I'd save my dog, and yes, in that case I'd be an egotistical dickbag. I would also save my friends over anyone else and I would never judge someone negatively who does the same. Emotions get the better of us and if I had to think fast in a situation like that I wouldn't have the time to reassess the situation and I'd just instinctively save what is more dear to me.
If I had the time to think, well... I honestly don't know yet. I have to think about it.
I still don't see any proof why utilitarianism should be the absolute truth as you claim it to be, but I won't give you any venom for that. It's - like I said - at least practical.
EDIT:
If I had the time to think, well... I honestly don't know yet. I have to think about it.
By what is morality defined, then? Please tell me, because I honestly don't know. If you define "moral" as "utilitarianistic"(I think that's what you meant by your previous long post, what with "net suffering" etc.), okay, that's not the same thing, but I kind of see where you come from because it is at least a very practical standpoint in a social environment.Pandabearparade said:Around the same number disagree with evolution and climate change. The truth isn't up for a vote.Fodder Aplenty said:if they were set in stone, why are there still moral debates? why are we having this converstion? why do so many disagree with you?
I still don't see any proof why utilitarianism should be the absolute truth as you claim it to be, but I won't give you any venom for that. It's - like I said - at least practical.
EDIT:
Also, I had to laugh at that.Calibanbutcher said:Hwat if I am a mute quadruple amputee?