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

[the rover]

there are clearly people in the middle who believe that the ownership does play into the morality. And that's legitimate.

What could possibly be the reason for this? I can't think of any.

Then you're not thinking very hard. That somebody loves their pet and considers ii immoral to let a loved one die is immediately obvious. There are likely others, but that's for the pet owners themselves to expound on, not me.

To me, this is too malleable. The morality of an action shouldn't be dependent upon someone's motivations. Acts are moral or immoral on their face.

Too simplistic. I shoot and kill an armed intruder to protect my family. Killing is immoral; however, very few people would question my motivation in shooting and killing him.

 

[Smoo]

Given any two options in a scenario, it is not always the case that one of the actions is moral and the other is immoral. Certainly saving the human is moral. But that doesn't make saving the dog immoral. That's like saying that giving $100 to charity is immoral because you didn't give $1,000 to charity.

 

[Smoo]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.  If your dog is your loved one then you have a conflict.  Maybe your love for your dog is a stronger moral position for you than the whole humans better than animals thing.  That's valid.

What distinguishes a "valid" position from an invalid one? Or are there no invalid positions? If you really, really, really love the pencil you're using, and the only way to keep it is to nuke all of Europe, would dropping the bomb be a valid position?

Do you believe love is the only basis for morality? Your example is silly.

 

[JAA]

Given any two options in a scenario, it is not always the case that one of the actions is moral and the other is immoral. Certainly saving the human is moral. But that doesn't make saving the dog immoral. That's like saying that giving $100 to charity is immoral because you didn't give $1,000 to charity.

did you only give $100 because it was all you had or because it made you feel good about yourself?

 

[Smoo]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.

The stranger is a loved one as well. Maybe he's not loved by you, so perhaps you have selfish reasons for wanting to save the dog instead; but selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification.

Why not? Isn't saving your own species over another a selfish position as well?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.

The stranger is a loved one as well. Maybe he's not loved by you, so perhaps you have selfish reasons for wanting to save the dog instead; but selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification.

Why not? Isn't saving your own species over another a selfish position as well?

If I were a dog, I'd still save the human.

 

[Smoo]

Given any two options in a scenario, it is not always the case that one of the actions is moral and the other is immoral. Certainly saving the human is moral. But that doesn't make saving the dog immoral. That's like saying that giving $100 to charity is immoral because you didn't give $1,000 to charity.

did you only give $100 because it was all you had or because it made you feel good about yourself?

Irrelevant.

 

[the rover]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.

The stranger is a loved one as well. Maybe he's not loved by you, so perhaps you have selfish reasons for wanting to save the dog instead; but selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification.

Why not? Isn't saving your own species over another a selfish position as well?

If I were a dog, I'd still save the human.

But the act would be neither moral nor immoral. You're a dog.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.  If your dog is your loved one then you have a conflict.  Maybe your love for your dog is a stronger moral position for you than the whole humans better than animals thing.  That's valid.

What distinguishes a "valid" position from an invalid one? Or are there no invalid positions? If you really, really, really love the pencil you're using, and the only way to keep it is to nuke all of Europe, would dropping the bomb be a valid position?

Do you believe love is the only basis for morality? Your example is silly.

You were the one who suggested that love for your dog could make an action moral that might otherwise be immoral.

 

[Smoo]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.

The stranger is a loved one as well. Maybe he's not loved by you, so perhaps you have selfish reasons for wanting to save the dog instead; but selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification.

Why not? Isn't saving your own species over another a selfish position as well?

If I were a dog, I'd still save the human.

Only if the human was your owner and you'd never seen the other dog before.

 

[Smoo]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.  If your dog is your loved one then you have a conflict.  Maybe your love for your dog is a stronger moral position for you than the whole humans better than animals thing.  That's valid.

What distinguishes a "valid" position from an invalid one? Or are there no invalid positions? If you really, really, really love the pencil you're using, and the only way to keep it is to nuke all of Europe, would dropping the bomb be a valid position?

Do you believe love is the only basis for morality? Your example is silly.

You were the one who suggested that love for your dog could make an action moral that might otherwise be immoral.

Yes, I did. And? Suddenly that makes nuking Europe moral?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.

The stranger is a loved one as well. Maybe he's not loved by you, so perhaps you have selfish reasons for wanting to save the dog instead; but selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification.

Why not? Isn't saving your own species over another a selfish position as well?

If I were a dog, I'd still save the human.

Only if the human was your owner and you'd never seen the other dog before.

In thinking about it, this whole "if I were a dog" thing isn't really going to work well, because I have to assume dogs have capacities that they don't actually have.

 

[JAA]

Are there two side to this "moral" issue? Moral for the good of mankind and moral for the good of yourself?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.

The stranger is a loved one as well. Maybe he's not loved by you, so perhaps you have selfish reasons for wanting to save the dog instead; but selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification.

Why not? Isn't saving your own species over another a selfish position as well?

No, not unless you're doing it for selfish reasons. But neither of the factors I listed in my previous post were selfish.

 

[JAA]

Given any two options in a scenario, it is not always the case that one of the actions is moral and the other is immoral.  Certainly saving the human is moral.  But that doesn't make saving the dog immoral.  That's like saying that giving $100 to charity is immoral because you didn't give $1,000 to charity.

did you only give $100 because it was all you had or because it made you feel good about yourself?

Irrelevant.

are you saying intentions have no bering on whether or not your decision is immoral?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Do you believe love is the only basis for morality? Your example is silly.

You were the one who suggested that love for your dog could make an action moral that might otherwise be immoral.

Yes, I did. And? Suddenly that makes nuking Europe moral?

Maybe I'm not getting something. Isn't the difference between my hypo and yours just a matter of degree? That's why I put the "really, really" in there.

 

[IanTucker]

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.

The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy.

No, it's really not, and you're not explaining why you disagree any better than Psychopav.

It's not the kind of thing anyone should have to explain. You should be able to get the answer right on your own just by examining your own conscience.But I can get you pointed in the right direction, I hope, by listing a couple relevant factors to consider:

Which animal, dog or human, has a greater capacity for conscious thought, reflection, appreciation, joy, and so on? (Isn't the reason we don't care about killing ants that the ants have so little capacity for thought, and therefore such a limited quality of life? This is why a hamster life is worth more than an ant life. And a dog life is worth more than a hamster life. And a human life is worth more than a dog life.)

Which animal, dog or human, has more invested in its life in terms of personal relationships, family obligations, and so on? Whose death will cause more suffering to his or her loved ones? (Would you rather lose your dog or your brother? The drowning stranger probably has a brother or sister, not to mention a mother and possibly a wife and children.)I'm sure you can come up with some other relevant factors on your own.

And so by extension if the choice were between 2 drowning people we should always save the person who has a greater capacity for thought?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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.

The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy.

No, it's really not, and you're not explaining why you disagree any better than Psychopav.

It's not the kind of thing anyone should have to explain. You should be able to get the answer right on your own just by examining your own conscience.But I can get you pointed in the right direction, I hope, by listing a couple relevant factors to consider:

Which animal, dog or human, has a greater capacity for conscious thought, reflection, appreciation, joy, and so on? (Isn't the reason we don't care about killing ants that the ants have so little capacity for thought, and therefore such a limited quality of life? This is why a hamster life is worth more than an ant life. And a dog life is worth more than a hamster life. And a human life is worth more than a dog life.)

Which animal, dog or human, has more invested in its life in terms of personal relationships, family obligations, and so on? Whose death will cause more suffering to his or her loved ones? (Would you rather lose your dog or your brother? The drowning stranger probably has a brother or sister, not to mention a mother and possibly a wife and children.)I'm sure you can come up with some other relevant factors on your own.

And so by extension if the choice were between 2 drowning people we should always save the person who has a greater capacity for thought?

I would list capacity of thought as one of many factors to be considered. I certainly would save a conscious person over one who was brain dead.

 

[dgreen]

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.

The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy.

No, it's really not, and you're not explaining why you disagree any better than Psychopav.

It's not the kind of thing anyone should have to explain. You should be able to get the answer right on your own just by examining your own conscience.But I can get you pointed in the right direction, I hope, by listing a couple relevant factors to consider:

Which animal, dog or human, has a greater capacity for conscious thought, reflection, appreciation, joy, and so on? (Isn't the reason we don't care about killing ants that the ants have so little capacity for thought, and therefore such a limited quality of life? This is why a hamster life is worth more than an ant life. And a dog life is worth more than a hamster life. And a human life is worth more than a dog life.)

Which animal, dog or human, has more invested in its life in terms of personal relationships, family obligations, and so on? Whose death will cause more suffering to his or her loved ones? (Would you rather lose your dog or your brother? The drowning stranger probably has a brother or sister, not to mention a mother and possibly a wife and children.)I'm sure you can come up with some other relevant factors on your own.

And so by extension if the choice were between 2 drowning people we should always save the person who has a greater capacity for thought?

If you took the time to figure that out, they'd probably both die.

 

[Smoo]

Given any two options in a scenario, it is not always the case that one of the actions is moral and the other is immoral.  Certainly saving the human is moral.  But that doesn't make saving the dog immoral.  That's like saying that giving $100 to charity is immoral because you didn't give $1,000 to charity.

did you only give $100 because it was all you had or because it made you feel good about yourself?

Irrelevant.

are you saying intentions have no bering on whether or not your decision is immoral?

Not always. You guys are looking for absolutes here. I'm not going to give you any.

 

[Funkley]

Are there two side to this "moral" issue? Moral for the good of mankind and moral for the good of yourself?

That's well put because I don't see how you can do both. You have to live with watching your dog die or hearing the cries of help from the person you didn't save. Can't imagine choosing either but I would have a hard time dealing with not saving the person.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.  If your dog is your loved one then you have a conflict.  Maybe your love for your dog is a stronger moral position for you than the whole humans better than animals thing.  That's valid.

What distinguishes a "valid" position from an invalid one? Or are there no invalid positions? If you really, really, really love the pencil you're using, and the only way to keep it is to nuke all of Europe, would dropping the bomb be a valid position?

Do you believe love is the only basis for morality? Your example is silly.

You were the one who suggested that love for your dog could make an action moral that might otherwise be immoral.

Yes, I did. And? Suddenly that makes nuking Europe moral?

He's asking how you distinguish between morally valid and morally invalid choices. You suggested that loving the dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die. So is loving a pencil a valid reason to let Europe die?The answer is probably no. So you either need to distinguish between the dog situation and the pencil situation, or you need to withdraw the claim that loving a dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

I guess I can see how terrorists don't value human life at all now.If someone can value a dog over a human life then it is understandable that the terrorists can value their "god" over human lives.I don't agree, but at least I have a better understanding about how people can de-value life.

 

[Smoo]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.  If your dog is your loved one then you have a conflict.  Maybe your love for your dog is a stronger moral position for you than the whole humans better than animals thing.  That's valid.

What distinguishes a "valid" position from an invalid one? Or are there no invalid positions? If you really, really, really love the pencil you're using, and the only way to keep it is to nuke all of Europe, would dropping the bomb be a valid position?

Do you believe love is the only basis for morality? Your example is silly.

You were the one who suggested that love for your dog could make an action moral that might otherwise be immoral.

Yes, I did. And? Suddenly that makes nuking Europe moral?

He's asking how you distinguish between morally valid and morally invalid choices. You suggested that loving the dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die. So is loving a pencil a valid reason to let Europe die?The answer is probably no. So you either need to distinguish between the dog situation and the pencil situation, or you need to withdraw the claim that loving a dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die.

The distinguisher is easy: numbers. I'm extremely surprised that had to be pointed out to you.

 

[IanTucker]

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.

The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy.

No, it's really not, and you're not explaining why you disagree any better than Psychopav.

It's not the kind of thing anyone should have to explain. You should be able to get the answer right on your own just by examining your own conscience.But I can get you pointed in the right direction, I hope, by listing a couple relevant factors to consider:

Which animal, dog or human, has a greater capacity for conscious thought, reflection, appreciation, joy, and so on? (Isn't the reason we don't care about killing ants that the ants have so little capacity for thought, and therefore such a limited quality of life? This is why a hamster life is worth more than an ant life. And a dog life is worth more than a hamster life. And a human life is worth more than a dog life.)

Which animal, dog or human, has more invested in its life in terms of personal relationships, family obligations, and so on? Whose death will cause more suffering to his or her loved ones? (Would you rather lose your dog or your brother? The drowning stranger probably has a brother or sister, not to mention a mother and possibly a wife and children.)I'm sure you can come up with some other relevant factors on your own.

And so by extension if the choice were between 2 drowning people we should always save the person who has a greater capacity for thought?

If you took the time to figure that out, they'd probably both die.

Ah but I wouldn't take the time...I'd go for the one I had feelings for.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.

The stranger is a loved one as well. Maybe he's not loved by you, so perhaps you have selfish reasons for wanting to save the dog instead; but selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification.

Wouldn't it be selfish for the drowining human to expect the other person to sacrifice his pet for him?

 

[dgreen]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die. If your dog is your loved one then you have a conflict. Maybe your love for your dog is a stronger moral position for you than the whole humans better than animals thing. That's valid.

What distinguishes a "valid" position from an invalid one? Or are there no invalid positions? If you really, really, really love the pencil you're using, and the only way to keep it is to nuke all of Europe, would dropping the bomb be a valid position?

Do you believe love is the only basis for morality? Your example is silly.

You were the one who suggested that love for your dog could make an action moral that might otherwise be immoral.

Yes, I did. And? Suddenly that makes nuking Europe moral?

He's asking how you distinguish between morally valid and morally invalid choices. You suggested that loving the dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die. So is loving a pencil a valid reason to let Europe die?The answer is probably no. So you either need to distinguish between the dog situation and the pencil situation, or you need to withdraw the claim that loving a dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die.

The distinguisher is easy: numbers. I'm extremely surprised that had to be pointed out to you.

How about 50 million pencils you love and one human stranger?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I certainly would save a conscious person over one who was brain dead.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.  If your dog is your loved one then you have a conflict.  Maybe your love for your dog is a stronger moral position for you than the whole humans better than animals thing.  That's valid.

What distinguishes a "valid" position from an invalid one? Or are there no invalid positions? If you really, really, really love the pencil you're using, and the only way to keep it is to nuke all of Europe, would dropping the bomb be a valid position?

Do you believe love is the only basis for morality? Your example is silly.

You were the one who suggested that love for your dog could make an action moral that might otherwise be immoral.

Yes, I did. And? Suddenly that makes nuking Europe moral?

He's asking how you distinguish between morally valid and morally invalid choices. You suggested that loving the dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die. So is loving a pencil a valid reason to let Europe die?The answer is probably no. So you either need to distinguish between the dog situation and the pencil situation, or you need to withdraw the claim that loving a dog is a valid reason to let the stranger die.

The distinguisher is easy: numbers. I'm extremely surprised that had to be pointed out to you.

How about 50 million pencils you love and one human stranger?

Pencils float. I save the human. Next question.

 

[JAA]

should there be a third option ... do nothing? Wouldnt it be the antithisis of Bible's "Solomon dont give me half the child, give her the whole"? Meaning, I cant decide which to save, I know both will be wrong, therefor choose neither.Could is be considered moral to save neither because neither can be moral?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Wouldn't it be selfish for the drowining human to expect the other person to sacrifice his pet for him?

Yes. And?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Could is be considered moral to save neither because neither can be moral?

 

[JAA]

Question: Does the result of your choice (the other one dieing) make your choice any less moral?Meaning, isnt your choice of saving either moral therefor you cant be judged?

 

[JAA]

Could is be considered moral to save neither because neither can be moral?

If you dont mind me asking, why?

 

[Smoo]

How about 50 million pencils you love and one human stranger?

Can you justify your pencil love in a way that doesn't make you a total loon?

 

[IanTucker]

I certainly would save a conscious person over one who was brain dead.

Yes...but that wasn't the question.

 

[Smoo]

should there be a third option ... do nothing? Wouldnt it be the antithisis of Bible's "Solomon dont give me half the child, give her the whole"? Meaning, I cant decide which to save, I know both will be wrong, therefor choose neither.Could is be considered moral to save neither because neither can be moral?

No. The other two actions are both more moral than doing nothing.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Could is be considered moral to save neither because neither can be moral?

If you dont mind me asking, why?

The reason it's immoral to save the dog is that you'd be letting the human die. Obviously, by saving neither you'd still be letting the human die, so that doesn't fix the problem.If you decide to save neither because you're concerned for your own life, that's one thing; but if you decide to save neither simply because you couldn't live with yourself for letting the dog die instead of the human, then letting the dog and the human both die is kind of a silly "solution."

 

[Smoo]

Question: Does the result of your choice (the other one dieing) make your choice any less moral?Meaning, isnt your choice of saving either moral therefor you cant be judged?

You can be judged, but I agree that saving either is moral, because it's better than saving neither.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

How about 50 million pencils you love and one human stranger?

Can you justify your pencil love in a way that doesn't make you a total loon?

It's a #2.

 

[Smoo]

The reason it's immoral to save the dog is that you'd be letting the human die. Obviously, by saving neither you'd still be letting the human die, so that doesn't fix the problem.

If you decide to save neither because you're concerned for your own life, that's one thing; but if you decide to save neither simply because you couldn't live with yourself for letting the dog die instead of the human, then letting the dog and the human both die is kind of a silly "solution".

No, no, NO!That doesn't make saving the dog immoral. You can say it makes it less moral, but not immoral.

That goes back to my other example. Translated, you're saying that giving $100 to charity is immoral because you're keeping $900 for yourself. That's nonsense.

 

[Smoo]

How about 50 million pencils you love and one human stranger?

Can you justify your pencil love in a way that doesn't make you a total loon?

It's a #2.

Eraser on the end?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

How about 50 million pencils you love and one human stranger?

Can you justify your pencil love in a way that doesn't make you a total loon?

It's a #2.

Eraser on the end?

I chewed it off already because I love it so much.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I certainly would save a conscious person over one who was brain dead.

Yes...but that wasn't the question.

Your question was answered perfectly, IMO. The obvious answer is: no, not always, because most people have fairly identical capacities for thought; but where one obviously doesn't, like if he is brain dead, then yes, that would be a major factor.

 

[dgreen]

How about 50 million pencils you love and one human stranger?

Can you justify your pencil love in a way that doesn't make you a total loon?

Those pencils are my business. I sell them. Those pencils provide my income and without them my business would collapse. Say my pencil factory is burning down and I run in to save all the pencils and leave the human trapped and he dies.

 

[Smoo]

What if, 50 years from now, the cure for cancer is found in the bone marrow of dogs, and dogs alone. How does that affect the morality of killing dogs then? How does it affect the morality of killing dogs now?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That doesn't make saving the dog immoral. You can say it makes it less moral, but not immoral.

I can say it makes it immoral. If I see someone rescue a dog while letting a human die, when either could have been saved as easily as the other, I'd consider him a schmuck.

That goes back to my other example. Translated, you're saying that giving $100 to charity is immoral because you're keeping $900 for yourself. That's nonsense.

I'm not saying anything about charitable donations at all.

 

[Smoo]

How about 50 million pencils you love and one human stranger?

Can you justify your pencil love in a way that doesn't make you a total loon?

Those pencils are my business. I sell them. Those pencils provide my income and without them my business would collapse. Say my pencil factory is burning down and I run in to save all the pencils and leave the human trapped and he dies.

Do you believe that your business is more important than life? If so, be my guest. I don't, but I'll drop that in the judgement call realm.

 

[dgreen]

What if, 50 years from now, the cure for cancer is found in the bone marrow of dogs, and dogs alone. How does that affect the morality of killing dogs then? How does it affect the morality of killing dogs now?

Is it the last dog?

 

[Smoo]

That doesn't make saving the dog immoral. You can say it makes it less moral, but not immoral.

I can say it makes it immoral. If I see someone rescue a dog while letting a human die, when either could have been saved as easily as the other, I'd consider him a schmuck.

Yes, fine. You'd consider him a schmuck. I'm not taking that away from you. But your position seems to be that everybody should consider him a schmuck, and that's where we will continue to disagree.

That goes back to my other example. Translated, you're saying that giving $100 to charity is immoral because you're keeping $900 for yourself. That's nonsense.

I'm not saying anything about charitable donations at all.

If you agree that saving a dog's life is better than not saving a dog's life then my analogy is valid.