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

[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?

Is it the last dog?

No. Is the guy in the lake the last person?

 

[TheIronSheik]

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

Yes. And?

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.

No reason.

 

[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?

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

letting 1 person and 1 dog die is more immoral than letting 1 person die? That does mean it is immoral to allow a dog to die.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

I don't see how it affects the morality of killing dogs at all. Going around randomly murdering dogs is already immoral.If one particular dog, and that dog only, has the beneficial bone marrow, then go ahead and save the dog at the expense of a stranger. It'd be the right thing to do, IMO, although that's a harder question than the original one, and I might be wrong about it.

I'm not wrong about the original question, though. That's an easy one.

 

[JAA]

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

excellent point

 

[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.

letting 1 person and 1 dog die is more immoral than letting 1 person die? That does mean it is immoral to allow a dog to die.

Not necessarily. It depends what else you were doing at the time (ie, saving a human).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

letting 1 person and 1 dog die is more immoral than letting 1 person die?

Yes.

That does mean it is immoral to allow a dog to die.

Yes, if you can save it easily and you don't. Of course, saving it at the expense of a human doesn't qualify as saving it easily.

 

[Smoo]

I'm not wrong about the original question, though. That's an easy one.

It's an easy one for you. Not necessarily universally.

 

[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?

No. Is the guy in the lake the last person?

If the guy in the lake was the last person, there wouldn't be me to save him.

 

[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?

Is it the last dog?

No. Is the guy in the lake the last person?

If the guy in the lake was the last person, there wouldn't be me to save him.

Last female then.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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

Yes. And?

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.

No reason.

I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you under the impression that I think expecting to be saved is more moral than expecting not to be saved? I wouldn't describe either expectation as being moral or immoral.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

I would love to see someone caught on tape in this scenerio and have them go for the dog.They would be labeled America's biggest loser.

 

[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.

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.

So, saving a business over a human is a judgement call when it comes to morals?

 

[Smoo]

I would love to see someone caught on tape in this scenerio and have them go for the dog.They would be labeled America's biggest loser.

What if they weren't American?

 

[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.

So, saving a business over a human is a judgement call when it comes to morals?

Can be. Depends how losing the business would affect your life and ability to sustain yourself.

 

[TheIronSheik]

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

Yes. And?

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.

No reason.

I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you under the impression that I think expecting to be saved is more moral than expecting not to be saved? I wouldn't describe either expectation as being moral or immoral.

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish. Therefore, he is immoral. I think it would be immoral to save an immoral person. Dog wins out again.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

I would love to see someone caught on tape in this scenerio and have them go for the dog.They would be labeled America's biggest loser.

What if they weren't American?

Ok, fine, the worlds biggest loser. Better?

 

[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?

No. Is the guy in the lake the last person?

If the guy in the lake was the last person, there wouldn't be me to save him.

Last female then.

If the dog was the last dog, most of its value is based on that fact. The value of the human isn't determined as much by quantity.If it was the last dog on earth, and didn't have the cure to cancer, and one of 3 billion women, I'd save the woman. If the dog did hold the cure to cancer, and was the only one, that would probably change my answer.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

 

[Smoo]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

Sheik: Let me get out my Maurilese-to-English dictionary to help you bridge the gap... a selfish want is different from a selfish act and only the act can be judged as moral or immoral.There, hopefully that will facilitate your exchange.

 

[TheIronSheik]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification

Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground?

 

[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.

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.

So, saving a business over a human is a judgement call when it comes to morals?

Can be. Depends how losing the business would affect your life and ability to sustain yourself.

Does it depend on how losing life would affect that person?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

Sheik: Let me get out my Maurilese-to-English dictionary to help you bridge the gap... a selfish want is different from a selfish act and only the act can be judged as moral or immoral.There, hopefully that will facilitate your exchange.

I think wants can be judged as moral or immoral. But I don't think selfishness is inherently immoral.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification

Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground?

The guy is not immoral for wanting his life to be saved.

 

[TheIronSheik]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification

Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground?

The guy is not immoral for wanting his life to be saved.

So, then why would it be selfish for a man to want his best friends life to be saved?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

When did we start judging the morality of the drowning guy? Seems irrelevant.

 

[IanTucker]

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.

No the question was does one always choose the being with the higher capacity for thought as you laid out in your post.To answer with one instance when one would do so does NOT answer the question.

 

[dgreen]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification

Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground?

The guy is not immoral for wanting his life to be saved.

So, then why would it be selfish for a man to want his best friends life to be saved?

Does "best friend" = dog?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification

Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground?

The guy is not immoral for wanting his life to be saved.

So, then why would it be selfish for a man to want his best friends life to be saved?

It's selfish to want to save your own dog instead of someone else's husband because your motives focus on the 'your own' aspect of it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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.

No the question was does one always choose the being with the higher capacity for thought as you laid out in your post.To answer with one instance when one would do so does NOT answer the question.

I said that brain capacity was one of many factors I would consider.

 

[Funkley]

When did we start judging the morality of the drowning guy? Seems irrelevant.

I agree. Seems like excuse making after having saved your dog.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Okay, what if it were your child and a guy that had the cure for cancer stored in his brain. Then what?I still choose my child.

 

[IanTucker]

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.

Here is the post in question.Let's try this question again.

Would you save a drowning MIT scientist rather than your brother who has an average capacity for higher thought and who is also drowning?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

When did we start judging the morality of the drowning guy? Seems irrelevant.

I agree. Seems like excuse making after having saved your dog.

Suppose the guy is a convicted child molester who's escaped from prison. And the dog is a guide for a blind nun. Wouldn't the "morality" of the drowning man affect your decision?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

What is it was CHOMPS drowning next to Herve Villechez? Sorry, the "waht if's" took me on a tangent.

 

[Funkley]

When did we start judging the morality of the drowning guy?  Seems irrelevant.

I agree. Seems like excuse making after having saved your dog.

Suppose the guy is a convicted child molester who's escaped from prison. And the dog is a guide for a blind nun. Wouldn't the "morality" of the drowning man affect your decision?

That's a little more extreme than I was thinking but I see your point. Drowning would be too good for him though. I might save him just so I could beat him with a tire iron.

 

[flufhed]

My dog's breath smells like dog food.:ralphwiggum:

 

[TheIronSheik]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification

Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground?

The guy is not immoral for wanting his life to be saved.

So, then why would it be selfish for a man to want his best friends life to be saved?

It's selfish to want to save your own dog instead of someone else's husband because your motives focus on the 'your own' aspect of it.

OK. Then if my daughter and your dog were drowning, it would be immoral for me to save my daughter?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

Here is the post in question.Let's try this question again.

Would you save a drowning MIT scientist rather than your brother who has an average capacity for higher thought and who is also drowning?

I'd selfishly save my brother.I don't see a moral difference between saving one or saving the other, though. They're both fully functional non-brain-dead adult humans, so they have practically identical capacities for thought, and that is no longer a determinative factor. One may be a bit smarter than the other, or kinder, or more honest, or more generous, or whatever, but I don't have time to sort all of that out. I'll just get on with the rescue.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification

Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground?

The guy is not immoral for wanting his life to be saved.

So, then why would it be selfish for a man to want his best friends life to be saved?

It's selfish to want to save your own dog instead of someone else's husband because your motives focus on the 'your own' aspect of it.

OK. Then if my daughter and your dog were drowning, it would be immoral for me to save my daughter?

No. A human life is worth more than a dog life, so saving your daughter would be correct. That isn't obvious?

 

[J-Co]

woof

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Very interesting thread. Its nice to see some of the folks who are usually on the same side of things debate instead. I thought Fatguy made a very interesting point: at what point is saving a non-human animal the immoral thing to do? Many folks seem willing to say that your beloved dog would be saved over a stranger? But what about a cat? a hamster? a goldfish ? At what level of intelligence does another animal become less important than a human?

 

[dgreen]

Very interesting thread. Its nice to see some of the folks who are usually on the same side of things debate instead. I thought Fatguy made a very interesting point: at what point is saving a non-human animal the immoral thing to do? Many folks seem willing to say that your beloved dog would be saved over a stranger? But what about a cat? a hamster? a goldfish ? At what level of intelligence does another animal become less important than a human?

When presented with the thought of someone loving a pencil so much that they'd save it over a human, the response came down to:

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

 

[TheIronSheik]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification

Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground?

The guy is not immoral for wanting his life to be saved.

So, then why would it be selfish for a man to want his best friends life to be saved?

It's selfish to want to save your own dog instead of someone else's husband because your motives focus on the 'your own' aspect of it.

OK. Then if my daughter and your dog were drowning, it would be immoral for me to save my daughter?

No. A human life is worth more than a dog life, so saving your daughter would be correct. That isn't obvious?

Obviously selfish. By your definition.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When presented with the thought of someone loving a pencil so much that they'd save it over a human, the response came down to:

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

Fatguy chose an absurd example (on purpose). I'm trying to bridge the gap between his example and the dog/person hypo. At what point does the person who wants to save his pet dog start calling other folks loons?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the stranger is expecting me to save him, he is being selfish.

If the stranger wants you to save him, that is a selfish want. Okay.

Therefore, he is immoral.

That doesn't follow.

selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification

Wouldn't that make it immoral? Or is there a middle ground?

The guy is not immoral for wanting his life to be saved.

So, then why would it be selfish for a man to want his best friends life to be saved?

It's selfish to want to save your own dog instead of someone else's husband because your motives focus on the 'your own' aspect of it.

OK. Then if my daughter and your dog were drowning, it would be immoral for me to save my daughter?

No. A human life is worth more than a dog life, so saving your daughter would be correct. That isn't obvious?

Obviously selfish. By your definition.

It would be selfish if you're doing it for selfish reasons and unselfish if you're doing it for unselfish reasons. But it'd be correct either way.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Obviously selfish. By your definition.

Can you post my definition and then show how it's "obviously" selfish according to my definition?

 

[dgreen]

When presented with the thought of someone loving a pencil so much that they'd save it over a human, the response came down to:

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

Fatguy chose an absurd example (on purpose).

To show that love of something isn't necessarily a good reason to save one over the other.

I'm trying to bridge the gap between his example and the dog/person hypo.

There's been so much disagreement on whether saving a dog is okay and you think it's reasonable to bridge the next gap?

At what point does the person who wants to save his pet dog start calling other folks loons?

I say: Who cares what a loon defines as being looney?

 

[Smoo]

When presented with the thought of someone loving a pencil so much that they'd save it over a human, the response came down to:

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

Fatguy chose an absurd example (on purpose).

To show that love of something isn't necessarily a good reason to save one over the other.

Of course it isn't. Neither is species. Many factors will come into play and we're not going to learn much by trying to isolate them.

 

[dgreen]

When presented with the thought of someone loving a pencil so much that they'd save it over a human, the response came down to:

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

Fatguy chose an absurd example (on purpose).

To show that love of something isn't necessarily a good reason to save one over the other.

Of course it isn't. Neither is species.

That's where there is huge disagreement.