Poll: Your Pet is Drowning, and so is a Stranger.
- Thread starter Pandabearparade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, Dug's trolling.TopazFusion said:
To ask the question "do you care more about a single (human) loved one than a single random human?" is pointless. Loved one wins in every case. There is no morality that would say otherwise.
Dug doesn't like the fact that most systems of morality that have been put forth by philosophers who didn't eventually inspire oppressive dictatorships place the value of a single human over the value of a single non-human animal.
The only moral answer to this question is the stranger.
People don't always act morally, because no one's perfect, but the only moral answer is the stranger. Dug knows that, but he wants to magically conjure a reason why he should be allowed to act in an immoral fashion, so he's bullshitting.
That's your opinion. I'm arguing that since we all have different opinions of what is good and what is bad, then in fact, morality is - to an extent - subjective.Pandabearparade said:
How else do we define what is right and what is wrong? Who gets to decide?
No, you haven't. You still haven't given me a direct answer to my original question, or to the guy who asked you a similar question.Pandabearparade said:
Of course ethics aren't entirely subjective, otherwise a serial killer could argue that he's in the right simply because he believes so.Pandabearparade said:
But I could equally argue that you are monstrous for not saving the pet that you love, over the person you don't know. How much would that annoy you? It certainly annoys me. (Just to be clear, I don't think you're monstrous for believing that)
But what makes the ethics you believe are right, the correct ones? How do we define "the correct" ethics? If the answer is popular opinion, than it certainly appears as though our ethics are the "right" ones. But I don't think that's true either. That is why I am arguing that ethics must be at least partially subjective.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, or that I'm right. Just that we have different opinions, and that I'd like you to respect ours.
I think the question was more "do you care more about the single (human) loved one than a single random human who could be a greater societal loss". And the point of the question presumably being that it isn't always a cut and dry "this option does more for society, so is automatically morally better". Greater good is one way to think about moral philosophy, but it isn't the cut and dry right way.PhiMed said:
I'm unsure how to answer this. Which of them is closer to me? Which looks like they're going to drown FIRST? Do I magically have enough strength and wherewithal to actually help a person (and yet not have the ability to, you know, throw a sodding rope)? Is my asthma also mystically gone? Am I, in short, GUARANTEED to save one (and only one) of these beings before me? Because, honestly, the answers to these questions changes my answer to the OP's question.
Assuming my actual strength, swimming ability, and inability to keep air in my goddamned lungs... if any one of the three of us is drowning, it's probably me. Sure, I'd go out to save one or the other, but, frankly, it wouldn't matter. I'd be dead either way.
I guess that my answer is that it depends. If it's my 70-pound childhood dog vs. someone I could actually help, I'd help the person. If it's my 10-pound puppy or one of my cats vs. someone I would not be able to save, I'd save my pet. If it's one of the pets I can carry vs. someone I could actually help, it depends on who looks like they need me more and who is closer.
If I magically have the ability to save one (and only one) of these beings, and, either way, a life hangs in the balance? My first instinct would probably be my pet because we love each other and I have a responsibility to her, but I don't want to be responsible for someone's death either. I can't go and get another pet to exactly replace the one I lost, but there isn't exactly a shelter where a family can go adopt a new mother/father/sister/brother/etc. to at least help fill the void.
In that situation, which I think is what the OP was getting at, I'd go for the person. I adore my pets. I have four of them, total. But I've also been extremely lucky in not having lost any person who was really important to me. It comes down to the fact that I KNOW I can handle losing a cat; I had to last year. I'd rather break my own heart over again than break someone else's for their mother or father or child.
I'm sorry if I'm overthinking this, but if you want my actual answer to how I'd prioritize a loved companion and a stranger, this, as a liberal, atheist, college student, is it.
Assuming my actual strength, swimming ability, and inability to keep air in my goddamned lungs... if any one of the three of us is drowning, it's probably me. Sure, I'd go out to save one or the other, but, frankly, it wouldn't matter. I'd be dead either way.
I guess that my answer is that it depends. If it's my 70-pound childhood dog vs. someone I could actually help, I'd help the person. If it's my 10-pound puppy or one of my cats vs. someone I would not be able to save, I'd save my pet. If it's one of the pets I can carry vs. someone I could actually help, it depends on who looks like they need me more and who is closer.
If I magically have the ability to save one (and only one) of these beings, and, either way, a life hangs in the balance? My first instinct would probably be my pet because we love each other and I have a responsibility to her, but I don't want to be responsible for someone's death either. I can't go and get another pet to exactly replace the one I lost, but there isn't exactly a shelter where a family can go adopt a new mother/father/sister/brother/etc. to at least help fill the void.
In that situation, which I think is what the OP was getting at, I'd go for the person. I adore my pets. I have four of them, total. But I've also been extremely lucky in not having lost any person who was really important to me. It comes down to the fact that I KNOW I can handle losing a cat; I had to last year. I'd rather break my own heart over again than break someone else's for their mother or father or child.
I'm sorry if I'm overthinking this, but if you want my actual answer to how I'd prioritize a loved companion and a stranger, this, as a liberal, atheist, college student, is it.
Personally I value the lives of other animals over the lives of humans so I'd probably save the pet. Unless it was an octopus because that would just be silly. Alternatively I'd probably find someone who can actually swim worth a damn, because if I was the one doing the rescue I'd probably nearly drown myself the minute I touched the water.
Um? Sure, it's a joke, but suggesting even in jest that I have the feelings I do because I'm worried others will feel bad if I don't is kind of dishonest.PhiMed said:
I see personality, life, and worth in a lot of animals. Humans yes, but cats too, for example. To dismiss the worth of entire groups of life in a joke is exceedingly arrogant.
He's not trolling, he just has an opinion that you don't agree with. Also, I believe it's against the site rules to call someone a troll. Actually, I think your entire post is very insulting and narrow minded.PhiMed said:
I'd like to point you to a question that I asked OP earlier, and ask you to consider our side of the argument, rather than dismissing our opinion as "wrong" and claiming that your answer is the only "moral" one, simply because you claim that it is so.
<spoiler=my question>Person A is your mother/girlfriend/brother/someone else who you love and are close to, they're drowning.
So is person B; somebody who does the world a lot of good. This could be the founder of a charity, or a politician who is doing great things for his country. It doesn't really matter.
Who do you save?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect you'd save the person you care about most. Even though person B is a more important person, who'll do the world a lot more good than the person you love, you choose the person you love over the person you don't know.
Let me counter your argument with a similar scenario. Your parents died when you were young, only you and your younger sister are alive, you've both become socially awkward, so neither of you really have any friends, it's just the two of you alone in the world. Your sister is drowning, and so is a dog that you've never seen before, but can PLAINLY see is wearing a colorful collar. Who do you save? If you save your sister, you're selfish right? Saving her only benefits yourself, and keeps you from depression. Saving the dog will benefit it's owners, however many their might be, the owner's friends who will no longer have to go through trying to help the person through the period of depression they would otherwise be facing. The families of the friends, who get to spend more time with that loved one due to the fact that less time is spent away from home trying to help the owner.
If the ethical thing is that which benefits the majority, rather than the few, isn't it best to save the dog in this situation?
I absolutely agree that if a stranger and a stray dog you have no association with are drowning, the human comes first. But when it comes to something you've known for years, and something you've never met, the one you're connected to has EARNED the right to be saved by you. Whether it's a human, a dog, a cat, or any other animal that can show clear signs of an emotional connection, it deserves to be saved for all the things you've done for it, and all the things it's done for you. People die all the time, Dogs die all the time, we're all just animals struggling to survive. The connections we have and the efforts we put in are all in order to survive. Saying a dog who puts JUST as much effort into forming these bonds as a human might have doesn't deserve to LIVE simply because it's a dog is as disgusting as saying a man doesn't deserve a job he worked his ass off for, just because he's black, or that a woman who works twice as hard as any man around her deserves less pay, simply because she's a woman. It's wrong, and if you can't see that, you're the monster.
EVERYONE has their opinion. You can't insult a person just because they have a different opinion than you do in some poll you made because you were angry. If you wanted someone to agree with you, you should have found a friend who you could vent to without their comments on the subject. The stranger and the dog have EQUAL right to survive, because they're both animals, nothing more, nothing less. Humans can be some of the most terrible animals, dogs can be some of the most loving animals. And Vice Versa. You have NO right to call a person a MONSTER of DISGUSTING over the fact that they feel saving the animal that they've formed a lasting bond with over the animal they've never even seen before. You can disagree with it all you want, and they can disagree all they want. But you do NOT make a thread on a forum saying to pick A or B, then insult and degrade every person who picks B.
If the ethical thing is that which benefits the majority, rather than the few, isn't it best to save the dog in this situation?
I absolutely agree that if a stranger and a stray dog you have no association with are drowning, the human comes first. But when it comes to something you've known for years, and something you've never met, the one you're connected to has EARNED the right to be saved by you. Whether it's a human, a dog, a cat, or any other animal that can show clear signs of an emotional connection, it deserves to be saved for all the things you've done for it, and all the things it's done for you. People die all the time, Dogs die all the time, we're all just animals struggling to survive. The connections we have and the efforts we put in are all in order to survive. Saying a dog who puts JUST as much effort into forming these bonds as a human might have doesn't deserve to LIVE simply because it's a dog is as disgusting as saying a man doesn't deserve a job he worked his ass off for, just because he's black, or that a woman who works twice as hard as any man around her deserves less pay, simply because she's a woman. It's wrong, and if you can't see that, you're the monster.
EVERYONE has their opinion. You can't insult a person just because they have a different opinion than you do in some poll you made because you were angry. If you wanted someone to agree with you, you should have found a friend who you could vent to without their comments on the subject. The stranger and the dog have EQUAL right to survive, because they're both animals, nothing more, nothing less. Humans can be some of the most terrible animals, dogs can be some of the most loving animals. And Vice Versa. You have NO right to call a person a MONSTER of DISGUSTING over the fact that they feel saving the animal that they've formed a lasting bond with over the animal they've never even seen before. You can disagree with it all you want, and they can disagree all they want. But you do NOT make a thread on a forum saying to pick A or B, then insult and degrade every person who picks B.
Well if I were literally the only person there, we'd probably all die, thing is I'm a shit swimmer and have pretty below average upper body strength, and knowing me I'd probably try and drag both out of the water leading to all three of us drowning.
So yeah there you go, my answer is: everyone dies.
So yeah there you go, my answer is: everyone dies.
The person was apparently trying to save the pet, so to save them for the pet to die would be a meaningless waste of effort. They already seemed interested in saving the pet and, while that is wonderful, why stop them now?Treblaine said:Better question, you have been abducted by aliens in the middle of a local flood you've been caught in but they are friendly and won't hurt you they are trying to follow objective values of morality to avoid war between planets.
.png/300px-Walton(reconstitution).png)
The aliens point out to you two organism below that have survived the flood, a random person holding your pet in the slowly encroaching flood. The aliens have one last teleport zap before they leave that can only take one organism but very soon both will fall into the churning flood and die. It is technically totally impossible for the aliens to rescue any other discrete organism, so no debate there.
The aliens didn't want to teleport you up in the first place, now you have to convince them to save one, or the other in terms even these aliens would accept. You cannot appeal to "it's another human" or "it's MY pet" they are completely neutral, in the most extreme sense, they have no vested interest other than not to be deliberately malicious.
What could you possibly say to convince them?
Additionally, there is the idea of it being my duty to save the pet, and I would very much like them to help me do that.
That good at all?
That's a fairly complex question, but I do have an answer. It's not really a debate I care to start in this thread.Angry_squirrel said:
1. I did answer. Of course I'd save my mother.
2. It's off-point. The question just is not relevant to this discussion in any real way. I try to respond to as many people as possible, but this thread is 18 pages long now. I'm just not going to waste time on a question that smells of flame bait.
Again, big topic. I would have to give you a long, long reply to do the topic justice.
Again, that's a short question with a really, -really- long answer.
To condense it: Net total suffering. A worldview that produces more net suffering is objectively worse ethically than a worldview that produces less net suffering.
It's not.
In some areas I'm inclined to agree. On the question of a dog vs. a human? Not a chance.
I politely decline. I'm not disrespecting you as a person, but this position you hold is worthy of not one ounce of my respect.
I'm going to assume you're a liberal. I think that's a fair assumption considering the content of your posts, but correct me if I'm wrong. Do you respect the beliefs of the conservatives who want to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens?
you don't really know until you go there honestly do you
like it's very easy to say probably this or that based on a hypothetical but everything changes when shit actually goes down
chances are you'd space out and fail to save anything or drown trying to save both
i say that projecting only slightly
like it's very easy to say probably this or that based on a hypothetical but everything changes when shit actually goes down
chances are you'd space out and fail to save anything or drown trying to save both
i say that projecting only slightly
I most heartily welcome you to The Escapist sir, you are a good addition to this site. I honestly wish I could applaude someone over the internet.Wynaro said:
Priorities of life:theblindedhunter said:
Humans > other sentient races (if they exist) > trainable non-sentient species > non-trainable species > plants.
Sorry, dude. Dogs and cats aren't sentient, don't possess language, and really have no affect on the world as a whole. One person can change the world. One dog can... not.
That wasn't the question. The question was random human vs loved one. The very nature of the question implies an unknown value to society. If you question is "loved one vs someone of value", then ask that. Potential value is unknown, so therefore it cannot and should not factor into decision-making, whether spur-of-the-moment or carefully considered.theblindedhunter said: