Poll: Your Pet is Drowning, and so is a Stranger.

[Spartan Altego]

TL;DR

Never thought I'd use that, but keeping it under two pages would have been nice. You still presented no points in the minute-worth I skimmed, and therefore bring nothing to the table. Let me take one from your book and say "you have no argument". Bye bye.

Well that was a pathetic way to say, "I'm done arguing with you because I can't defend my position anymore so I'm just gonna parrot your statement back at you and leave! But I'm still morally superior. So there!"

I guess sometimes immaturity and self-righteousness go hand in hand. Not implying anything that would reflect badly on you of course. Because that would be rude.

 

[bojackx]

Of course in the actual situation, we would try to find a way to save both, but in this scenario you assume it can't be done. I'm not entirely sure I see your whole "What's there to discuss in such grizzly matters in choosing between two awful alternatives?" point. Are you saying people shouldn't talk about depressing things? Because that kinda happens a lot on these forums.

I guess a much better question would be "what's more important to you: the life of your pet or the life of a random woman aged about 30?". At least that one can't possibly have any alternatives to think about.

That's pointlessly macabre trying to rank the worth of life, it's bordering of fascism to take such relative worth of lives when we should care about both of these.

This discussion can never serve to solidify our love for one, only harden us to the suffering of the other.

THAT is what I would rather discuss, how we are so willing to think one life is more important than the other. THAT is important as THAT is going to save more lives. Far more likely than the "really can save only one" is the "it's harder to save both, easy to convince yourself you can only save one".

Indulging in the selfish idea of so easily abandoning "less important" life only serves the latter.

It's grizzly, barbaric, illiberal and has no place in modern egalitarian society.

Why should I have to choose? You wouldn't force a parent to chose which of their children to the slaughter? Not with logic like:

"Are you saying people shouldn't talk about depressing things?"

Yes. Talking about which one you'd rather let die is sick and macabre.

A stranger and my pet may not be the same as my offspring but do I not love them? Would I not be horrified to see them suffer?

Sure, there's no way to state that one life is more valuable than any other as fact, but of course some people are going to be more important to you than random strangers. It's not barbaric to value different people different amounts, everyone does it and it'd be weird if we didn't value loved ones over strangers. That's like you calling it barbaric when people on the forums ask "who do you prefer, your mother or father?" because you're stating one is better than the other.

In the question, you're hardly "abandoning" the one you don't save. If there's no conceivable way to save both, saving one is really the best you can do.

 

[Treblaine]

THAT is what I would rather discuss, how we are so willing to think one life is more important than the other. THAT is important as THAT is going to save more lives. Far more likely than the "really can save only one" is the "it's harder to save both, easy to convince yourself you can only save one".

It's garden variety anthropocentrism. It's a central conceit to the mythology that mankind is above/separate/unique, that we have souls where other mammals do not, that we have a divine destiny/right to hold dominion over the earth, etc, etc, etc. There really isn't a RATIONAL argument to be made as to why human life is automatically worth more, unless you're making a profoundly utilitarian argument about the propagation of the species, and I don't think anyone is pushing that particular point (granted, I've not read all 30 odd pages).

Save a drowning animal, save a drowning human. Both are altruistic gestures and worthy of commendation. There's actually an argument to be made that the former is more inherently "noble" because there's no biological drive to preserve your own species at work, but that's not really an argument I'm prepared to endorse because it would just set off a shit storm with the resident brigade of zealots.

Ultimately the majority of people will act in a way that provides the maximum amount of personal harm reduction, as usual. And there's really nothing wrong with that.

Er...in case it wasn't clear I'm generally agreeing with the point you were making there, in a very rambling fashion.

I think a rational argument can be made on a broader front, if one insect pregnant with larvae is found in your crops, if allowed to breed it will destroy your crop that hundreds of humans depend on the avoid famine. Is one insect - that can live for no more than a year in a simple life cycle of eating, reproducing and eating more - worth more than the lives of many more humans that explore and discover about the universe?

But that's an insect, this is not a black and white issue putting your pet dog on the same level as insects but there is a grey gradient, this just illustrates that we don't necessarily have to treat all life equally or we will end up crippled like Jainism extremists who dare not sit down for they might crush a microscopically small animal thinking it's as bad as killing their sister. Dogs kept as pets are not as worthless as pest insects but there is rational consideration that they aren't indistinguishable from human people.

(I don't see the point in "people" necessarily being for humans, our extinct hominid ancestors were very likely people yet not human, and many of the great apes fit definitions of "people". But I can say with confidence an amoeba is not a person, and I don't have to filter my water for fear of murdering millions of people per gulp.)

What I don't like about this hypothetical is it is asking to accept callous abandonment in extreme circumstances when I think the only rational response is "I refuse to answer the question".

It's like a moralistic equivalent of "are you still beating your wife, yes or no" it's a *gotcha* question designed to make people look bad by forcing them to choose between two awful alternatives.

So I refuse to accept this question. As a free thinking being I refuse to submit to such confined circumstances and I won't give the binary response of "Yes, I've stopped beating my wife" or "No, I'm still beating her" but the rational answer that is not arbitrarily confined by the framer "I've never beaten my wife" and

"Regardless of the relative worth of lives, I'll try to save BOTH, and FUCK YOU if you say I can't, I'll drown TRYING!"

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think a rational argument can be made on a broader front, if one insect pregnant with larvae is found in your crops, if allowed to breed it will destroy your crop that hundreds of humans depend on the avoid famine. Is one insect - that can live for no more than a year in a simple life cycle of eating, reproducing and eating more - worth more than the lives of many more humans that explore and discover about the universe?

But that's an insect, this is not a black and white issue putting your pet dog on the same level as insects but there is a grey gradient, this just illustrates that we don't necessarily have to treat all life equally or we will end up crippled like Jainism extremists who dare not sit down for they might crush a microscopically small animal thinking it's as bad as killing their sister. Dogs kept as pets are not as worthless as pest insects but there is rational consideration that they aren't indistinguishable from human people.

(I don't see the point in "people" necessarily being for humans, our extinct hominid ancestors were very likely people yet not human, and many of the great apes fit definitions of "people". But I can say with confidence an amoeba is not a person, and I don't have to filter my water for fear of murdering millions of people per gulp.)

What I don't like about this hypothetical is it is asking to accept callous abandonment in extreme circumstances when I think the only rational response is "I refuse to answer the question".

It's like a moralistic equivalent of "are you still beating your wife, yes or no" it's a *gotcha* question designed to make people look bad by forcing them to choose between two awful alternatives.

So I refuse to accept this question. As a free thinking being I refuse to submit to such confined circumstances and I won't give the binary response of "Yes, I've stopped beating my wife" or "No, I'm still beating her" but the rational answer that is not arbitrarily confined by the framer "I've never beaten my wife" and

"Regardless of the relative worth of lives, I'll try to save BOTH, and FUCK YOU if you say I can't, I'll drown TRYING!"

Totally. I would never suggest that we don't stratify the value of life, we totally do. It's inevitable. As you say, to do otherwise would be utterly paralyzing. By existing, you're going to cause death. I can certainly understand why someone might value a companion animal over a stranger human, though. I don't believe that the stratification of life necessarily entails that humans always come out on top regardless of the individual in question. There's really no reasonable argument (again, beyond the extremely utilitarian/pragmatic one) to be made why they should. Other than "They're a human, of course they should", as though that in and of itself was sufficient evidence of our superiority as a life form. We don't apply a priori biological instincts to other ethical dilemmas, so I'm not certain why there is this presumption on the part of some that they must automatically apply to this one.

I expect 99.9% of respondents on this forum would, in an ideal circumstance, choose to save both. Which is why the notion of "choosing one is actively endorsing the murder of the other" is such a ridiculous one. Now I can't swim, so in attempting to save either I would simply create a third victim that needed rescue, but that's beside the point. =P

 

[Treblaine]

Sure, there's no way to state that one life is more valuable than any other as fact, but of course some people are going to be more important to you than random strangers. It's not barbaric to value different people different amounts, everyone does it and it'd be weird if we didn't value loved ones over strangers. That's like you calling it barbaric when people on the forums ask "who do you prefer, your mother or father?" because you're stating one is better than the other.

In the question, you're hardly "abandoning" the one you don't save. If there's no conceivable way to save both, saving one is really the best you can do.

That's not the barbarism I'm talking about, it's barbaric to casually accept with forethought to intend to let others die.

It's not disputable and quite obvious that people value certain lives over others, it's barbaric to indulge in circumstances of callous abandonment of less valued individuals. It's close enough to abandonment, it would certainly feel like that for them. The differing values isn't barbaric, it's the disingenuous indulgence in "lifeboat morality" of contrived circumstance that sees *necessity* over-rule ethics that they know are the right things to do.

It's like asking what you'd do in situation where a poor black African refugee and your own neighbour waiting to board the last place a rescue chopper out of the killing fields, it's barbaric to indulge in circumstances that makes you chose one life over another. What does that serve other than harden and accept the suffering of those more distant from us.

Far better effort is spent in trying to figure out how to save lives, not which lives we are willing to be lost.

 

[Treblaine]

I expect 99.9% of respondents on this forum would, in an ideal circumstance, choose to save both. Which is why the notion of "choosing one is actively endorsing the murder of the other" is such a ridiculous one. Now I can't swim, so in attempting to save either I would simply create a third victim that needed rescue, but that's beside the point. =P

I'm training as a life-guard and I take this seriously.

By my problem is the very idea of accepting such macabre circumstances doesn't make us better human beings. It makes us more fascist, no matter which we decide to save/abandon.

This is where the likes of Heinlien and Roddenberry differ, Heinlien saw such dilemmas as an opportunity to harden and justify the prejudices of characters, Roddenberry saw such dilemma to drive human endeavour for progress.

Throughout human history, societies have stagnated by trying to chose between screwing one or the other, we only started to really pull ourselves up when we thought outside the box and focused efforts on a third better way, not choosing again between two awful compromises.

 

[Slayer_2]

Well that was a pathetic way to say, "I'm done arguing with you because I can't defend my position anymore so I'm just gonna parrot your statement back at you and leave! But I'm still morally superior. So there!"

I guess sometimes immaturity and self-righteousness go hand in hand. Not implying anything that would reflect badly on you of course. Because that would be rude.

No, it was a way to say "why should I argue with a guy who tries to bring science and objectivity into a discussion that is 100% about moral values? The only "facts" here are opinion, and using as many big words as you want won't change that. Hence the discussion is futile, and I do not wish to waste anymore time replying to his novel-sized reply. Plus he's hypocritical, sarcastic, and brings no points or stance of his own to the table.

Oh and I admit to being self righteous, it's hard NOT to feel superior surrounded by a bunch of people who'd let me drown for Fluffy. I can only hope they end up in the same situation so that the world may be cleansed of them. Arguing this goes nowhere, since it is purely based on moral values, and you can't tell the psychopath why murdering is wrong. Why should we waste more time on it? If it makes you guys feel better: "you win, you are superior, I bow to your amazing debate skill". Now, I'm off to do something more worth-while, like whack off.

Understandable. His rebuttals were pretty airtight. I don't think that you'll be winning the election after this debate, Mr. Slayer.

Yes, airtight, I'm sure. As much as you can have airtight arguments in a moral discussion. Like a submarine made out of sponge. See above for more info.

 

[Spartan Altego]

Well that was a pathetic way to say, "I'm done arguing with you because I can't defend my position anymore so I'm just gonna parrot your statement back at you and leave! But I'm still morally superior. So there!"

I guess sometimes immaturity and self-righteousness go hand in hand. Not implying anything that would reflect badly on you of course. Because that would be rude.

No, it was a way to say "why should I argue with a guy who tries to bring science and objectivity into a discussion that is 100% about moral values? The only "facts" here are opinion, and using as many big words as you want won't change that. Hence the discussion is futile, and I do not wish to waste anymore time replying to his novel-sized reply. Plus he's hypocritical, sarcastic, and brings no points or stance of his own to the table.

Oh and I admit to being self righteous, it's hard NOT to feel superior surrounded by a bunch of people who'd let me drown for Fluffy. I can only hope they end up in the same situation so that the world may be cleansed of them. Arguing this goes nowhere, since it is purely based on moral values, and you can't tell the psychopath why murdering is wrong. Why should we waste more time on it? If it makes you guys feel better: "you win, you are superior, I bow to your amazing debate skill". Now, I'm off to do something more worth-while, like whack off.

You just called him a psychopath for having differing moral values? Cute. It's shocking that only after you've seemingly realized you have no more counter-points to give out (which most would call 'Losing the argument') that you say "Arguing this is pointless!" and wishing that those with differing options to yours would drown or otherwise die. That just radiates maturity. Never mind that nobody arguing against you have actively wished for your death (to my knowledge) and you've spent as much time debating the subject as anybody else in this thread.

But I suppose you're somehow special and that of course your arguments have a point to them: It's everybody else who has the problem.

On topic:

Everybody in this thread, including myself, has probably forgotten the most important thing of all: The OP never mentioned any consequences for your choice. It was based solely on emotional connection, like the choice on Virmire. There's no real "wrong" choice because there's no "right" choice except what the reader puts on it. It's disconnected from reality. I'd bet a lot of us would choose differently based on whether there were consequences or not for saving the pet or human.

You just called him a psychopath for having differing moral values? Cute.

You just put words in my mouth? Cute.

"Plus he's hypocritical, sarcastic, and brings no points or stance of his own to the table.

Oh and I admit to being self righteous, it's hard NOT to feel superior surrounded by a bunch of people who'd let me drown for Fluffy. I can only hope they end up in the same situation so that the world may be cleansed of them. Arguing this goes nowhere, since it is purely based on moral values, and you can't tell the psychopath why murdering is wrong."

I apologize for my mistake. The above led me to believe you were insinuatiting the person you were arguing with was a psychopath.

 

[Pandabearparade]

I don't think that you'll be winning the election after this debate, Mr. Slayer.

He has my vote.

Well, not really, I vote for myself. But he would definitely be second or third on the list.

 

[Slayer_2]

You just called him a psychopath for having differing moral values? Cute.

You just put words in my mouth? Cute.

It's shocking that only after you've seemingly realized you have no more counter-points to give out (which most would call 'Losing the argument') that you say "Arguing this is pointless!"

I told you, I have better things to do that fight an impossible battle. It's clear to me that both of us have differing view on what human life is worth, and I doubt any amount of internet bickering will change that.

and wishing that those with differing options to yours would drown or otherwise die. That just radiates maturity.

AND

But I suppose you're somehow special and that of course your arguments have a point to them: It's everybody else who has the problem.

Oh, look who's getting on a high horse now. 50% of the people here admitted they would let someone drown, why do they deserve better? Because it's them? Because they're special? Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Never mind that nobody arguing against you have actively wished for your death (to my knowledge) and you've spent as much time debating the subject as anybody else in this thread.

Anyone who voted for the pet essentially has, so a current total of 677 people. I'm a stranger to them, so there is a chance it could be me. And I have, now I realize how futile it is trying to argue morality, since neither side will back down. Is it worth it to me to read about 3-4 pages of text, reply to it all, and have it ignored, taken out of context, and distorted? No, not really. I'll just ignore him instead. Call it losing the argument if it pleases you. What is in it for me to listen to his hypocritical, all fluff no substance ramblings? Nothing.

On topic:

Everybody in this thread, including myself, has probably forgotten the most important thing of all: The OP never mentioned any consequences for your choice. It was based solely on emotional connection, like the choice on Virmire. There's no real "wrong" choice because there's no "right" choice except what the reader puts on it. It's disconnected from reality. I'd bet a lot of us would choose differently based on whether there were consequences or not for saving the pet or human.

I assume it's because the consequences are more or less obvious, and what isn't is left to your imagination. It'd vary slightly person-to-person, depending where you live and how much people find out about what happened (witnesses, etc). Save the human, you're sad about the dog to varying degrees, but you get showered with thanks from the stranger and community. Or save the dog, feel guilty about the human to varying degrees, and possibly face legal action or people generally hating you for a while, depending how much they know. I've also assumed that there is no risk of you drowning or suffering harm if you only save one, although unless you are a trained lifeguard, this is unlikely, however it is a hypothetical scenario.

He has my vote.

Well, not really, I vote for myself. But he would definitely be second or third on the list.

Thanks Panda, I'll be sure to leave you a spot on the debate team now. But only if you vote for me. Also, why did you make this thread, it brought me so low I considered posting the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme... Most depressing forum posts I've seen since I saw that pedophile forum.

 

[Kirex]

Did you purposely not quote my whole paragraph to twist my words, after I finished the sentence about the 8 year old girl I said the age shouldn't matter. I was saying the same as you but making the point that if the poll had asked between your dog and an 8 year old girl than I think the poll would read differently. I managed to come up with these thoughts in 20 seconds, (the time it would take you to swim towards them), this is more than enough time to consider what you are about to do and how it will affect others as long as you keep your head screwed on straight and don't freak out, which shouldn't be hard to do. Like I said I love my pet but I would pick the stranger, It could be you out there drowning after all

In terms of the Robot, I was saying because the robot was choosing the option that benefited itself, The robot would choose the efficient easy way because it has no emotions and does not care about consequences of it's actions, The human would choose the painful sad option but ultimately right (I would hope), save the human. because a Human is capable of understanding there actions and emotional consequences on others, A robot is not.

Sorry, that with the girl came across that way, even if you denied it. My fault for falsely interpreting things.

Keeping your head screwed on straight is harder than you think in such a situation and I wouldn't make any wild claims about that. Well, at least as long as I'm talking about myself, because I know me. You can do that and you're sure of that? Fine, perfect, that's a good trait of character. But you can't just go out and expect other people to be, because it is a very stressful situation.
The "it could be you" sounds like you'd only do it because you'd want other people to do the same. I think you don't mean it that way, but that's no argument for your case, because - as I've already said - I wouldn't judge anyone for saving his pet instead of me or my family members, at least in the long run. And as I also said, I WOULD expect everyone to try saving both. If someone didn't, then I'm willing to talk in the terms of "unforgivable asshole".

Oh, you're talking about that kind of robot. Huh. Okay, then it depends on what set of rules the robot is programmed with. I guess you're right, but who would program an egotistical robot? That's not very practical
No, but seriously, let's leave the robot out of the way, I just meant with robot "a guy who always thinks rationally", and picking the human is quite the rational decision. It hurts you more for the benefit of other people.

STUFF

Do you hate people who don't give to charity, too? After all, they could save lives, but instead they buy themselves luxurious shit. There isn't even another being on the line, it's just inanimate unneeded shit. By your arguments, you should hate them, because you could be one of the kids in Africa. Do you? And if not, would you kindly elaborate on the difference?

I'm not passive-aggressive here, I just don't get it. Seriously. I'm with you on the "save the human"-side, but I don't get why you'd hate the others.

 

[Spartan Altego]

On topic:

Everybody in this thread, including myself, has probably forgotten the most important thing of all: The OP never mentioned any consequences for your choice. It was based solely on emotional connection, like the choice on Virmire. There's no real "wrong" choice because there's no "right" choice except what the reader puts on it. It's disconnected from reality. I'd bet a lot of us would choose differently based on whether there were consequences or not for saving the pet or human.

I assume it's because the consequences are more or less obvious, and what isn't is left to your imagination. It'd vary slightly person-to-person, depending where you live and how much people find out about what happened (witnesses, etc). Save the human, you're sad about the dog to varying degrees, but you get showered with thanks from the stranger and community. Or save the dog, feel guilty about the human to varying degrees, and possibly face legal action or people generally hating you for a while, depending how much they know. I've also assumed that there is no risk of you drowning or suffering harm if you only save one, although unless you are a trained lifeguard, this is unlikely, however it is a hypothetical scenario.

There's still a keen difference between debating about what you'd do in a (hopefully) safe and calm environment rather than actually being faced with the choice. I seriously doubt that more than 50% of the voters here (If you disregard calling for help) would actually let another person die to save their pet, if not only because the sheer volume of social damage that would incur would force them to choose the human.

Add to that the genetic instinct to preserve your species and the rigidly enforced code of morality and socially acceptable actions...well, let's just say choosing the pet becomes a non-option. And I'm still of the belief that a better topic would be "Would you save a stranger or a valued family member/friend?" because many here are of the belief that human life is sacred and above that of animals. It's a better experiment.

...In fact, that sounds like it deserves it's own thread. Gonna go work on that.

Also, apologies (in case you missed my edit) for misinterpreting your words with the "psychopath" comment. You may not believe it, but it was not intentional. Again, sorry about that.

 

[Loonyyy]

epic snip

Well said sir, well said! I would have honored you with a fillion picture, but there wasnt one of him clapping, so you get Riker instead! :3

Thankyou. I think *gasp*, I prefer the Riker!

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

 

[Ieyke]

I'd save my dog...

I know it makes me sound terrible, but to be fair, she saved me from a bear while I was taking a walk up north. I owe her one.

Exactly. My dogs would fight to the death to protect me and my family. Why in the world would I not return the favor?
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:

Ninth Circle and final Circle Of Hell (Treachery):
Dante speaks to the traitors in the ice, Canto 32.
The ninth and last circle is ringed by classical and Biblical giants, who perhaps symbolize pride and other spiritual flaws lying behind acts of treachery. The giants are standing on a ledge above the ninth circle of Hell, so that from the Malebolge they are visible from the waist up. They include Nimrod, as well as Ephialtes (who with his brother Otus tried to storm Olympus during the Gigantomachy), Briareus, Tityos, and Typhon. The giant Antaeus (being the only giant unbound with chains) lowers Dante and Virgil into the pit that forms the ninth circle of Hell (Canto XXXI).

The traitors are distinguished from the "merely" fraudulent in that their acts involve betraying a special relationship of some kind. There are four concentric zones (or "rounds") of traitors, corresponding, in order of seriousness, to betrayal of family ties, betrayal of community ties, betrayal of guests, and betrayal of liege lords. In contrast to the popular image of Hell as fiery, the traitors are frozen in a lake of ice known as Cocytus, with each group encased in ice to progressively greater depths.

Satan is trapped in the frozen central zone in the Ninth Circle of Hell, Canto 34.
In the very centre of Hell, condemned for committing the ultimate sin (personal treachery against God), is Satan.

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.

 

[ENCC1701c]

REMOVED /10char

 

[Treblaine]

While I understand that those who would save the stranger might just be better able to handle loss and sacrifice,

Hang on a minute, we're talking about a pet here, are you excepting your pet to OUTLIVE you?

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?

 

[Treblaine]

Historically, it's pretty well established that betrayal is regarded as basically THE worst thing you can do.
Even in Dante's Inferno:

Ninth Circle and final Circle Of Hell (Treachery):
Dante speaks to the traitors in the ice, Canto 32.
...

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.

Yeah, well history was written by psychos, lets see what the other circles were for:

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.

They have no trust in random people around them

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.

 

[ENCC1701c]

REMOVED /10char

 

[Loonyyy]

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.