:
drpill
Footballguy
Well stated. Actually, we agree a lot more that I realized. I thought you were taking a strict utilitarian approach to valuing a dog over a human, which I think breaks down into absurdity under closer examination. More than anything I've been playing devil's advocate here, but I think there's as much truth to the case I'm arguing as any other.I'll try to avoid turning this into a confessional, but I often find myself conflicted; torn between what I know to be true, and what is practical and relevant. I'm sure many others deal with this too. I think that there are (at least) two levels of morality open to examination, and a lot of the ethical tension we feel comes from the interplay between them. It seems obvious to me that there is an "absolute" (for lack of a better term) morality, which is in fact that, colloquially, it's all good. Yes, even cold-blooded murder. Moral relativism gets at a real profound truth of existence, which is that in cosmic terms, none of this matters at all (or all of it matters equally, it's the same thing), and that the murder of a human by another human, and the grief and human drama that ensues, is just another aspect of the universe like any other, like the tides turning or a star dying or what have you. To try to ascribe moral value to something when considering this (very valid IMO) point of view is like trying to decide whether a leaf falling to the ground is "good" or "bad" -- basically, it's absurd, and just a product of being human and having these organs inside our skulls which have a obsessive compulsive need to ascribe meaning to everything.But we do have this need, and in fact it's almost impossible to escape, which is why we are dealing with the "relative" side of the universe on a day to day basis. Still, a sense of the absolute relativity of everything haunts anyone sensitive enough to be aware of it... To paraphrase Alan Watts, becoming aware of the relativity of the universe can leave us feeling like we are lost, adrift, not knowing which way is up and which is down; but this is exactly what water feels like to someone who cannot swim. And this is where, as you say, we use our brains to figure out how to navigate the choices we are faced with every day. It's all about learning how to swim. I do think it's really important to carefully examine all of our moral judgments; not everything that seems inherently obvious stands up to scrutiny, and even if it does we benefit from knowing why we call something more right than something else.
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
It depends. Is the stranger fat?
Giant Wooden Badger
the Beav
Was the boy's name Neil Rackers?
You're likely kidding which is fine, but in all seriousness and disregarding the extra difficulty in possibly saving an obese person, I would save a thin person before an obese one. Just another example of relative values of different people. As soon as you don't buy into the sanctity of all human lives belief, the hypothetical scenarios are limitless. But, if for example I had a wife with a fat brother-in-law or something like that, I would save him over a random thin stranger. Just like rescuing my dog instead of a person despite my ordinarily valuing a human life over a dog's, I save the obese man instead of the thin man whose life I would usually hold in higher regard, because saving the obese one will be more important to my wife and by extension to myself.
HERBERT THE HIPPO
REAL Ultimate Power
I have to
Damn good post.I'm amazed by all the pat answers.I had a dog once who had an incontinence problem, a horrific body odor problem, and a breath odor problem who I found running loose in the streets.Not being able to find his owners I kept him. A vet estimated him at 12 years old.We were never close in the year and half until he died.In this situation I would save the stranger without question.My dog Jake who lived to be 15 years old and in that 14 and a half years gave me unbounded loyalty, pleasure and protection. He save my daughter's life and gave endless pleasure to my family and visitors alike. He knew to be gentle with children and cats and fierce with prowlers. He was a member of our family.Indeed I would have saved him over a stranger.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Did he like peanut butter?
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
What if you had a fat wife? Would you save her?
Grackle Squad
Ninjas are so sweet
. . . . in your OPINION.
Gonzo The Great
Footballguy
What if the stranger raped and killed your mother, your sister and your daughter?
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
I'd love to explore this more. If my wife gained 400 lbs I'd let her drown. I might not even save the dog either.My example using the brother-in-law (and not my wife or even my wife's brother) was for a reason,Let's not go there because this discussion is interesting enough without going off on a tangent about reasons why I could never marry certain types of people.
Miscellaneous
Footballguy
What if they didn't?
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Then I would let the dog die and save the stranger.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
My dog, hands down.And I would look you straight in the eyes as you plunge below the waterline.####ing strangers.
Similar threads
