This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I could other than it is generally viewed as socially unacceptable to eat humans (unless you are a character in a Piers Paul Reid novel), keep them as pets (wouldn't this be akin to slavery), use them for their skns (except in Chainsaw Massacre movies). You are correct though in saying you can use them to appreciate nature and for cheap labor (especially in third world countries).
I agree with this statement.I know people are attached to their animals, but it is an animal. It's a piece of property, no different than a car or a house, other than the fact that it eats and can sit on your lap at the end of the day. The stranger is a person. It is part of a family. He or she might be a mother or father, AND they are certainly someone's child. Somebody might grow up without a parent if we let the stranger die. You can go buy another dog.This reminds me of a story my cousin, who is a firefighter, told me one time. He says that he has been in a situation where some lady whom he just pulled out of a burning house started screaming that her "baby" is still in the house. So, he, went into a burning house and risked his life, and all he found was a damn dog. This woman valued the life of her animal over the life of my cousin who has a wife and two children. I think it is an absolutely dispicable act.He told me that if they come across a pet while pulling people out of the house, they certainly grab it, but they do not risk their lives to save a pet.
It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.
I'm on your side, but this isn't really true. You can get a new dad or a new kid.
Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life of your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??
Did they forget how to have sex?
It's not that animals are super-important to make them equal to humans. It's that humans are not nearly as puffed-up and important as we make them out to be. We're just animals ourselves who happen to have higher brain functins. And? Lucky us. So? Doesn't give us any sort of role as the chosen ones or anything.
Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.
I'd probably save my kid. But I wouldn't be proud of it.
It's not hard to understand that. I might do the same thing. What's hard to understand is that you think it would be morally OK to choose the dog over the person.Knowing the right thing vs. doing the right thing, that's where we're disconnecting.
We are the chosen ones even if you don't believe in God or gods. Why? Precisely because of our intellect and capacity for reason (oh, and opposable thumbs along with tool making and using ability). You can't abdicate the throne, you are at the top of the hierarchy my large toothed rodent friend.
Of couse you would save your child.. but the moral thing to do would be to let the other 100 children live.
You can create another child, you can get married again, but you can't replace that person.I have an 8 year old and another child on the way. Do you think if my 8 year old got hit by a bus tomorrow, I would feel any comfort in the child on the way? I would miss my child and nothing or nobody could fill that hole.Please don't compare the love of a dog to the love of a parent or child. It's not the same, OK. For example, have some dog lover's dog bite their child and see who gets the crap kicked out of them or put to sleep.A dog is a possession. A child/parent is not. Their is no comparison.
No, the moral thing would be to save either the one or the 100. Choosing one over the other would not be more or less moral. I would argue that choosing the 100 over your own might be less moral because you would be denying your responsibility as a parent which (IMHO) is pretty sacrosanct.
That person can never be replaced. Not really. Do you have children? If something happened to one of them, could they be replaced by having another child? If you have children, I have to believe the answer is no.A dog is a possession. It may make us feel better about ourselves and it may be very loving and loyal, but it is still just a possession.
And would a new dog make you feel better about letting your dog drown? And please don't compare the love those of without kids have for their dogs to your love of your children. Maybe this will change when I have kids. Maybe not. In any case, like I said earlier, hope you can swim, because I'll save my dog 100 times out of 100.
Actually, this PETA mentality that is on display here, while seemingly more compassionate is far less moral in my opinion; but I fully and totally respect your right to be wrong.
So you're responsible for the death of 100 children but you take solace in that you're a good parent. Sounds pretty immoral to me.
It's immature to see dogs as being possessions? What else do you think they are? If you're trying to equate the notion of dogs being possessions with the notion of slaves being possessions, don't bother.There was plenty of moral problems with PEOPLE being possessions. There is no problem with dogs being possessions. That's what they are and that's what they will always be.
Yeah, I have a kid. I'm not sure what you mean by "replaced." All I'm saying is people can get new kids and they can get new dogs.
If dogs are just possessions, why can't the owners mistreat them? I don't see any laws preventing me from abusing my sofa.
Dude, you are talking about saving people. If you have a choice to save one person or another, you can choose either. I would choose my child because of parental instincts. I would feel horrible about it, but I would save my child. A DOG IS NOT A PERSON!!!!!!!No, it doesn't deserve to die and I would try and save both if I could, but in the end, it is a dog. When did dogs become more important than people?
I know....it's kind of inhumane to make dogs go to the bathroom outside in the dead of winter, isn't it? Clearly they don't enjoy doing it. We should probably think about forcing public establishments to have facilities for dogs to use so they don't have to freeze when they take a crap.Oh - and they should be allowed on buses. INTEGRATION NOW!My point is that your reliance on your own analysis has lead you to conclude that dogs are people too (or people are dogs). Either way really. Kind of a proof by contradiction that such approaches may have some inherent danger (to the people who disagree that dogs are people too anyway).My post wasn't really for you, it was more for the people who read the thread. Please strike it from the record.
Is there some kind of rule book that covers this??
Maybe you should ask Peter SingerNOTE: I don't subscribe to Singer's ethical philosophy, but I'm amazed he hasn't been referenced in this thread yet, so I feel compelled to shake the metaphorical Bell Jar and make the bees fight.
Their are laws against it because it's inhumane to mistreat an animal. I'm not saying we should kill them or mistreat them, however, they are not people. I would have replaced every person who died on Sept 11th with a dog, if I could. That way, no kids would have gone to bed that night without their parent.
No. It's just what I feel. I couldn't live with myself if I knew that I saved a dog and some kid had to grow up without a parent. I'm not sure how anybody else could, but if you can, that's your choice. I just hope that stranger isn't YOUR child and somebody decides to save a dog over him/her.
AHA!There's the problem. I never said it was morally correct. In fact, I never thought morals at all. I was going on what instincts would dictate I do.
I agree that dogs are not people. That wasn't what we were talking about.
So, as the only species on the Earth that in knowingly destroying the planet, we're the smartest? And don't get me wrong. I enjoy destroying the planet. Give me a gas guzzeling car, styrofoam containers, and non-recyclable products anyday. I don't care. If I can find some California Condors or Dodos to counter your argument, I let them post under my name.
In some cases the answer is clearly yes. Greyhound racing for example. Breeding dogs for pets is a closer case.
I can't replace my dog. I can get another one, but it won't replace the family member I have that you call an animal.
Humans are animals. If a dog is a piece of property, so is a person.
