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

[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?

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.

Is there an objective truth in that situation? Is it either definitely right or definitely wrong for every case?

 

[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.

: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.

Go ahead...ask your mom if it's OK to save the dog and let the person drown. I dare all of you who think it is to ask your moms. They know, they'll tell you.

 

[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.

Is there an objective truth in that situation? Is it either definitely right or definitely wrong for every case?

It probably depends on the answer. If it's morally OK, it may not be always morally OK. If it's morally wrong, it may not be always morally wrong.It would depend on the situation, I suppose, and whether it butted up against other objective truth.But I could be wrong about all that.

 

[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 )

One more time in case you just missed it, rather than dodged the issue.

 

[Grackle Squad]

There doesn't have to be, but in this case there is.

According to who?

Ask your mom this question. She'll tell you.

:rotflmao:

 

[Psychopav]

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 )

One more time in case you just missed it, rather than dodged the issue.

Sorry, I did skip over this one, as I have all the other "alternative scenarios" in this thread.Yes, I think in this case there's definitely a point where the scenario switches from moral certainty to moral uncertainty. It involves the dog. You always try to save the man over the dog.

 

[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    )

One more time in case you just missed it, rather than dodged the issue.

Sorry, I did skip over this one, as I have all the other "alternative scenarios" in this thread.Yes, I think in this case there's definitely a point where the scenario switches from moral certainty to moral uncertainty. It involves the dog. You always try to save the man over the dog.

So are you saying by extension that saving 1 man over all of the dogs in the world would be the "right" choice.....and the objective moral truth? In other words, that the value of 1 human life is greater than all dogs in existence?

 

[Grackle Squad]

You always try to save the man over the dog.

Why? Because it is so OBVIOUS?

 

[bostonfred2]

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.

I think it's simpler than that. There is a moral code that says that murder is the worst thing you can do. There are numerous reasons for this, from genetic, to social, to religious, to self-serving. The definition of murder is

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

The choice to save the dog is not murder. But it is tantamount to murder because you have a living human's life in your hands, and for whatever reason, you decide to let him die. Whether you consider it negligence, caniphilia, loyalty, or something else, the decision to save the dog over the human is a decision to make a human die.

If you told me that you really believed you could possibly save both, but were certain the dog was going to die if you didn't try to save it first, then it might be different. But in this case, saving the drowning human is the only morally correct answer.

 

[Psychopav]

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    )

One more time in case you just missed it, rather than dodged the issue.

Sorry, I did skip over this one, as I have all the other "alternative scenarios" in this thread.Yes, I think in this case there's definitely a point where the scenario switches from moral certainty to moral uncertainty. It involves the dog. You always try to save the man over the dog.

So are you saying by extension that saving 1 man over all of the dogs in the world would be the "right" choice.....and the objective moral truth? In other words, that the value of 1 human life is greater than all dogs in existence?

Yes, yes I think that's right.

 

[Psychopav]

You always try to save the man over the dog.

Why? Because it is so OBVIOUS?

Well, yes. Why do you keep reiterating everything I say? Are you trying to convince people of my argument through repetition?If I were trying to convince people, that would be a pretty shady way of going about it, but for some reason you aren't hearing that I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYBODY! So why do you keep repeating everything I say?

 

[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    )

One more time in case you just missed it, rather than dodged the issue.

Sorry, I did skip over this one, as I have all the other "alternative scenarios" in this thread.Yes, I think in this case there's definitely a point where the scenario switches from moral certainty to moral uncertainty. It involves the dog. You always try to save the man over the dog.

So are you saying by extension that saving 1 man over all of the dogs in the world would be the "right" choice.....and the objective moral truth? In other words, that the value of 1 human life is greater than all dogs in existence?

Yes, yes I think that's right.

OK, just so we're clear.

 

[Psychopav]

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    )

One more time in case you just missed it, rather than dodged the issue.

Sorry, I did skip over this one, as I have all the other "alternative scenarios" in this thread.Yes, I think in this case there's definitely a point where the scenario switches from moral certainty to moral uncertainty. It involves the dog. You always try to save the man over the dog.

So are you saying by extension that saving 1 man over all of the dogs in the world would be the "right" choice.....and the objective moral truth? In other words, that the value of 1 human life is greater than all dogs in existence?

Yes, yes I think that's right.

OK, just so we're clear.

OH, and just as an FYI, in church yesterday the Gospel reading was the one where John the Baptist's followers approached Jesus and asked if He was the one they were to be looking for.As part of His answer, He went into how John the Baptist is the greatest among men, but that the least of all in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

I don't know if it relates at all, but your scenario reminded me of it.

 

[Grackle Squad]

You always try to save the man over the dog.

Why? Because it is so OBVIOUS?

Well, yes. Why do you keep reiterating everything I say? Are you trying to convince people of my argument through repetition?If I were trying to convince people, that would be a pretty shady way of going about it, but for some reason you aren't hearing that I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYBODY! So why do you keep repeating everything I say?

I'm not repeating. I'M SIMPLY TRYING TO GET YOU TO ANSWER WHY YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PREACH TO US WHAT IS AND ISN'T MORALLY RIGHT?

 

[Grackle Squad]

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 )

One more time in case you just missed it, rather than dodged the issue.

Sorry, I did skip over this one, as I have all the other "alternative scenarios" in this thread.Yes, I think in this case there's definitely a point where the scenario switches from moral certainty to moral uncertainty. It involves the dog. You always try to save the man over the dog.

So are you saying by extension that saving 1 man over all of the dogs in the world would be the "right" choice.....and the objective moral truth? In other words, that the value of 1 human life is greater than all dogs in existence?

Yes, yes I think that's right.

OK, just so we're clear.

OH, and just as an FYI, in church yesterday the Gospel reading was the one where John the Baptist's followers approached Jesus and asked if He was the one they were to be looking for.As part of His answer, He went into how John the Baptist is the greatest among men, but that the least of all in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

I don't know if it relates at all, but your scenario reminded me of it.

I didn't go to church yesterday. I was out drowning puppies because they are here to serve us, and there is nothing morally wrong with killing them.

 

[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    )

One more time in case you just missed it, rather than dodged the issue.

Sorry, I did skip over this one, as I have all the other "alternative scenarios" in this thread.Yes, I think in this case there's definitely a point where the scenario switches from moral certainty to moral uncertainty. It involves the dog. You always try to save the man over the dog.

So are you saying by extension that saving 1 man over all of the dogs in the world would be the "right" choice.....and the objective moral truth? In other words, that the value of 1 human life is greater than all dogs in existence?

Yes, yes I think that's right.

OK, just so we're clear.

OH, and just as an FYI, in church yesterday the Gospel reading was the one where John the Baptist's followers approached Jesus and asked if He was the one they were to be looking for.As part of His answer, He went into how John the Baptist is the greatest among men, but that the least of all in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

I don't know if it relates at all, but your scenario reminded me of it.

Interesting. Let me ask this. Do you think (perhaps know) that the existence of God in the christian sense is an objective truth? Do you think that much/all of the Bible is objectively true (i.e. fact)?

 

[Smoo]

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.

I think it's simpler than that. There is a moral code that says that murder is the worst thing you can do. There are numerous reasons for this, from genetic, to social, to religious, to self-serving. The definition of murder is

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

The choice to save the dog is not murder. But it is tantamount to murder because you have a living human's life in your hands, and for whatever reason, you decide to let him die. Whether you consider it negligence, caniphilia, loyalty, or something else, the decision to save the dog over the human is a decision to make a human die.

If you told me that you really believed you could possibly save both, but were certain the dog was going to die if you didn't try to save it first, then it might be different. But in this case, saving the drowning human is the only morally correct answer.

Do you believe murder is morally wrong in all scenarios?And just to get you to address the follow-up now, what part does the word "unlawful" play in what murder is?

 

[IanTucker]

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.

I think it's simpler than that. There is a moral code that says that murder is the worst thing you can do. There are numerous reasons for this, from genetic, to social, to religious, to self-serving. The definition of murder is The choice to save the dog is not murder. But it is tantamount to murder because you have a living human's life in your hands, and for whatever reason, you decide to let him die.

Whether you consider it negligence, caniphilia, loyalty, or something else, the decision to save the dog over the human is a decision to make a human die.

If you told me that you really believed you could possibly save both, but were certain the dog was going to die if you didn't try to save it first, then it might be different. But in this case, saving the drowning human is the only morally correct answer.

No you can't have it both ways.The choice to save the dog is not murder. Period.

 

[Psychopav]

I didn't go to church yesterday. I was out drowning puppies because they are here to serve us, and there is nothing morally wrong with killing them.

:rotflmao: Well, it's morally wrong to kill the puppies too.

 

[Psychopav]

You always try to save the man over the dog.

Why? Because it is so OBVIOUS?

Well, yes. Why do you keep reiterating everything I say? Are you trying to convince people of my argument through repetition?If I were trying to convince people, that would be a pretty shady way of going about it, but for some reason you aren't hearing that I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYBODY! So why do you keep repeating everything I say?

I'm not repeating. I'M SIMPLY TRYING TO GET YOU TO ANSWER WHY YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PREACH TO US WHAT IS AND ISN'T MORALLY RIGHT?

Why shouldn't I be allowed to?It's just sad that it even needs to be said...

 

[J-Co]

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.

I think it's simpler than that. There is a moral code that says that murder is the worst thing you can do. There are numerous reasons for this, from genetic, to social, to religious, to self-serving. The definition of murder is The choice to save the dog is not murder. But it is tantamount to murder because you have a living human's life in your hands, and for whatever reason, you decide to let him die.

Whether you consider it negligence, caniphilia, loyalty, or something else, the decision to save the dog over the human is a decision to make a human die.

If you told me that you really believed you could possibly save both, but were certain the dog was going to die if you didn't try to save it first, then it might be different. But in this case, saving the drowning human is the only morally correct answer.

No you can't have it both ways.The choice to save the dog is not murder. Period.

Exactly. Plus the degree of wrong in killing a dog is subjective. Some people think it is nothing close to the murder of a human being. Others think it is relatively close or even equally wrong. The only legs to stand on if you are of the belief that anyone who chose the dog over the man is immoral are:- you think that humans' value is > dogs' in the absolute sense. Even 1 human life > all dogs in existence. Even a 0.00000000000000001% chance of a human death is worse than 100% chance of a dog's death or even a 100% chance of total extinction of all dogs. As soon as you decide there is a breaking point, you have to realize that it is subjective and other people may decide on a different point.

- or, you do think it is a relative value but you think only your choice is valid and all others are wrong, at least to some degree.

Personally, I think the first one is stubbornly closed minded and the second is just pompous.

 

[Politician Spock]

You always try to save the man over the dog.

Why? Because it is so OBVIOUS?

Well, yes. Why do you keep reiterating everything I say? Are you trying to convince people of my argument through repetition?If I were trying to convince people, that would be a pretty shady way of going about it, but for some reason you aren't hearing that I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYBODY! So why do you keep repeating everything I say?

I'm not repeating. I'M SIMPLY TRYING TO GET YOU TO ANSWER WHY YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PREACH TO US WHAT IS AND ISN'T MORALLY RIGHT?

Even if he is wrong, he should still be "allowed to".

 

[Psychopav]

Interesting. Let me ask this. Do you think (perhaps know) that the existence of God in the christian sense is an objective truth? Do you think that much/all of the Bible is objectively true (i.e. fact)?

The existence of God is either objective truth or it's objectively false. I think it's true, but it's not as obvious as the correct moral choice in the context of this thread.I think that the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and morals, but is not necessarily 100% factual in an empirical sense.

 

[Burning Sensation]

110 people voted dog? I hope you dog voters drown while some guy saves his dog instead of you, i also hope your children are watching.

 

[bostonfred2]

Do you believe murder is morally wrong in all scenarios?And just to get you to address the follow-up now, what part does the word "unlawful" play in what murder is?

It doesn't matter if murder is wrong in all scenarios. It matters if it's wrong when the alternative is letting a dog die. And in case I haven't answered that, yes, it's wrong to let a human die in lieu of a dog. The word unlawful is part of the definition of murder because it is unlawful to murder people. Lawfully killing people is given other names, like euthenasia, capital punishment, or war. I don't understand why you're asking though. Are you asking if it is illegal to choose the dog over the person?

 

[Politician Spock]

110 people voted dog? I hope you dog voters drown while some guy saves his dog instead of you, i also hope your children are watching.

I hope your day is filled with sunshine and big breasted women.Oh wait, is this be an ####### day?!?

 

[bostonfred2]

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.

I think it's simpler than that. There is a moral code that says that murder is the worst thing you can do. There are numerous reasons for this, from genetic, to social, to religious, to self-serving. The definition of murder is The choice to save the dog is not murder. But it is tantamount to murder because you have a living human's life in your hands, and for whatever reason, you decide to let him die.

Whether you consider it negligence, caniphilia, loyalty, or something else, the decision to save the dog over the human is a decision to make a human die.

If you told me that you really believed you could possibly save both, but were certain the dog was going to die if you didn't try to save it first, then it might be different. But in this case, saving the drowning human is the only morally correct answer.

No you can't have it both ways.The choice to save the dog is not murder. Period.

You got me. It wasn't hard, since I specifically said it wasn't murder. I was answering Smoo's point about the source of the "moral code" or "self evident reason" that dictates the relative value of life.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

My dog vs stranger -- my dog without second thought. I'd probably save my dog over 10 strangers. a stange dog vs a stranger, I'd save the person. I'm greedy, and I'll sleep fine tonight knowing that. Hope you ####ers can swim.

 

[J-Co]

Interesting.  Let me ask this.  Do you think (perhaps know) that the existence of God in the christian sense is an objective truth?  Do you think that much/all of the Bible is objectively true (i.e. fact)?

The existence of God is either objective truth or it's objectively false. I think it's true, but it's not as obvious as the correct moral choice in the context of this thread.I think that the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and morals, but is not necessarily 100% factual in an empirical sense.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to be offensive and I'm glad that I think you saw that. I was giving another example of how beliefs or opinions can be presented as fact without evidence by some people.But I do think it is interesting that you say that whether or not god exists is an objective fact one way or the other, which you believe to be true. That's a clear difference from this issue of the dog vs. person issue, which you say you know to be one way and not the other, even in the absolute sense when I say all dogs will die instead of just the one or that there is only a chance that the person will die with a certainty that the dog will. I would infer from this that you believe in the one case because you don't have sufficient evidence to know for sure but you know in the other case because you do. So, once again, what is the evidence/reason why human life has infinitely greater value than dog life?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I didn't read all these pages, so I apologize if this is a HONDA:I'd react instinctively, then regret it later. I have a dog that I love more than most people I meet on the street. I'd save one. The other would die. Then, I'd beat myself up later for the life that was lost. :(

 

[Psychopav]

Interesting.  Let me ask this.  Do you think (perhaps know) that the existence of God in the christian sense is an objective truth?  Do you think that much/all of the Bible is objectively true (i.e. fact)?

The existence of God is either objective truth or it's objectively false. I think it's true, but it's not as obvious as the correct moral choice in the context of this thread.I think that the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and morals, but is not necessarily 100% factual in an empirical sense.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to be offensive and I'm glad that I think you saw that. I was giving another example of how beliefs or opinions can be presented as fact without evidence by some people.But I do think it is interesting that you say that whether or not god exists is an objective fact one way or the other, which you believe to be true. That's a clear difference from this issue of the dog vs. person issue, which we you say you know to be one way and not the other, even in the absolute sense when I say all dogs will die instead of just the one or that there is only a chance that the person will die with a certainty that the dog will. I would infer from this that you believe in the one case because you don't have sufficient evidence to know for sure but you know in the other case because you do. So, once again, what is the evidence/reason why human life has infinitely greater value than dog life?

The funny thing is that so many folks think a message board is somehow a viable forum for a real discussion on something like the existence of God. Even if I did have the intellectual horsepower to make the argument, it would be far longer and more complex than anything anyone on a MB would be willing to endure.Simply put, saving the man over the dog is part of natural law, which is why it's so obvious (just ask your mom). The existence of God is tougher because it involves the illitive sense.

I can't prove that I love my mom, but I can state it on a message board and shouldn't have to worry about having to produce an argument for something rather obvious.

Just to clarify, the existence of God is either true or false. The moral wrongness of saving the dog at the expense of saving the person is either true or false. The second is more obvious than the first. The degree to which it's obvious doesn't make a thing more or less true, but it should make it more or less accepted. That's what makes this poll surprising to so many people I think.

It goes without saying that just because something is obviously true does not mean that it will be accepted as true.

 

[Smoo]

Do you believe murder is morally wrong in all scenarios?

And just to get you to address the follow-up now, what part does the word "unlawful" play in what murder is?

It doesn't matter if murder is wrong in all scenarios. It matters if it's wrong when the alternative is letting a dog die. And in case I haven't answered that, yes, it's wrong to let a human die in lieu of a dog. The word unlawful is part of the definition of murder because it is unlawful to murder people. Lawfully killing people is given other names, like euthenasia, capital punishment, or war. I don't understand why you're asking though. Are you asking if it is illegal to choose the dog over the person?

I'm hijacking, but you're not working with me here.It matters if murder is wrong in all scenarios because that's the specific question I'm asking and I don't feel like starting a new thread. Now answer the question.

It is unlawful to murder people, and murder is defined as an unlawful killing. That's circular. If you define 'murder' as any type of killing which is illegal, you have to realize that laws are flexible and man-made. So saying 'murder' is always wrong is basically uniformative, it's an empty and meaningless statement.

Are there ways to take a life which are always immoral, regardless of whether it's legal or not?

 

[J-Co]

Simply put, saving the man over the dog is part of natural law, which is why it's so obvious (just ask your mom).  The existence of God is tougher because it involves the illitive sense.

If it is so obvious, then you should have been able to give a reason why it is that way, somewhere within the 1000's of words you have typed already. Also, not sure what you mean by natural law. Is this something that only human beings know/understand? What is it? By extension, would/should my dog save one of its own rather than me in the "one of us is drowning" scenario? If you mean human nature or natural tendencies, I would say that a mother protecting her children qualifies. Aversion for the suffering of others probably qualifies as a tendency evident in most humans. Maybe even a desire to save another who is in danger. But I disagree that there is a hard wired truth in all people that they value other human beings infinitely more than dogs.

I can't prove that I love my mom, but I can state it on a message board and shouldn't have to worry about having to produce an argument for something rather obvious.

But you could give some evidence or explanation for why you do. Explain that you are so grateful for all the things she has done for you, how you get teary eyed just thinking about her dying one day, etc. On the topic we are discussing, you are still sticking to the "it is because it is" argument.

 

[Burning Sensation]

110 people voted dog? I hope you dog voters drown while some guy saves his dog instead of you, i also hope your children are watching.

I hope your day is filled with sunshine and big breasted women.Oh wait, is this be an ####### day?!?

It has been ####### day since the first person who voted for a dog, im just fitting in.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

110 people voted dog? I hope you dog voters drown while some guy saves his dog instead of you, i also hope your children are watching.

I can swim, and I don't have any children. Anything else you hope for?

 

[Psychopav]

I can't prove that I love my mom, but I can state it on a message board and shouldn't have to worry about having to produce an argument for something rather obvious.

But you could give some evidence or explanation for why you do. Explain that you are so grateful for all the things she has done for you, how you get teary eyed just thinking about her dying one day, etc. On the topic we are discussing, you are still sticking to the "it is because it is" argument.

I'm not sticking to any argument. I'm not arguing anything. Someone said that it was OK to save the dog rather than the person, and I'm disagreeing.

 

[Psychopav]

Simply put, saving the man over the dog is part of natural law, which is why it's so obvious (just ask your mom).  The existence of God is tougher because it involves the illitive sense.

If it is so obvious, then you should have been able to give a reason why it is that way, somewhere within the 1000's of words you have typed already. Also, not sure what you mean by natural law. Is this something that only human beings know/understand? What is it? By extension, would/should my dog save one of its own rather than me in the "one of us is drowning" scenario? If you mean human nature or natural tendencies, I would say that a mother protecting her children qualifies. Aversion for the suffering of others probably qualifies as a tendency evident in most humans. Maybe even a desire to save another who is in danger. But I disagree that there is a hard wired truth in all people that they value other human beings infinitely more than dogs.

I do not have to have a reason for why it is obvious in order for me to state that it's obvious.Regarding natural law, there's another thing that I couldn't do justice to, so I won't try. Again, I'm not trying to convince you of the rightness of my statements. You can make up your mind for yourself whether my assertions are true, without any help or argumentation from me. And you will. And that's fine with me.

 

[Smoo]

I can't prove that I love my mom, but I can state it on a message board and shouldn't have to worry about having to produce an argument for something rather obvious.

But you could give some evidence or explanation for why you do. Explain that you are so grateful for all the things she has done for you, how you get teary eyed just thinking about her dying one day, etc. On the topic we are discussing, you are still sticking to the "it is because it is" argument.

I'm not sticking to any argument. I'm not arguing anything. Someone said that it was OK to save the dog rather than the person, and I'm disagreeing.

You're not just disagreeing, you're saying that only people who disagree are morally correct.

 

[Psychopav]

I can't prove that I love my mom, but I can state it on a message board and shouldn't have to worry about having to produce an argument for something rather obvious.

But you could give some evidence or explanation for why you do. Explain that you are so grateful for all the things she has done for you, how you get teary eyed just thinking about her dying one day, etc. On the topic we are discussing, you are still sticking to the "it is because it is" argument.

I'm not sticking to any argument. I'm not arguing anything. Someone said that it was OK to save the dog rather than the person, and I'm disagreeing.

You're not just disagreeing, you're saying that only people who disagree are morally correct.

Early in the thread, there were folks who said it was morally ok to save the dog. I'm disagreeing with them as much as they disagree with me. So?

 

[Smoo]

I can't prove that I love my mom, but I can state it on a message board and shouldn't have to worry about having to produce an argument for something rather obvious.

But you could give some evidence or explanation for why you do. Explain that you are so grateful for all the things she has done for you, how you get teary eyed just thinking about her dying one day, etc. On the topic we are discussing, you are still sticking to the "it is because it is" argument.

I'm not sticking to any argument. I'm not arguing anything. Someone said that it was OK to save the dog rather than the person, and I'm disagreeing.

You're not just disagreeing, you're saying that only people who disagree are morally correct.

Early in the thread, there were folks who said it was morally ok to save the dog. I'm disagreeing with them as much as they disagree with me. So?

So they're probably saying that both choices are morally okay. You're saying that only one is morally okay.

 

[NoLimit]

Life expectancy of popular dog breeds:

Afghan Hound (12.0)

Airedale Terrier (11.2)

Basset Hound (12.8)

Beagle (13.3)

Bearded Collie (12.3)

Bedlington Terrier (14.3)

Bernese Mountain Dog (7.0)

Border Collie (13.0)

Border Terrier (13.8)

Boxer (10.4)

Bull Terrier (12.9)

Bulldog (6.7)

Bullmastiff (8.6)

Cairn Terrier (13.2)

Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (10.7)

Chihuahua (13.0)

Chow Chow (13.5)

Cocker Spaniel (12.5)

Corgi (11.3)

Dachshund (12.2)

Dalmatian (13.0)

Doberman Pinscher (9.8)

English Cocker Spaniel (11.8)

English Setter (11.2)

English Springer Spaniel (13.0)

English Toy Spaniel (10.1)

Flat-Coated Retriever (9.5)

German Shepherd (10.3)

German Shorthaired Pointer (12.3)

Golden Retriever (12.0)

Gordon Setter (11.3)

Great Dane (8.4)

Greyhound (13.2)

Irish Red and White Setter (12.9)

Irish Setter (11.8)

Irish Wolfhound (6.2)

Jack Russell Terrier (13.6)

Labrador Retriever (12.6)

Lurcher (12.6)

Miniature Dachshund (14.4)

Miniature Poodle (14.8)

Norfolk Terrier (10.0)

Old English Sheepdog (11.8)

Pekingese (13.3)

Random-bred / Mongrel (13.2)

Rhodesian Ridgeback (9.1)

Rottweiler (9.8)

Rough Collie (12.2)

Samoyed (11.0)

Scottish Deerhound (9.5)

Scottish Terrier (12.0)

Shetland Sheepdog (13.3)

Shih Tzu (13.4)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier (10.0)

Standard Poodle (12.0)

Tibetan Terrier (14.3)

Toy Poodle (14.4)

Viszla (12.5)

Weimaraner (10.0)

Welsh Springer Spaniel (11.5)

West Highland White Terrier (12.8)

Whippet (14.3)

Wire Fox Terrier (13.0)

Yorkshire Terrier (12.8)

Life expectancy of Humans:

Male (74.4)

Female (79.8)

 

[Psychopav]

I can't prove that I love my mom, but I can state it on a message board and shouldn't have to worry about having to produce an argument for something rather obvious.

But you could give some evidence or explanation for why you do. Explain that you are so grateful for all the things she has done for you, how you get teary eyed just thinking about her dying one day, etc. On the topic we are discussing, you are still sticking to the "it is because it is" argument.

I'm not sticking to any argument. I'm not arguing anything. Someone said that it was OK to save the dog rather than the person, and I'm disagreeing.

You're not just disagreeing, you're saying that only people who disagree are morally correct.

Early in the thread, there were folks who said it was morally ok to save the dog. I'm disagreeing with them as much as they disagree with me. So?

So they're probably saying that both choices are morally okay. You're saying that only one is morally okay.

Yes, that's true.

 

[J-Co]

I can't prove that I love my mom, but I can state it on a message board and shouldn't have to worry about having to produce an argument for something rather obvious.

But you could give some evidence or explanation for why you do. Explain that you are so grateful for all the things she has done for you, how you get teary eyed just thinking about her dying one day, etc. On the topic we are discussing, you are still sticking to the "it is because it is" argument.

I'm not sticking to any argument. I'm not arguing anything. Someone said that it was OK to save the dog rather than the person, and I'm disagreeing.

I think most people would say you are arguing.

 

[J-Co]

I do not have to have a reason for why it is obvious in order for me to state that it's obvious.

I also think most people would agree that something obvious would not have this level of disagreement. You do not have to do or say anything here. But if it is obvious, there are reasons for it and by a reasonable definition of "obvious", they are relatively simple reasons. I'm saying you don't have reasons because it isn't obvious, it's a subject of opinion.

 

[Burning Sensation]

110 people voted dog? I hope you dog voters drown while some guy saves his dog instead of you, i also hope your children are watching.

I can swim, and I don't have any children. Anything else you hope for?

yep, that you are drowing because you are unconsious, and your parents and or SO are watching.

 

[rolyaTy]

In the entire history of humanity, I'd be willing to bet this hypothetical situation has never occurred. I'd be willing to live my entire life without ever having to think of this again and i'll die a happy man, hopefully not due to drowning.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Life expectancy of popular dog breeds:

Afghan Hound (12.0)

Airedale Terrier (11.2)

Basset Hound (12.8)

Beagle (13.3)

Bearded Collie (12.3)

Bedlington Terrier (14.3)

Bernese Mountain Dog (7.0)

Border Collie (13.0)

Border Terrier (13.8)

Boxer (10.4)

Bull Terrier (12.9)

Bulldog (6.7)

Bullmastiff (8.6)

Cairn Terrier (13.2)

Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (10.7)

Chihuahua (13.0)

Chow Chow (13.5)

Cocker Spaniel (12.5)

Corgi (11.3)

Dachshund (12.2)

Dalmatian (13.0)

Doberman Pinscher (9.8)

English Cocker Spaniel (11.8)

English Setter (11.2)

English Springer Spaniel (13.0)

English Toy Spaniel (10.1)

Flat-Coated Retriever (9.5)

German Shepherd (10.3)

German Shorthaired Pointer (12.3)

Golden Retriever (12.0)

Gordon Setter (11.3)

Great Dane (8.4)

Greyhound (13.2)

Irish Red and White Setter (12.9)

Irish Setter (11.8)

Irish Wolfhound (6.2)

Jack Russell Terrier (13.6)

Labrador Retriever (12.6)

Lurcher (12.6)

Miniature Dachshund (14.4)

Miniature Poodle (14.8)

Norfolk Terrier (10.0)

Old English Sheepdog (11.8)

Pekingese (13.3)

Random-bred / Mongrel (13.2)

Rhodesian Ridgeback (9.1)

Rottweiler (9.8)

Rough Collie (12.2)

Samoyed (11.0)

Scottish Deerhound (9.5)

Scottish Terrier (12.0)

Shetland Sheepdog (13.3)

Shih Tzu (13.4)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier (10.0)

Standard Poodle (12.0)

Tibetan Terrier (14.3)

Toy Poodle (14.4)

Viszla (12.5)

Weimaraner (10.0)

Welsh Springer Spaniel (11.5)

West Highland White Terrier (12.8)

Whippet (14.3)

Wire Fox Terrier (13.0)

Yorkshire Terrier (12.8)

Life expectancy of Humans:

Male (74.4)

Female (79.8)

He brings up a good point. A human has 4 to 5 times more years to be morally deviant, therefore, I choose the dog.How about this:

A seeing eye dog and a homeless crackhead are drowning. Which does everyone save?

 

[Team]

wow. I stayed out of this thread yesterday afternoon & evening because I assumed all the dog voters were just fishing.Got some seriously ####ed up people in here.I hope for my wife and kids sake that I am never drowning next to one of your dogs.

 

[Village Idiot]

Put it this way.If my dog and I were both drowning I'd tell whoever was trying to save me to save the dog instead.

 

[Village Idiot]

wow. I stayed out of this thread yesterday afternoon & evening because I assumed all the dog voters were just fishing.Got some seriously ####ed up people in here.I hope for my wife and kids sake that I am never drowning next to one of your dogs.

My dogs all know how to swim so you're safe in the water with my dogs.