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

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

I voted for my dog, but that would never happen. I own a Portuguese Water Dog. He's a better swimmer than I. He'd probably have to rescue both the drowning stranger and me after I went in after them.

 

[Psychopav]

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.

One could argue that, but one would be wrong.

. . . . in your OPINION.

No, in point of fact.

Your obstinancy is getting boring. You really think you can just say something is so and everyone will agree with you with no argument? You obviously think your definition of morality is beyond question; can you at least offer a reason why that is?

I'm sorry if I'm boring you. I'm not trying to entertain you, though.I don't think everyone will agree with me, but it's the truth and doesn't require a majority vote.I don't think my definition of morality is without question. I haven't even given you a definition of morality. I've simply said that in this case, clearly saving the person is right and saving the dog in lieu of the person is wrong. Once you take action to save either one, you should be saving the person, if you're interested in doing the right thing.

 

[satch]

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.

One could argue that, but one would be wrong.

. . . . in your OPINION.

No, in point of fact.

Your obstinancy is getting boring. You really think you can just say something is so and everyone will agree with you with no argument? You obviously think your definition of morality is beyond question; can you at least offer a reason why that is?

I'm sorry if I'm boring you. I'm not trying to entertain you, though.I don't think everyone will agree with me, but it's the truth and doesn't require a majority vote.

I don't think my definition of morality is without question. I haven't even given you a definition of morality. I've simply said that in this case, clearly saving the person is right and saving the dog in lieu of the person is wrong. Once you take action to save either one, you should be saving the person, if you're interested in doing the right thing.

Maybe it's time you do give us your definition of morality. You keep claiming to know what is morally right & wrong and saying that it is fact and truth. At the same time you admit that your definition of morality isn't without question.

If your definition of morality isn't without question, then how can you claim to know what is right, wrong, fact or truth?

 

[Smoo]

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.

One could argue that, but one would be wrong.

. . . . in your OPINION.

No, in point of fact.

Your obstinancy is getting boring. You really think you can just say something is so and everyone will agree with you with no argument? You obviously think your definition of morality is beyond question; can you at least offer a reason why that is?

I'm sorry if I'm boring you. I'm not trying to entertain you, though.I don't think everyone will agree with me, but it's the truth and doesn't require a majority vote.

I don't think my definition of morality is without question. I haven't even given you a definition of morality. I've simply said that in this case, clearly saving the person is right and saving the dog in lieu of the person is wrong. Once you take action to save either one, you should be saving the person, if you're interested in doing the right thing.

Yes, we got that. You just haven't explained why that is, and until you do, you may as well be some crackpot on the corner mumbling to himself about how the government is putting microchips in his corn flakes or some other such nonsense. If you don't give anybody a reason to agree with you then nobody will, except purely by coincidence.

 

[drpill]

 

[Psychopav]

Yes, we got that. You just haven't explained why that is, and until you do, you may as well be some crackpot on the corner mumbling to himself about how the government is putting microchips in his corn flakes or some other such nonsense. If you don't give anybody a reason to agree with you then nobody will, except purely by coincidence.

Now see, that's not quite true. I'm not trying to persuade anyone, but this board is full of people trying to persuade others that their opinion is right. If someone agrees with me in this particular instance, it's because we both agree with the truth. Hardly a coincidence.The thread asked for "thoughts" and that's what I'm giving. I'm sorry if that doesn't make you happy.

 

[Grackle Squad]

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.

One could argue that, but one would be wrong.

. . . . in your OPINION.

No, in point of fact.

Your obstinancy is getting boring. You really think you can just say something is so and everyone will agree with you with no argument? You obviously think your definition of morality is beyond question; can you at least offer a reason why that is?

I'm sorry if I'm boring you. I'm not trying to entertain you, though.I don't think everyone will agree with me, but it's the truth and doesn't require a majority vote.

I don't think my definition of morality is without question. I haven't even given you a definition of morality. I've simply said that in this case, clearly saving the person is right and saving the dog in lieu of the person is wrong. Once you take action to save either one, you should be saving the person, if you're interested in doing the right thing.

Maybe it's time you do give us your definition of morality. You keep claiming to know what is morally right & wrong and saying that it is fact and truth. At the same time you admit that your definition of morality isn't without question.

If your definition of morality isn't without question, then how can you claim to know what is right, wrong, fact or truth?

(Jinx, buy me a Coke)

 

[Grackle Squad]

If someone agrees with me in this particular instance, it's because we both agree with the truth.

Biggest blowhard statement EVAH!!!!!

 

[Psychopav]

Maybe it's time you do give us your definition of morality.

You keep claiming to know what is morally right & wrong and saying that it is fact and truth. At the same time you admit that your definition of morality isn't without question.

If your definition of morality isn't without question, then how can you claim to know what is right, wrong, fact or truth?

In this instance, morally right means saving the person at the expense of the animal, and not the other way around.I claim to know that there are certain actions that are objectively right or wrong. I know it, and so do you. And if you don't, then you need help. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just telling you the truth in this situation, and if you disagree then I submit that further examination of conscience might be in order.

Normally, I'd feel some desire to try to convince you of the rightness of my position, but in this case it's so obvious that if you truly believe that it would be morally justifiable to save the dog when you have the capacity to save the person instead then you really need some help.

 

[Psychopav]

If someone agrees with me in this particular instance, it's because we both agree with the truth.

Biggest blowhard statement EVAH!!!!!

Not as big as a blowhard who thinks that saving the animal and letting the person die is OK.

 

[CrossEyed]

The results of this poll are truly disturbing. I can't believe that people would choose to save the life of an animal over the life of a human being. The fact that almost half of you would choose the dog is a sad commentary on our society and the value it places (or doesn't place) on human life.

 

[Psychopav]

The results of this poll are truly disturbing. I can't believe that people would choose to save the life of an animal over the life of a human being. The fact that almost half of you would choose the dog is a sad commentary on our society and the value it places (or doesn't place) on human life.

I actually disagree with Crosseyed here. I don't think this is a commentary on the value we place on human life so much as I think it's a commentary on the value we place on emotional attachments and a hedonistic, self-centered outlook on morality.

 

[J-Co]

Yes, we got that. You just haven't explained why that is, and until you do, you may as well be some crackpot on the corner mumbling to himself about how the government is putting microchips in his corn flakes or some other such nonsense. If you don't give anybody a reason to agree with you then nobody will, except purely by coincidence.

Now see, that's not quite true. I'm not trying to persuade anyone, but this board is full of people trying to persuade others that their opinion is right. If someone agrees with me in this particular instance, it's because we both agree with the truth. Hardly a coincidence.The thread asked for "thoughts" and that's what I'm giving. I'm sorry if that doesn't make you happy.

lol, you're still just saying the same thing with different words.

If someone agrees with me in this particular instance, it's because we both agree with the truth.

You may not be trying to persuade anyone of anything but whether you intend to or not, you are making a statement of something as fact, without even a semblence of an argument to back it up. You are of course entitled to an opinion but what I am saying and I think the others are saying is that you look a little foolish making strong, unbending statements on a subjective topic, and don't support your statement at all. You may have a different reason, but declaring your belief as fact without providing any reason at all gives the impression that you don't want to reveal your reasons for thinking that way because it opens your opinion up to critiquing. e.g. I voted for Bush because he is better.

Why is he better?

He's just better. It's a fact.

I may think he is better but I look foolish making these statements.

 

[Grackle Squad]

The results of this poll are truly disturbing. I can't believe that people would choose to save the life of an animal over the life of a human being. The fact that almost half of you would choose the dog is a sad commentary on our society and the value it places (or doesn't place) on human life.

Have you been listening to the Dude's story?You're like a child that wanders into the middle of a story. Do you admit that you have no frame of reference?

 

[Grackle Squad]

The results of this poll are truly disturbing. I can't believe that people would choose to save the life of an animal over the life of a human being. The fact that almost half of you would choose the dog is a sad commentary on our society and the value it places (or doesn't place) on human life.

I actually disagree with Crosseyed here. I don't think this is a commentary on the value we place on human life so much as I think it's a commentary on the value we place on emotional attachments and a hedonistic, self-centered outlook on morality.

Is it not self-centered to save the stranger because he is human? Oh, I'm sorry. I'll stop asking you tough questions that you have to duck and respond with "I'm right, and that's the truth."

 

[Psychopav]

You may not be trying to persuade anyone of anything but whether you intend to or not, you are making a statement of something as fact, without even a semblence of an argument to back it up. You are of course entitled to an opinion but what I am saying and I think the others are saying is that you look a little foolish making strong, unbending statements on a subjective topic, and don't support your statement at all. You may have a different reason, but declaring your belief as fact without providing any reason at all gives the impression that you don't want to reveal your reasons for thinking that way because it opens your opinion up to critiquing.

e.g. I voted for Bush because he is better.

Why is he better?

He's just better. It's a fact.

I may think he is better but I look foolish making these statements.

The Bears aren't going to make the playoffs this year.

 

[Grackle Squad]

You may not be trying to persuade anyone of anything but whether you intend to or not, you are making a statement of something as fact, without even a semblence of an argument to back it up. You are of course entitled to an opinion but what I am saying and I think the others are saying is that you look a little foolish making strong, unbending statements on a subjective topic, and don't support your statement at all. You may have a different reason, but declaring your belief as fact without providing any reason at all gives the impression that you don't want to reveal your reasons for thinking that way because it opens your opinion up to critiquing.

e.g. I voted for Bush because he is better.

Why is he better?

He's just better. It's a fact.

I may think he is better but I look foolish making these statements.

The Bears aren't going to make the playoffs this year.

No, they are. They are going to play the 49ers for the Super Bowl. You may point out that it is mathematically impossible, to which I will reply that I am right, you are wrong, and that's that.

 

[Psychopav]

Is it not self-centered to save the stranger because he is human? Oh, I'm sorry. I'll stop asking you tough questions that you have to duck and respond with "I'm right, and that's the truth."

No, it's not self-centered to save the stranger.I'm not ducking anything. The morally right thing is obvious in this situation (not that everyone would do the right thing, or care that it's the right thing - myself included). If you can't see that, no argument from me is going to change your mind. You need a switch flipped that logic is not going to flip for you.

 

[J-Co]

The results of this poll are truly disturbing. I can't believe that people would choose to save the life of an animal over the life of a human being. The fact that almost half of you would choose the dog is a sad commentary on our society and the value it places (or doesn't place) on human life.

Small sidetrack. If you truly believe that human life is so sacred, don't you find it a bit conflicting that you also believe in a god so vicious that he damns anyone to eternal hell, including children, if they weren't christians? I see a contradiction here, that you think human lives are so sacred that anyone who would sacrifice one for a pet is a reflection of the sorry state of society, but many of those same "sacred" souls get flushed down the cosmic toilet because they or their parents made the "wrong" arbitrary choice.

 

[Psychopav]

You may not be trying to persuade anyone of anything but whether you intend to or not, you are making a statement of something as fact, without even a semblence of an argument to back it up.  You are of course entitled to an opinion but what I am saying and I think the others are saying is that you look a little foolish making strong, unbending statements on a subjective topic, and don't support your statement at all.  You may have a different reason, but declaring your belief as fact without providing any reason at all gives the impression that you don't want to reveal your reasons for thinking that way because it opens your opinion up to critiquing. 

e.g. I voted for Bush because he is better. 

Why is he better?

He's just better.  It's a fact.

I may think he is better but I look foolish making these statements.

The Bears aren't going to make the playoffs this year.

No, they are. They are going to play the 49ers for the Super Bowl. You may point out that it is mathematically impossible, to which I will reply that I am right, you are wrong, and that's that.

That's because it's not mathematically impossible (well, I don't know about the niners, but the Bears could mathematically make the playoffs). But they're not going to.And the only reasons why someone would argue with me on that point is because either (1) they are delusional, in which case no facts that I can present will sway their opinion or (2) they are playing devil's advocate, in which case I have no desire to convince them because they are not in a position to be convinced.

 

[J-Co]

Is it not self-centered to save the stranger because he is human? Oh, I'm sorry. I'll stop asking you tough questions that you have to duck and respond with "I'm right, and that's the truth."

No, it's not self-centered to save the stranger.I'm not ducking anything. The morally right thing is obvious in this situation (not that everyone would do the right thing, or care that it's the right thing - myself included). If you can't see that, no argument from me is going to change your mind. You need a switch flipped that logic is not going to flip for you.

The Bears winning the super bowl is an obvious falsehood that can easily be refuted by stating a couple facts. If you really do think that the dog vs. stranger issue is obvious as well, then you could present facts just the same. You haven't so your repeated "I'm right because I say so" statements only support the argument that this is a subjective issue.

 

[Grackle Squad]

Is it not self-centered to save the stranger because he is human? Oh, I'm sorry. I'll stop asking you tough questions that you have to duck and respond with "I'm right, and that's the truth."

No, it's not self-centered to save the stranger.I'm not ducking anything. The morally right thing is obvious in this situation (not that everyone would do the right thing, or care that it's the right thing - myself included). If you can't see that, no argument from me is going to change your mind. You need a switch flipped that logic is not going to flip for you.

Nowhere in your rambling responses have you ever said where you get off deciding what is / isn't morally right. Are you The Pope? A higher being sent here to make judgements on what is right and wrong? Ever heard of "Judge not, lest ye be judged", Morality Police?

 

[Grackle Squad]

And the only reasons why someone would argue with me on that point is because either (1) they are delusional, in which case no facts that I can present will sway their opinion or (2) they are playing devil's advocate, in which case I have no desire to convince them because they are not in a position to be convinced.

Of course! You've already stated that you are always right.

 

[Psychopav]

The Bears winning the super bowl is an obvious falsehood that can easily be refuted by stating a couple facts. If you really do think that the dog vs. stranger issue is obvious as well, then you could present facts just the same. You haven't so your repeated "I'm right because I say so" statements only support the argument that this is a subjective issue.

My comments don't support any argument at all.The Bears making it to the playoffs this year is not an "obvious falshood" according to strict logic. It's a subjective statement, and can NOT be refuted, until they're mathematically eliminated.

 

[Psychopav]

Nowhere in your rambling responses have you ever said where you get off deciding what is / isn't morally right. Are you The Pope? A higher being sent here to make judgements on what is right and wrong? Ever heard of "Judge not, lest ye be judged", Morality Police?

I'm not rambling, I'm being very clear and consistent in my responses in this thread.Why is it OK for you to attack me for stating my thoughts? Are you the pope? Are you a higher being? Why are you judging me? You're the one getting excited here, not me...

 

[Psychopav]

And the only reasons why someone would argue with me on that point is because either (1) they are delusional, in which case no facts that I can present will sway their opinion or (2) they are playing devil's advocate, in which case I have no desire to convince them because they are not in a position to be convinced.

Of course! You've already stated that you are always right.

Now you're posting things that aren't true. I have stated that I'm not always right. Why are you lying about what I've posted?

 

[Grackle Squad]

Nowhere in your rambling responses have you ever said where you get off deciding what is / isn't morally right. Are you The Pope? A higher being sent here to make judgements on what is right and wrong? Ever heard of "Judge not, lest ye be judged", Morality Police?

I'm not rambling, I'm being very clear and consistent in my responses in this thread.Why is it OK for you to attack me for stating my thoughts? Are you the pope? Are you a higher being? Why are you judging me? You're the one getting excited here, not me...

I'm not getting excited. On the contrary, I'm very relaxed. I'm merely pointing out how ridiculous you sound saying that you are right, and those that don't agree with you are wrong, and then you can't back up why. You say "Well, anyone who would save the dog is morally wrong." Then you can't backup how you came to that conclusion, nor why you are so special that you get to make those judgments.

 

[J-Co]

Is it not self-centered to save the stranger because he is human?  Oh, I'm sorry.  I'll stop asking you tough questions that you have to duck and respond with "I'm right, and that's the truth."

No, it's not self-centered to save the stranger.I'm not ducking anything. The morally right thing is obvious in this situation (not that everyone would do the right thing, or care that it's the right thing - myself included). If you can't see that, no argument from me is going to change your mind. You need a switch flipped that logic is not going to flip for you.

Nowhere in your rambling responses have you ever said where you get off deciding what is / isn't morally right. Are you The Pope? A higher being sent here to make judgements on what is right and wrong? Ever heard of "Judge not, lest ye be judged", Morality Police?

Interesting that I have yet to read any of the "dog guys" say that the other side is morally defunct, etc. To most people's credit no matter what they said, I do think most recognize this for what it is - an unrealistic hypothetical scenario that has no right or wrong answer. It's a reflection of your personal beliefs and how you value one thing relative to another. Other examples:your wife or a child?1 American soldier or 10 civilians in enemy territory?1 American soldier or 100 civilians in enemy territory?

 

[J-Co]

The Bears winning the super bowl is an obvious falsehood that can easily be refuted by stating a couple facts. If you really do think that the dog vs. stranger issue is obvious as well, then you could present facts just the same. You haven't so your repeated "I'm right because I say so" statements only support the argument that this is a subjective issue.

My comments don't support any argument at all.The Bears making it to the playoffs this year is not an "obvious falshood" according to strict logic. It's a subjective statement, and can NOT be refuted, until they're mathematically eliminated.

Then it isn't a fact. It's an extremely unlikely occurrence.

 

[Psychopav]

I'm merely pointing out how ridiculous you sound saying that you are right, and those that don't agree with you are wrong, and then you can't back up why. You say "Well, anyone who would save the dog is morally wrong." Then you can't backup how you came to that conclusion, nor why you are so special that you get to make those judgments.

The conclusion is self-evident. If you don't see it as self-evident, you are playing devil's advocate or you're delusional.Tell you what, you tell me why it's wrong. If you disagree with it, then you must have a reason, right? And you seem to care a lot about the reasons...

 

[Psychopav]

The Bears winning the super bowl is an obvious falsehood that can easily be refuted by stating a couple facts.  If you really do think that the dog vs. stranger issue is obvious as well, then you could present facts just the same.  You haven't so your repeated "I'm right because I say so" statements only support the argument that this is a subjective issue.

My comments don't support any argument at all.The Bears making it to the playoffs this year is not an "obvious falshood" according to strict logic. It's a subjective statement, and can NOT be refuted, until they're mathematically eliminated.

Then it isn't a fact. It's an extremely unlikely occurrence.

So you think the Bears will make it to the playoffs?

 

[J-Co]

I'm merely pointing out how ridiculous you sound saying that you are right, and those that don't agree with you are wrong, and then you can't back up why. You say "Well, anyone who would save the dog is morally wrong." Then you can't backup how you came to that conclusion, nor why you are so special that you get to make those judgments.

The conclusion is self-evident. If you don't see it as self-evident, you are playing devil's advocate or you're delusional.Tell you what, you tell me why it's wrong. If you disagree with it, then you must have a reason, right? And you seem to care a lot about the reasons...

OK, everyone should drink Coke and not Pepsi. The reason is self evident. If you disagree you are playing devil's advocate or are delusional. How foolish do I sound?

 

[Grackle Squad]

And the only reasons why someone would argue with me on that point is because either (1) they are delusional, in which case no facts that I can present will sway their opinion or (2) they are playing devil's advocate, in which case I have no desire to convince them because they are not in a position to be convinced.

Of course! You've already stated that you are always right.

Now you're posting things that aren't true. I have stated that I'm not always right. Why are you lying about what I've posted?

I don't think everyone will agree with me, but it's the truth and doesn't require a majority vote.

I've simply said that in this case, clearly saving the person is right and saving the dog in lieu of the person is wrong.

If someone agrees with me in this particular instance, it's because we both agree with the truth. Hardly a coincidence.

In this instance, morally right means saving the person at the expense of the animal, and not the other way around.

I claim to know that there are certain actions that are objectively right or wrong. I know it, and so do you. And if you don't, then you need help. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just telling you the truth in this situation, and if you disagree then I submit that further examination of conscience might be in order.

Normally, I'd feel some desire to try to convince you of the rightness of my position, but in this case it's so obvious that if you truly believe that it would be morally justifiable to save the dog when you have the capacity to save the person instead then you really need some help.

The morally right thing is obvious in this situation

And the only reasons why someone would argue with me on that point is because either (1) they are delusional, in which case no facts that I can present will sway their opinion or (2) they are playing devil's advocate, in which case I have no desire to convince them because they are not in a position to be convinced.

Gee, where would I have gotten that idea?

 

[Psychopav]

Tell you what, you tell me why it's wrong. If you disagree with it, then you must have a reason, right? And you seem to care a lot about the reasons...

OK, everyone should drink Coke and not Pepsi. The reason is self evident. If you disagree you are playing devil's advocate or are delusional. How foolish do I sound?

I don't think you sound foolish at all. I happen to agree with you.But assuming you had said Pepsi and not Coke, I'd say you look even more foolish than me, because you insist that without giving reasons you look foolish. So you look foolish and hypocritical, whereas I just look foolish (to the delusional folks anyway).

 

[J-Co]

The Bears winning the super bowl is an obvious falsehood that can easily be refuted by stating a couple facts.  If you really do think that the dog vs. stranger issue is obvious as well, then you could present facts just the same.  You haven't so your repeated "I'm right because I say so" statements only support the argument that this is a subjective issue.

My comments don't support any argument at all.The Bears making it to the playoffs this year is not an "obvious falshood" according to strict logic. It's a subjective statement, and can NOT be refuted, until they're mathematically eliminated.

Then it isn't a fact. It's an extremely unlikely occurrence.

So you think the Bears will make it to the playoffs?

No I believe they will not make the playoffs. The operative word being believe. Someone else may believe they will. I personally believe they are wrong much like you believe my morals are questionable for being willing to allow a human being to die to save my dog. You refuse to acknowledge your belief to be as such because you wish to present it as fact so that it can not be disputed. When people do this, it's usually a good indication that they do not really have any facts to back up their very subjective opinion (religious zealots being a prime example).

 

[Psychopav]

And the only reasons why someone would argue with me on that point is because either (1) they are delusional, in which case no facts that I can present will sway their opinion or (2) they are playing devil's advocate, in which case I have no desire to convince them because they are not in a position to be convinced.

Of course! You've already stated that you are always right.

Now you're posting things that aren't true. I have stated that I'm not always right. Why are you lying about what I've posted?

I don't think everyone will agree with me, but it's the truth and doesn't require a majority vote.

I've simply said that in this case, clearly saving the person is right and saving the dog in lieu of the person is wrong.

If someone agrees with me in this particular instance, it's because we both agree with the truth. Hardly a coincidence.

In this instance, morally right means saving the person at the expense of the animal, and not the other way around.

I claim to know that there are certain actions that are objectively right or wrong. I know it, and so do you. And if you don't, then you need help. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just telling you the truth in this situation, and if you disagree then I submit that further examination of conscience might be in order.

Normally, I'd feel some desire to try to convince you of the rightness of my position, but in this case it's so obvious that if you truly believe that it would be morally justifiable to save the dog when you have the capacity to save the person instead then you really need some help.

The morally right thing is obvious in this situation

And the only reasons why someone would argue with me on that point is because either (1) they are delusional, in which case no facts that I can present will sway their opinion or (2) they are playing devil's advocate, in which case I have no desire to convince them because they are not in a position to be convinced.

Gee, where would I have gotten that idea?

I'm flattered that you would take the time to quote all these posts. Lots of truth up there!



You might notice that I don't say that I'm always right in any of those...

 

[4thAndForever]

Save the dog, shoot the stranger.

 

[Smoo]

This thread amuses me. Psychopav has to be fishing. No way can anybody be that blindly stubborn.

I'm going to guess that the "self-evident reason" is that some higher god created man and therefore man is OBVIOUSLY superior, since dogs were placed on earth merely to be our servants.

C'mon, it's so SELF-EVIDENT.

Indeed. Next.

 

[Grackle Squad]

And the only reasons why someone would argue with me on that point is because either (1) they are delusional, in which case no facts that I can present will sway their opinion or (2) they are playing devil's advocate, in which case I have no desire to convince them because they are not in a position to be convinced.

Of course! You've already stated that you are always right.

Now you're posting things that aren't true. I have stated that I'm not always right. Why are you lying about what I've posted?

I don't think everyone will agree with me, but it's the truth and doesn't require a majority vote.

I've simply said that in this case, clearly saving the person is right and saving the dog in lieu of the person is wrong.

If someone agrees with me in this particular instance, it's because we both agree with the truth. Hardly a coincidence.

In this instance, morally right means saving the person at the expense of the animal, and not the other way around.

I claim to know that there are certain actions that are objectively right or wrong. I know it, and so do you. And if you don't, then you need help. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just telling you the truth in this situation, and if you disagree then I submit that further examination of conscience might be in order.

Normally, I'd feel some desire to try to convince you of the rightness of my position, but in this case it's so obvious that if you truly believe that it would be morally justifiable to save the dog when you have the capacity to save the person instead then you really need some help.

The morally right thing is obvious in this situation

And the only reasons why someone would argue with me on that point is because either (1) they are delusional, in which case no facts that I can present will sway their opinion or (2) they are playing devil's advocate, in which case I have no desire to convince them because they are not in a position to be convinced.

Gee, where would I have gotten that idea?

I'm flattered that you would take the time to quote all these posts. Lot's of truth up there!



You might notice that I don't say that I'm always right in any of those...

You say if someone doesn't agree with you, they are wrong. Here's a tip: That's the same thing.

 

[Psychopav]

No I believe they will not make the playoffs. The operative word being believe. Someone else may believe they will. I personally believe they are wrong much like you believe my morals are questionable for being willing to allow a human being to die to save my dog. You refuse to acknowledge your belief to be as such because you wish to present it as fact so that it can not be disputed. When people do this, it's usually a good indication that they do not really have any facts to back up their very subjective opinion (religious zealots being a prime example).

How do you know why people say the things they say? What makes you say that? I think that's judgemental.It doesn't matter what you say about belief vs. fact, though. If someone is adamant that the Bears will make the playoffs, I'll tell them they're cracked.

All opinions are subjective. I'm not sure what you mean when you say someone has a "very subjective opinion".

Here are some opinions:

It's morally OK to save the dog.

It's morally OK to save either one, it makes no difference.

It's morally OK to save the stranger.

It's morally OK to not save either one.

These are all subjective statements. None of them can be made less subjective by adding more statements (like, "dogs have as much right to live as people").

Only one of them is in line with the objective moral truth of the situation. That's all I'm saying.

 

[J-Co]

Another angle......

What if it was 1 man vs. 2 dogs? Or 1 man vs. 100 dogs? Or 1 man vs. every dog in the world?

Or 1 man with a 50% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance? Or 1 man with a 10% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance? Or 1 man with a 1% / 0.1% 0.0000000001% / etc. chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?

The answers will vary from person to person......because they are subjective. Are you prepared to say that there is a finite point on spectrums such as those where subjective opinion shifts abruptly to irrefutable fact? You've backed yourself into a corner and don't have a leg to stand on (another subjective belief on my part )

 

[Psychopav]

You say if someone doesn't agree with you, they are wrong. Here's a tip: That's the same thing.

Here's one for you: You're saying the same thing.

 

[Grackle Squad]

Only one of them is in line with the objective moral truth of the situation. That's all I'm saying.

"How do you KNOW what the objective moral truth of the situation is?" That's the question you've been ducking for the whole second half.

 

[Smoo]

the objective moral truth of the situation

See, that's where our wires are getting crossed.Why does there have to be one objective moral truth?

 

[4thAndForever]

Dogs are cool, but most people are not. I'd save the dog, unless it was like a poodle or one of those tiny dogs.

 

[Psychopav]

This thread amuses me. Psychopav has to be fishing. No way can anybody be that blindly stubborn.

I'm going to guess that the "self-evident reason" is that some higher god created man and therefore man is OBVIOUSLY superior, since dogs were placed on earth merely to be our servants.

C'mon, it's so SELF-EVIDENT.

Indeed. Next.

It's not nearly that complicated.What makes it complicated is that logical consistency does not necessarily equal correct conclusions.

 

[Psychopav]

the objective moral truth of the situation

See, that's where our wires are getting crossed.Why does there have to be one objective moral truth?

There doesn't have to be, but in this case there is.Ask your mom this question. She'll tell you.

 

[Smoo]

Psychopav: is eating cows moral or immoral? Is there an objective moral truth? Is the entire Hindu population morally deficient because they believe it is immoral to eat cows?

 

[Psychopav]

Psychopav: is eating cows moral or immoral? Is there an objective moral truth? Is the entire Hindu population morally deficient because they believe it is immoral to eat cows?

I think it's OK to eat cows. I could be wrong though. If it is OK, then the entire Hindu population would be wrong, of course.

 

[Smoo]

the objective moral truth of the situation

See, that's where our wires are getting crossed.Why does there have to be one objective moral truth?

There doesn't have to be, but in this case there is.Ask your mom this question. She'll tell you.

:rotflmao: No, in this case there isn't. One could argue that in every case there isn't, but we won't get into that here.

And my mom is a vegetarian, she's clearly deranged in some way.