Seeing eye dogs? Sniffer dogs?SL33TBL1ND said:
Seeing eye cats for blind dogs?
The pigeons that did stuff in the World Wars? They were awarded with medals!
Poll: The Value of a Human Life
- Thread starter thestickman91
- Start date
Seeing eye cats for blind dogs?
The pigeons that did stuff in the World Wars? They were awarded with medals!
Horrible example, those exist for the benefit of people.Andy of Comix Inc said:
Billions of times less important than a person.
Again, for the benefit of people.
And I would kill any of them to save a human life.
Most of the time I would save the human.
The only reasons I can think of for not doing so are:
Saving the human would likely result in me or someone else being seriously injured
Saving the animal is somehow going to save more people in the longrun
If the animal is an endangered species, I'd possibly feel obliged to help preserve it.
The only reasons I can think of for not doing so are:
Saving the human would likely result in me or someone else being seriously injured
Saving the animal is somehow going to save more people in the longrun
If the animal is an endangered species, I'd possibly feel obliged to help preserve it.
I'm shocked how many people are going for the dog here. If you want genetic self-interest you pick the human. If you base it on which being will be able to live longer and so you're saving more years, you pick the human. If you pick the one most capable of emotion then you pick the human. If you want the one which can have the greatest possible impact with the remainder of their life you pick the human. If you're religious then it's possible you believe that the human has a chance at a heaven if he lives right, or that all dogs go to heaven, or none do, in which case it's more important to save the humans life, because the dogs life if completely fulfilling at whatever point they die.
I guess you could argue dogs are more innocent and need our protection, but in this case both beings equally need our protection.
I mean I take it most of us are not vegetarian here, so are we making the argument that a dogs life is more important than the humans, but cows are so much less important than dogs that we can eat them for pleasure?
I guess you could argue dogs are more innocent and need our protection, but in this case both beings equally need our protection.
I mean I take it most of us are not vegetarian here, so are we making the argument that a dogs life is more important than the humans, but cows are so much less important than dogs that we can eat them for pleasure?
I beg to differ.SL33TBL1ND said:
And here is where difference of opinion comes in.
On this forum we have people like the above, who value human life in all it's glory. You have people like me, that spent 12 years travelling the world and shooting at people, human life is a fickle thing. And then you have people that don't give a toss either way.
Anywhoo...
On Topic.
If it's my wife or one of my kids then i'll save them. If it's not one of them then i'll be saving the dog.
I would almost definitely save the human. Mainly because if I was in that position I would be incredibly pissed off if someone went for a dog over me. And if it was a murderer/rapist maybe they would think twice about the way they're living and the impact they have on people after being in a near-death experience?
Also because the humans can express gratitude (Presents and praise!!!)
I'm shocked that there aren't more people going for the human.
Also because the humans can express gratitude (Presents and praise!!!)
I'm shocked that there aren't more people going for the human.
Haha yeah, I vaguely remember that thread from a few months ago and if I recall nothing good cam out of it because increasinly more and more arbitrary restrictions and scenarios were being placed. IIRC, in a case of a random stranger vs random animal, the strangers usually won out, but most people seemed to agree that if the animal was a beloved pet it would take precedence.Daystar Clarion said:
I somehow find it strange the sheer apathy presented by people's responses to that scenario. Don't get me wrong, I love my dogs so dearly, but saving them over another person just seems morally reprehensible. If I was just having a casual stroll on the mountain and saw a person and a dog hanging on for dear life off the cliff, I would save the person. No "what if's". I don't know if they are evil pedophiles or rapists or the bloody POTUS or Steven Hawking. The value of a person's life is not for me to judge based on what they may or may not have done and you may argue that their life is no more or less valuable than the dog's. However, while I am not overtly religious, I stand by the "Do Unto Others" creed, and I would hope that if the situation was reversed, the other person would show enough compassion to rescue me.
But the fact people in the last thread basically said "well I would be happier if the dog survived, what's in it for me to save the person?" really disappointed me. Maybe I'm just naive in my thinking though, I just can't imagine what makes people so cynical and jaded...
Some people have trouble truly understanding that when people die, so do their dreams and ideas. In turn their whole worlds just vanish. They are aware of the fact, but can't quite accept it and see it for what it is. The better question is would you want to be saved if you were in that situation?
And the better question to that would be "How does the way I say I would act in any way change the way that another person would act?"DrunkenMonkey said:
We can all say that we'll save the other person. And I freely admit that every person is better off if every other person to yourself saves a stranger over their own dog. But you personally, are better off saving your dog, which means that you can effectively take advantage of the system by subverting it. And that's the world we live in. So we'd be fool to act in a way against our own self-interest to help another without an outside force enforcing compliance.
I think everyone should watch Catch-22. I don't think I believed anything after that film.
If i stick with the Scenario:
Seeing as i cannot know whether the man hanging there is a murderer or pedophile or a murder or what ever kind of attribute you want to give him to make him 'inhumane'. I would have to save him over the dog. Not that it wouldn't kill me to watch my own faithful dog sparky the 4th plummet unto his death.
A more realistic version:
Try and save both, even if there is risk to my self, as long as i am the only one at risk i will.
I firmly believe we care to little about those around us, to easily labeling them unfit for our presence, our money, our care, our food and what have you. A Bum over a child, woman over a man, an American over an Turk, a straight man over a gay woman. We label and label and then tell our selves the reason for choosing a hypnotically answer is grounded in some form of social acceptance or personal ideology, both show a big problem if the dog or any preferred label is chosen. Unless your answer is "Save em both if you can, but..." instead of "oh obviously the dog because..." you may wish to get to know some of your labels. Most of em are better people then you'd think.
tl;dr: Have to stick to story, man, would try save both. Love everyone don't label!
Seeing as i cannot know whether the man hanging there is a murderer or pedophile or a murder or what ever kind of attribute you want to give him to make him 'inhumane'. I would have to save him over the dog. Not that it wouldn't kill me to watch my own faithful dog sparky the 4th plummet unto his death.
A more realistic version:
Try and save both, even if there is risk to my self, as long as i am the only one at risk i will.
I firmly believe we care to little about those around us, to easily labeling them unfit for our presence, our money, our care, our food and what have you. A Bum over a child, woman over a man, an American over an Turk, a straight man over a gay woman. We label and label and then tell our selves the reason for choosing a hypnotically answer is grounded in some form of social acceptance or personal ideology, both show a big problem if the dog or any preferred label is chosen. Unless your answer is "Save em both if you can, but..." instead of "oh obviously the dog because..." you may wish to get to know some of your labels. Most of em are better people then you'd think.
tl;dr: Have to stick to story, man, would try save both. Love everyone don't label!
don't be silly you can't replace either, you not going to get the same dog as the last one.doggie015 said:
its all personal preference, and these situations in reality, people try save everything because if you choose you condemn a life and their relatives/owners sue you for not saving them.
YOU DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH I COMPLETE WAS TAKING YOU SERIOUSLY FOR REALS.SL33TBL1ND said:
...next time, instead of "billions," why not use millions of billions? That's even MORE! And is even MORE absurd! You just pushed the absurdity beyond its limits with that zinger.
