Poll: A moral dilemma

[LitleWaffle]

No one has right to kill human being, if ***** didn't want children she should have used protection or pill, not kill five weeks old fetus, which is perfectly healthy and legally undisputed.

Hmmm... kill a tiny baby that hasn't even realized its own existence and the parents don't even want, or kill a MILLION cows that are beneficial to mankind and the world, that everybody relies on.

Oh, and you don't know if she used protection or not, so you can't really add that to your argument. Maybe she did use protection and she got pregnant anyways. Which is... possible! (A thousand gasps from across the world)

So kill million cows, you would kill them anyway and you didn't say the meat would be thrown, it would be used anyway.

Even before the edit, he mentioned that the meat would be wasted. And if you were thinking that people would go to all of their slaughtered cows, which were probably dead for a while, considering they would kill them at night so no arguments would erupt, get as much meat as they can from them and try to sell it or use it before it spoils. I apologize, as I had no idea that people were so stupid.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

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? :/

I had previously (maybe a few weeks ago) made a simmilar post but gave the choice between one random person and ten thousand cows either one had to die but I left a lot of room for people to invent loop holes.

I really wanted something that people couldn't squirm out of easily by justifying the cows dying as hamburger or the person to be killed being, say Osama bin Laden.

I had to be innocent lives, one option had to be everything dies and the other everthing lives on until nature/god takes that life away.

I wanted it to be ambiguous and impersonal.

 

[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? :/

I had previously (maybe a few weeks ago) made a simmilar post but gave the choice between one random person and ten thousand cows either one had to die but I left a lot of room for people to invent loop holes.

I really wanted something that people couldn't squirm out of easily by justifying the cows dying as hamburger or the person to be killed being, say Osama bin Laden.

I had to be innocent lives, one option had to be everything dies and the other everthing lives on until nature/god takes that life away.

I wanted it to be ambiguous and impersonal.

Ahh, that's what it was...
I thought I had seen something like this before but then thought I was just going crazy X3

But that's kinda cool that people can think of those loopholes for the first one.

 

[LitleWaffle]

Oh, Mr. poll creator, maybe you should change the poll question to being which would you NOT allow, so that way it would be either NOT allowing the prevention of an abortion (Allowing abortion) and NOT allowing the slaughter of a million cows (Saving the cows)

 

[magicmonkeybars]

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.

I got rid of that again, if people can't be bothered to pay attention and read carefully than it won't matter if I spell it out for them.
Although I did make a mistake in the body of the post making it slightly confusing earlier on but I did correct that.

 

[Sakuji]

I have to agree with magicmonkeybars on this. People try to remove themselves from the equation by making it an unnamed, unformed child. If the choice was you, or your kid, or even the creepy uncle, you would probably choose the cows to die. Just because you don't know who the person is, doesn't remove your personally responsibility. Would you willingly die to feed the entire African continent for a year? I know wouldn't!

 

[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.

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.

One's morality doesn't change all that much based on a situation in my opinion.I'd say it's an overall set of principles that are applied to any situation we find ourselves in, therefore any situation is relevant and the testing nature of this one helps us examine ourselves all the better.

 

[no one really]

Kill the kids, let the cows be used for good later. It's all for the greater good.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Oh, Mr. poll creator, maybe you should change the poll question to being which would you NOT allow, so that way it would be either NOT allowing the prevention of an abortion (Allowing abortion) and NOT allowing the slaughter of a million cows (Saving the cows)

I'm sorry but that isn't what I'm asking.
It's not my fault you can't read or read things carelessly.
It would also change what people already voted for.
Not allowing the prevention of an abortion is a double negative, I'd have to change it into "not allowing an abortion" and "not allowing a millions of cows to live."

 

[Crazycat690]

I'd save the cows, I don't think a human life is more important than an animal since well, humans are animals too, the only difference is that cows doesn't kill each other or destroy the earth. Hm... Wait, should I then kill the cows to prevent another human from being born?

Anyway, I don't value human life that much, I value my own life and my family, I would gladly sacrifice one million lives I don't know for me or my family, or even for my cat.

I have nothing against abortion, I have nothing against anyone, however, if I got to choose I would kill every religious human on the earth =) They are the reason people get discriminated, when you think of it, if christianity never would have existed, science would be more advanced, many of your precious "lives" would have been saved.

 

[Rickyvantof]

Create one life or destroy a million. How is this even a dilemma?

 

[gl1koz3]

Abort. Done.

Yet I fucking missed the button and clicked vote for million cows. Goddamn. Face palm.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Well, you can't eat children... legally anyway... and I'm a bit of a fan of beef...

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Maybe I'm just a natural problem solver, but surely I'd just allow the abortion, then in 4 months, feed the baby to the cows.

Ok, that's not a fix, just have the kid put up for adoption, jut because a baby can't be aborted it doesn't mean you necessarily have to care for it for the rest of your life, if you're not feeling able to.

I'm really not being flippant or uncaring here. If there's a genuine reason the couple can't deal with having the child, they should give it away and allow a childless couple to adopt it.

I ought to state I'm adopted and I never for a moment feel any anger or disappointment at my biological parents, they must have had their reasons, and I got lucky with who chose to take me on.

My maybe controversial opinion is stop IVF treatment for childless couples until there's no kids left in social care, you want a kid, love one that's alive and needs you, stop throwing cash at some desperate need to go thru childbirth.

 

[VulakAerr]

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.

Totally agree with this guy. I'm fine with abortion up until around 12 weeks (brain activity is where I would draw the line) but a million cows could provide food AND jelly-babies for a lot of people. Save the cows, put the kid up for adoption.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

snip

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.

One's morality doesn't change all that much based on a situation in my opinion.I'd say it's an overall set of principles that are applied to any situation we find ourselves in, therefore any situation is relevant and the testing nature of this one helps us examine ourselves all the better.

Unless you believe in moral relativism. I believe that my choices are entirely determined upon the situation in which I find myself. To properly answer this question I would need a lot more background information, in order to fully understand the outcomes of my decision.

I just don't hold to the opinion that there is any moral 'truth' or objective standpoint on moral issues, and having a 'principle' which you claim to adhere to would be easy enough to break down given the right circumstances, thus why bother having a principle at all, try and gain a sense of perspective on every issue, and when you try to convince yourself you are doing something for a 'principle' take a moment to remind yourself that all humans are selfish and you are likely doing it for yourself and trying to assuage your guilt by saying there is an objective truth.

Moral relativism, I don't have principles, I have the situation, and the postulated situation has no bearing on anything.

 

[Darth_Dude]

Allow the abortion to happen; it's a bunch of cells still

Escuse me? You do know that a baby's heart starts beating at 5 weeks? Bunch of cells my ass.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Create one life or destroy a million. How is this even a dilemma?

You misunderstand , it's either KILL a MILLION and ONE living things or SAVE a MILLION and ONE lives.

 

[Darth_Dude]

if I got to choose I would kill every religious human on the earth =)

Aw, datz not berry nice