Poll: A moral dilemma

[magicmonkeybars]

Other than the species divide, this almost sounds like the 'save myself or save the world' dilemma, at least from a purely numerical perspective.

I basically see the poll options as :Save one thing or save one million things.
One on one it might be considered equal, but no one human, whatever the become or grow up to do is worth one million of any other multicellular eukaryotic life form.

I would therefore choose to stop the slaughter of the cows, but that's just me.

Edit: The pol says 'which would you allow' rather than 'which you waould stop' leading to the prevention of the abortion in either scenario. This is not fair considering that the thread question is the latter. Can you please either fix the pol to better reflect your actual queston or remove it.

I'm Sorry, I had one too many "stopping" in there, I fixed it.
It's either killing a million cows or stopping an abortion.
It's basically, kill a million and one things or save a million and one things

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I'd kill the Cow, regardless of the fact that the meat would be immediately burned. But the only reason is because the baby wouldn't kill her nor would her aborted fetus do any good to mankind.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Allow the abortion to happen; it's a bunch of cells still and it's up to the parents whether or not they abort it. If they want to then go for it.

Also, I'm assuming at least some of these cows would have to be taken from people's livestock, meaning you're potentially ruining the lives of many people.

Let's assume those people are compensated for the loss of revenues, we just buy a million cows and kill them.

 

[qwertyzxy27]

well seeing as how its totally ridiculous that she is getting an abortion id save the cows there is no need for pointless slaughter, however if you had said they weren't in a stable relationship or made any other slight change i probably would have said the cows, because the happiness of a human is more important than the lives of any animal provided it wont be tortured

 

[Woodsey]

Allow the abortion to happen; it's a bunch of cells still and it's up to the parents whether or not they abort it. If they want to then go for it.

Also, I'm assuming at least some of these cows would have to be taken from people's livestock, meaning you're potentially ruining the lives of many people.

Let's assume those people are compensated for the loss of revenues, we just buy a million cows and kill them.

OK, still allow the abortion.

At the end of the day, that's what they want and it's still a tiny amount of cells. To just go and kill a million cows for no reason is far less humane then getting rid of some cells.

 

[Gigano]

Well, since the abortion was prevented to save the cows we'd henceforth have religious extremists murdering bovine to no end (again... though not as burnt sacrifices this time around). I say let the cows be killed if they must, then punish whoever killed them.

Women rights should not suffer due to cows meeting a fate they'd have me(a)t anyway.

 

[Deacon Cole]

What do you choose, stopping an abortion from happening or the slaughter of a million cows ?

I chose to stop...


Neither.

Every single day.

Mmmm... Hamburgers.

 

[LongAndShort]

Ultimately I believe that abortion is immoral, but not as immoral as giving a woman the right to choose (for valid reasons). However if we remove that moral dilemma from the equation we can look at this more closely. If we consider death as being an injury that can be afflicted, from a utilitarian argument we could say that it's better to kill the baby then the cows (least amount of pain and injury being inflicted). On the other hand, there is the potentiality question. What are the cows gonna do if they're allowed to live? Just keep on munching grass? eventually be slaughtered and used for meat? If they're not getting used for meat now I don't see how they are gonna be used for meat in the future. A fetus on the other hand, it could be said, has far more potential. A person can have far more potential to effect the world negatively or positively than a million useless cows.

But we're forgetting the far larger issue. Global warming. A million cows farting and shitting is gonna cause a lot more greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, for the sake of us all, we need to kill the cows (you could say it's a utilitarian counter-argument to the earlier one).
I'd vote to prevent the abortion.

 

[Oh That Dude]

Why? I know there's this tendency of philosophical debates to rely heavily on the metaphoric or hypothetical, but really I don't like answering them unless they have some sort of real world application. Morality does not happen in isolation, it must be applied. I could be faced with the choice between aborting a baby to let the mother live or knowing the mother will die in childbirth but saving the baby, that is a real world concern. Similar issues about euthanasia, right to die with dignity, these are real issues about which morality can be argued and applied successfully.

Your argument has no relation to anything real world, and thus there's not much point in arguing it, because the situation would never come up, and why should we argue for the morality of such a situation. It would be like me asking you think it is more moral to blow up the moon or allow an alien race to invade our planet. It's not a situation we will face, so why bother arguing about it?

For the sake of thinking carefully about our what we consider right and wrong. It may not be a situation we will face but examining one's own morality is never useless.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I'd beat the hell out of the person making me choose. That aside, I'd give the choice to the woman. If for some reason they didn't care... I suppose I'd save the cows, since leaving a baby to be raised by people who didn't care if it existed doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. Now, if she and the father were unable to choose, because they were say in a coma... I'd let the cows be slaughtered.

 

[Chrono212]

Woah...serious case of Déjà vu...

OT: Human life, man, human life.
And the sight of a million cows burning might turn some people vegetarian which, in the grand scheme of things, would probably be better for the world.

How did this scenario occur in the first place? :/

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Why? I know there's this tendency of philosophical debates to rely heavily on the metaphoric or hypothetical, but really I don't like answering them unless they have some sort of real world application. Morality does not happen in isolation, it must be applied. I could be faced with the choice between aborting a baby to let the mother live or knowing the mother will die in childbirth but saving the baby, that is a real world concern. Similar issues about euthanasia, right to die with dignity, these are real issues about which morality can be argued and applied successfully.

Your argument has no relation to anything real world, and thus there's not much point in arguing it, because the situation would never come up, and why should we argue for the morality of such a situation. It would be like me asking you think it is more moral to blow up the moon or allow an alien race to invade our planet. It's not a situation we will face, so why bother arguing about it?

For the sake of thinking carefully about our what we consider right and wrong. It may not be a situation we will face but examining one's own morality is never useless.

Perhaps, but examining one's morality in a way which directly impacts upon decisions you may have to make is infinitely more useful than entirely hypothetical situations with no bearing upon your life. This is in fact my main concern with philosophy, and was the basis for my first year essay on it. 'Should philosophy strive to find a truth beyond human concerns, or is morality strictly human, and must be addressed as such.' If philosophy becomes too abstract then it loses all relevance. This question is too abstract.

 

[Adamc-mh]

the real question with the abortian one is when do you consider the embryo or whatever and true human and unless your the mother it is wrong proventing it they go through alot of decisions they don't need people telling them that it's wrong

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

I'm totally cool with abortion, but in this case I'd prevent it.

It's largely to do with numbers, but also those one million cows will do far more good in the long term than someone not being born.

 

[amucha98]

.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Why? I know there's this tendency of philosophical debates to rely heavily on the metaphoric or hypothetical, but really I don't like answering them unless they have some sort of real world application. Morality does not happen in isolation, it must be applied. I could be faced with the choice between aborting a baby to let the mother live or knowing the mother will die in childbirth but saving the baby, that is a real world concern. Similar issues about euthanasia, right to die with dignity, these are real issues about which morality can be argued and applied successfully.

Your argument has no relation to anything real world, and thus there's not much point in arguing it, because the situation would never come up, and why should we argue for the morality of such a situation. It would be like me asking you think it is more moral to blow up the moon or allow an alien race to invade our planet. It's not a situation we will face, so why bother arguing about it?

Let me make it easier on you, a man walks up to you, points a gun at your head and says,
"I either kill a million cows or I kill you, choose."

I just wanted to deprive you of self interest and personal involvement and gain.
You'd probably have the man kill a million cows rather than die yourself.
If you were the pregnant woman you'd choose your own freedom rather than the cows.(maybe)
I'm only isolating the circumstance so you can be objective in your choice.

 

[Dapsen]

Kill the child, let the cows live.

1.000.000 > 1.

 

[Talendra]

It's either killing a million cows or stopping an abortion.
It's basically, kill a million and one things or save a million and one things

Yet people still keep responding as having an abortion versus killing million of cows, on the second page now and nobody bothered to read properly?
I would save the cows, if the parents do not want the kid, they can always put it up for addoption and give another family the chance to have a child.

 

[Sakuji]

....or gravity turns into gravy or something...

I don't know why, but I just laughed harder at that statement than anything I have read in a long time, thanks =