Poll: Your Pet is Drowning, and so is a Stranger.
- Thread starter Pandabearparade
- Start date
I've noticed an interesting trend amongst many of the responses from those who'd save the stranger. They keep trying to justify their position as morally correct, but justifying that by making statements about the usefulness of a person, or their superiority. So, I put it to any who wish to use a statement about use alongside that of the morality:
Would you save the person with downs syndrome or the non-apparently disabled one (Say their carer)? (Downs syndrome is chosen because you can see it and it causes some mental disabilities, that's all).
Say you saw a person with Downs Syndrome fall in, and their carer tries to save them, and ends up in trouble too: The carer is a Good person. They've training, and a skill. They're useful. They're also willing to give their life for those in their care. The person with downs syndrome has a limited mental age and capacity, and is a drain on the resources of society. Who would you save? Are you willing to place a person's worth on their intelligence and their contribution? I'm sure we al realise: It's not the contribution that matters, the morality of the situation is not dictated by the utility we gain from the outcome.
Would you save the person with downs syndrome or the non-apparently disabled one (Say their carer)? (Downs syndrome is chosen because you can see it and it causes some mental disabilities, that's all).
Say you saw a person with Downs Syndrome fall in, and their carer tries to save them, and ends up in trouble too: The carer is a Good person. They've training, and a skill. They're useful. They're also willing to give their life for those in their care. The person with downs syndrome has a limited mental age and capacity, and is a drain on the resources of society. Who would you save? Are you willing to place a person's worth on their intelligence and their contribution? I'm sure we al realise: It's not the contribution that matters, the morality of the situation is not dictated by the utility we gain from the outcome.
Exactly. My dogs would fight to the death to protect me and my family. Why in the world would I not return the favor?Slade Sieger said:
One of the worst things you can do is betray trust and loyalty.
Historically, it's pretty well established that betrayal is regarded as basically THE worst thing you can do.
Even in Dante's Inferno:
A drowning stranger and I have no bonds beyond inhabiting the same planet and being of the same species.
They have no trust in random people around them, and they have no loyalty to them. The best they can do is -hope- someone rescues them.
Hang on a minute, we're talking about a pet here, are you excepting your pet to OUTLIVE you?strangeConsular said:
Who buys a dog or a cat, unable to accept that they will see it die in their lifetime? Most live little more than 10 years and smaller animals only 2-3 years.
When you get a pet you CANNOT go into this thinking you'll never have to see them die except by exceptional circumstance, no. You have to go into taking a pet prepared for eventual loss or else you are setting yourself up for pointless heartache. Pet owners REALLY DO have to be better able to handle loss, of their pets.
Sometimes I think SOME people have a dysfunctional attitude with their pets, they aren't acting like a human seeking an animal friend, they seem to be acting more the the animal is a surrogate child, their child. And this is in a world with so many orphan children with such potential being squandered, is it because one can always treat an animal pet like an infant but if you adopt an orphan it'll grow up into an adult and won't be mothered any more?
Yeah, well history was written by psychos, lets see what the other circles were for:Ieyke said:
First Circle: Unbaptised and even the virtuous pagans:
It does not matter anything else you do, you could have cured smallpox you are GOING TO BURN if you don't submit to religious conformity. Attitudes we should hold today?
Second Circle: Lust, including adultery.
Yep, this says that women who "betrayed" their husband and their husband violently murder them... then to woman goes to burn in hell. Oooh, betrayal is sure looking bad now (sarc)
Third Circle: Gluttony
Because people with eating disorders are morally wrong and should be tortured for all eternity
Fourth Circle: Greed
You'd think for the greedy bankers and speculators who leave people worse off? Nope. "Those whose attitude toward material goods deviated from the appropriate mean" oh no it's just victimising people who are different again, since all bankers of the time were equally obsessive with money they got away with it, but for a poor serf to be ambitious... burn forever.
Fifth Circle: Anger
This just covers how anger is wrong, even though the very god that sent them here is boastfully wrathful all the time
Sixth Circle: Heretics
Oh you thought it was good enough to be baptised, nope. Eternal torture for those who deviate from the status quo set arbitrarily by a group of old men claiming to speak for the all powerful creator of the universe.
Seventh Circle: Violence
Dante misses the irony and hypocrisy of an ideal that says violence is wrong yet meets out infinite extreme violence to people who have never even heard of the ideology. Oh yeah and people are sent here for suicide, hmm, ooooh this is... wow... what a morality system. And it gets worse, as the worst punishment for Blasphemers who are "violent agaisnt god" for saying "Ahh, Jesus" when they stub their toe and the old favourite "violence agaisnt nature". Yes, the sodomites, ESPECIALLY when consensual, torture forever. In the worst way.
Eighth Circle: Fraud
This is getting a bit Freudean as Dante just rails against anyone who ever said anything he didn't like, from inaccurate flattery to hypocrisy, he revels in their eternal torment for minor transgressions.
Circles one to eight don't do much to set up this morality system.
The problem - in itself - with saying betrayal is such a sin is it serves more to reinforce loyalty. This doesn't serve little pets, it serve power hungry barons, controlling fathers and possessive husbands coercing people to agree to things they should be able to object to and think and apply rational thought over.
I think actually they do, they trust that you won't dash them round the head with a rock and steal their money otherwise they would never go near you. And I think if they collapsed in the street and they begged you to call for an ambulance they'd expect you to care enough to do something.
Sorry, this is not black and white. Just because you owe something to your pet doesn't mean you owe nothing to a stranger.
It's tempting to say "Well I have to care for my pet, therefore in extreme absolutes I have no duty to the stranger".
No this IS a dilemma and you CANNOT fulfil your common duty of care - as a rational being - saving only one, yes you can save only one but you have to admit it is a tragedy and you are forced to betray one to be faithful to another. And you really have to try against all odds to save both and not just accept the death of a stranger you could have saved.
That's what can be learned from this exercise, not to harden out beliefs but to accept the tragedy of failing to protect.
It's little different if you had two of your pets downing and you could only save one.
Well, since I didn't get any reply, I'll lay out some hypotheticals for those who cite utility or the base superiority of man, as the reasoning for morality.
1) As I said, drowning carer of a man with downs syndrome, and his ward. Who do you save? The carer is more useful to society, and the man with downs syndrome is even less capable of fighting to save himself. What moral difference is there between saving the lives of either of these two people?
2) Would you save a person who had helped you personally (Say a surgeon), or a man who helps many, say, the head of an international charity? Can you justify one as being unworthy, on the basis of morality, to be saved?
3) If the utility is of the greatest import, should not organ donations be reserved for the most intelligent, ambitious and capable? Should we not let those less worthy die, as they will never have the same worth?
4) (For a reversal of utility) A man of lower social standing (He's scum, white trash, trailer trash, a bogan, what have you), or a homeless man, is drowning, as is the dog you currently look after. The dog is with you as a part of a guide dog training program-he's not yours, you're socialising him. The dog is obviously more useful than the bogan, and the bogan would despise you under any other situation, and apart from being enormously cute, the dog is affectionate. Which do you save?
I put to you that it's not a moral difference we're talking about guys, it's a personal one.
I have a few sections I split morality into.
1) Enforcable principles most useful to a happy, flourishing society, and the individual pursuit of happiness.
These are things we put into law. Duh.
2) Standards we would like to apply, as a part of ensuring the individual pursuit of happiness (I'd rather everyone would save everyone, so then I'd be saved [which answers the appeal to emotions too]), however, these are unenforceable, since, there's no wrongdoing in not risking your life for something. (In fact, to get technical here, saving the pet is morally good. Saving the person is morally good. Cause the default state is, they both die. You've reduced harm and suffering, you've done good).
3) Codes we'd like to consider morality. These are unjustified biases we have. Our love for others is one. Our loyalty to our tribes, whether that be species, or race, or political group, or religious views. These aren't a part of morality, and are not rational moral justifications.
I would put it that whilst 1) is the most applicable form of morality, 1 and 2 are what I'd consider morality in general. Which leaves us with the question: Is a dog worth more than a person, or vice versa? The utility is not the factor, nor longevity, nor the love we bear. I would posit that from the standpoint of beings, many animals are equivalent to humans, and can be justified so under 2)-we'd like to treat these animals nicely, but their lack of understanding of our principles makes their reciprocation impossible, and the enforcement of morality on most animals a fruitless endeavour.
Me? I consider my dog a part of my family. I love her, and she loves me. She's a very stupid and easily excitable member of my family, but so are children, so I'm not holding that against her. She is averse to pain, and understands that some things will cause harm, and some things will upset people. Any of us who've trained a dog out of biting people knows that the basic moral principle of not causing harm is trainable: Simple classical conditioning is used, basically like our justice system.
If I'm ever in danger, she tries to protect me-as I do her. Once on a walk, we encountered a venomous snake. She's got no way of knowing it is dangerous, but she acknowledged my fear, and followed my lead, and neither of us was bit. We're a community, and that's that. Just because she's stupid and useless does not make her worth less, and my love does not make her worth more. But ultimately, I'm going to judge based on my love, and consider beings as equals.
1) As I said, drowning carer of a man with downs syndrome, and his ward. Who do you save? The carer is more useful to society, and the man with downs syndrome is even less capable of fighting to save himself. What moral difference is there between saving the lives of either of these two people?
2) Would you save a person who had helped you personally (Say a surgeon), or a man who helps many, say, the head of an international charity? Can you justify one as being unworthy, on the basis of morality, to be saved?
3) If the utility is of the greatest import, should not organ donations be reserved for the most intelligent, ambitious and capable? Should we not let those less worthy die, as they will never have the same worth?
4) (For a reversal of utility) A man of lower social standing (He's scum, white trash, trailer trash, a bogan, what have you), or a homeless man, is drowning, as is the dog you currently look after. The dog is with you as a part of a guide dog training program-he's not yours, you're socialising him. The dog is obviously more useful than the bogan, and the bogan would despise you under any other situation, and apart from being enormously cute, the dog is affectionate. Which do you save?
I put to you that it's not a moral difference we're talking about guys, it's a personal one.
I have a few sections I split morality into.
1) Enforcable principles most useful to a happy, flourishing society, and the individual pursuit of happiness.
These are things we put into law. Duh.
2) Standards we would like to apply, as a part of ensuring the individual pursuit of happiness (I'd rather everyone would save everyone, so then I'd be saved [which answers the appeal to emotions too]), however, these are unenforceable, since, there's no wrongdoing in not risking your life for something. (In fact, to get technical here, saving the pet is morally good. Saving the person is morally good. Cause the default state is, they both die. You've reduced harm and suffering, you've done good).
3) Codes we'd like to consider morality. These are unjustified biases we have. Our love for others is one. Our loyalty to our tribes, whether that be species, or race, or political group, or religious views. These aren't a part of morality, and are not rational moral justifications.
I would put it that whilst 1) is the most applicable form of morality, 1 and 2 are what I'd consider morality in general. Which leaves us with the question: Is a dog worth more than a person, or vice versa? The utility is not the factor, nor longevity, nor the love we bear. I would posit that from the standpoint of beings, many animals are equivalent to humans, and can be justified so under 2)-we'd like to treat these animals nicely, but their lack of understanding of our principles makes their reciprocation impossible, and the enforcement of morality on most animals a fruitless endeavour.
Me? I consider my dog a part of my family. I love her, and she loves me. She's a very stupid and easily excitable member of my family, but so are children, so I'm not holding that against her. She is averse to pain, and understands that some things will cause harm, and some things will upset people. Any of us who've trained a dog out of biting people knows that the basic moral principle of not causing harm is trainable: Simple classical conditioning is used, basically like our justice system.
If I'm ever in danger, she tries to protect me-as I do her. Once on a walk, we encountered a venomous snake. She's got no way of knowing it is dangerous, but she acknowledged my fear, and followed my lead, and neither of us was bit. We're a community, and that's that. Just because she's stupid and useless does not make her worth less, and my love does not make her worth more. But ultimately, I'm going to judge based on my love, and consider beings as equals.
I was just rereading some of this thread, and I think you deserve some special credit for so thoroughly cutting through the heinous reasoning and complete ignorance of logic of Slayer.BloatedGuppy said:
Have an internet, since I can't embed images.
Treblaine said:
Uh...no. There's a difference between disagreement/defiance and betrayal. Betrayal as a massively bad thing applies pretty much to any situation where someone truly trusts someone else.
I only used Inferno as a convenient example of just how bad betrayal is, in that literarily you'd be equated to the likes of Satan, Warmaster Horus, Luthor, the Sith, Benedict Arnold, Judas, Saruman, etc etc.
Even Marcus Junius Brutus, who betrayed his friend Julius Caesar, is scorned as a terrible traitor DESPITE the fact that people recognize that he did what he did out of his love for Rome itself - hoping to save The Republic.
Nope. Don't confuse lack of suspicion/paranoia for being the same thing as trust. They're not remotely the same thing.
You can't logically "expect" someone to do something based on no evidence that that might be the case. They can HOPE someone will do something. Hope and expectation are not the same thing.
Little children CAN be expected to trust random people for no reason, but only because they haven't learned that they shouldn't yet. Anyone doing that as an adult is naive, at best.
You're right, that's not automatically true. There's always the possibility that the stranger has in some tangential way impacted your life positively. But by the base assumption of a stranger being a person you have nothing to do with, no, you don't owe them anything.