NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets say you go on a cruise. Some how you are able to take along your faithful dog Spot who once saved you from drowning in a bathtub full of gin by selflessly drinking the contents. Although the vet bill was horrific you gladly paid it because after all he saved your life. While aboard ship a man comes up to you and starts a conversation. Through a series of misunderstandings not seen since Threes Company he has mistaken you for a criminal. He confides that he too is a neer-do-well who has been in and out of prison most of his life. He intends to steal the Vangaurd diamond worn by Lady Chardsworth. His partner missed the boat and he wants to recruit you to help him steal it. Being an honest person you say sorry no thanks. Before you can report him to the captain there is an load noise. The boiler blew up and the ship is sinking. Before you know it you are floating in the ocean hanging on to a piece of debris. 40 yards to the east you see your faithful dog Spot struggling to reach you. To the west another 40 yards is the thief barely able to tred water and about to drown. Do you paddle over and save your dog. Or do you save the thief. One of them will drown because there is no way to save one without the other drowning. Which do you save?

Is the life of a human, even this one, more valuable than that of an animal?

Me...I save my dog.

So long Spot, you shoulda perfected that dogpaddle.

~Whistles~ "C'mere boy! Good boy, just a few more dog-paddles!"

Psh, that dog is a benefit to my life. A murderer isn't. Save the dog!

I save my dog.

Come on Spot, let's find shore.

would have to go with the criminal

basterd though he may be

F*ck 'em both! I hate dogs.... :p

while, as anybody with any aquatic rescue experience knows

you are probably best not to go after the man. A drowning person will try to use you as a floating devise, I assume the dog would too, but they arent nearly as capable as a man in water. Unless you are a trained lifeguard or something of that nature, it is probably best not to attempt to rescue the man. Even being trained myself, i would probably not attempt it. I would likly throw the debris to him and tread to the dog in hopes of finding new debris, if not i can return to the previous debris with the man (provided he has grabbed onto it)

the best part is that if the man doesnt want to share, I have already by the nature of the situation proven myself a better swimmer and would have little difficulty commandeering the debris for myself if he wont share.

I would, hands down, save the dog. I do not value human life much above any other form of sentient life. And not even non-sentient life is too far away (though I really don't care about those unicellular organisms). If I had a close personal tie to the human, perhaps, but I love animals very much, and consider it arrognace to regard humans as separate from Animalia.

while, as anybody with any aquatic rescue experience knows

you are probably best not to go after the man. A drowning person will try to use you as a floating devise, I assume the dog would too, but they arent nearly as capable as a man in water. Unless you are a trained lifeguard or something of that nature, it is probably best not to attempt to rescue the man. Even being trained myself, i would probably not attempt it. I would likly throw the debris to him and tread to the dog in hopes of finding new debris, if not i can return to the previous debris with the man (provided he has grabbed onto it)

the best part is that if the man doesnt want to share, I have already by the nature of the situation proven myself a better swimmer and would have little difficulty commandeering the debris for myself if he wont share.

Many a rescue crew have found bodies drowned with bruised shoulder-tops from where others have stood on them to save themselves. As Frank Herbert pointed out, this is understandable behavior, except when one sees it in the drawing room.

Many a rescue crew have found bodies drowned with bruised shoulder-tops from where others have stood on them to save themselves. As Frank Herbert pointed out, this is understandable behavior, except when one sees it in the drawing room.

definatly

Im lucky that i only ever had to grab a kid once or twice while i was a lifeguard

but even then, even when you have them securly in a hip - tow, they will struggle and try to float and swim.

Ya, I would agree with Herbert, it makes complete sence in a non-sencical way

-snip-
Duh, save Spot - he saved your life; you should at least return the favor

I would give the criminal some mercy.

The dog is a raging alcoholic, but the theif seemed nice enough to confide in you. I'd save the theif and let the booze hound drown.

Hang on to the debris. If you can move the debris to dog or man do so - but do not let go of it. This float is going to be what is keeping you alive for the next wee while and is the most valuable thing in your universe.

My dog of course!

Escape in the mini-sub after stealing the diamond. Incidentally, the bathtub event was a fantasy suicide attempt, paying for the vet bill was to see if they could remove the government probe while they were in there.

I don't own a dog, but I wouldn't save a theif, either. Unless I knew the theif.

I'd save my faithful pet dog without a second thought.

I think we should try to correlate who opted to save the dog with who is pro-choice and who opted to save the criminal with who is pro-life

I think we should try to correlate who opted to save the dog with who is pro-choice and who opted to save the criminal with who is pro-life
Death penalty might be a better choice.

I think we should try to correlate who opted to save the dog with who is pro-choice and who opted to save the criminal with who is pro-life

Well that proves untrue for me at least... I am pro-life and I would save the dog without a second thought.

Yeah death penalty would be a better comparison.

geez i shouldnt have read people's answers first

now im worried that my piece of debris isnt big enough to hold 2 grown people. if its not big enough, im not going near him.

if it IS big enough, i would try paddling over there, and let the guy get on himself. if he looks like he cant save himself for being too weak, id paddle back to the dog

id HATE to lose the money i spent saving the damned dog but his liver is shot anyway. hes got a couple good years, the thief has many many (most of which will be spent in jail)


damn i guess id ditz around until they both went under. now i feel guilty

I'd hypothetically pull out a hypothetical raft from my hypothetical pocket, toss it to the hypothetical thief, then use my hypothetical magic powers to hypothetically levitate the hypothetical dog.

I'd hypothetically pull out a hypothetical raft from my hypothetical pocket, toss it to the hypothetical thief, then use my hypothetical magic powers to hypothetically levitate the hypothetical dog.

Hypothetically speaking, i think that is cheating.

Well that proves untrue for me at least... I am pro-life and I would save the dog without a second thought.

Yeah death penalty would be a better comparison.

I was thinking death penalty. I was posting on that thread earlier.

would have to go with the criminal

basterd though he may be
But you turned down his offer. Aren't you afraid he might try to drown you to keep you quiet.

I would, hands down, save the dog. I do not value human life much above any other form of sentient life. And not even non-sentient life is too far away (though I really don't care about those unicellular organisms). If I had a close personal tie to the human, perhaps, but I love animals very much, and consider it arrognace to regard humans as separate from Animalia.

Good, I was hoping someone would say something like that.

The dog deserve you to save him, given he did the same for you. Even if the criminal didn't mind you, he's a criminal never the less.

Well I'd save the theif this is why I'd do it, He's oviously not a christian so has a christian It is my duty and responsability to save him. You'll lose your dog but isn't it worth it so that when you get to heaven that man might be standing there to thank you for giving him the gift of eternal life.

id HATE to lose the money i spent saving the damned dog but his liver is shot anyway. hes got a couple good years, the thief has many many (most of which will be spent in jail)


But Spot has such pretty yellow and brown eyes.

Well I would instinctivly have more faith in the dog to reach the debri than the person, so I would leave my piece of debri and call my dog to it while I swam to save the human. Since they are both in hindsight of another, my swimming to the person should lead the dog towards the debri in the middle of us. Plus trying to swim while holding a dog above water is inherently more difficult than another person. You can straddle and keep afloat the person and hope for less resistance through communication than you can with a animal. I would not choose to give up hope on either no matter if it looks/stated to be impossible, I would gladly die trying to save both in place of living and knowing you lost hope on another.

The human, no question

Depends on how well I know them. If I don't know them, and they're far away...

Let's be honest. Your best, lifelong friend dies. You're going to cry, so obviously you're going to be sad (and perhaps cry). You valued your friend greatly.

Now you hear on the news that some person, unnamed, on the other side of the world, bought it. Maybe even a violent end. They're just part of a body count, not even a name. You continue to eat your lunch, thinking about your schedule for the rest of the afternoon.

Depends on how well I know them. If I don't know them, and they're far away...

Let's be honest. Your best, lifelong friend dies. You're going to cry, so obviously you're going to be sad (and perhaps cry). You valued your friend greatly.

Now you hear on the news that some person, unnamed, on the other side of the world, bought it. Maybe even a violent end. They're just part of a body count, not even a name. You continue to eat your lunch, thinking about your schedule for the rest of the afternoon.
but can you help them all?

Who cares? It's April in the middle of the North Atlantic. Everybody is going to be dead in minutes.

I would, hands down, save the dog. I do not value human life much above any other form of sentient life. And not even non-sentient life is too far away (though I really don't care about those unicellular organisms). If I had a close personal tie to the human, perhaps, but I love animals very much, and consider it arrognace to regard humans as separate from Animalia.

Same here! Go animals!!!

but can you help them all?


Heck no. When would I find time to eat?

Heck no. When would I find time to eat?
...mmm.... food

Human life always trumps animal life. Sorry Spot.

Fuck spot, save the thief... is there enough time for that?

I'd save the criminal.

Of course, I'd be crushed to do that to my faithful friend, but in the end I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I let another human being die just to save an animal. Dog may be man's best friend, but it's just a pet. The criminal, however, is another human being: sentient and intelligent(well, unless we're unlucky and he's a moron). I'll save a human life, even a stranger's and a thief's, before an animal's life.

Save the dog. I don't know the theif. Probably if I save him, he might robbed me later. Never know the kind of people they are in this world.

I'd save Spot.

It's all about the Monkeysphere (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html)

I'd save the criminal.

Of course, I'd be crushed to do that to my faithful friend, but in the end I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I let another human being die just to save an animal. Dog may be man's best friend, but it's just a pet. The criminal, however, is another human being: sentient and intelligent(well, unless we're unlucky and he's a moron). I'll save a human life, even a stranger's and a thief's, before an animal's life.

Madass dumbf+ck. Animals are 100000000 times better than people.
Youv'e obviously never had a pet.

Think of it this way, would you save your own brother, or TWO random people you've never met before in your life?

Haha.

Strongly reminds me of a greek tragedy:

King Oeneus of Calydon forgot to honour the Godess Artemis on some occasion. Artemis punished him by sending a huge aggresive boar to the lands around Calydon. A hunting party was gathered consisting of Meleager (the son of Oeneus), family and friends.
Among them was Atalanta. She hits the boar the first.
Meleager throws 2 spears, one hitting the boar which falls down, and finishes him with his blade.
He wants Atalanta to have a share of the prize: the Boar's head. This causes great jealousy among the party, and two of his uncles take the troffee from her.
Meleager is furious and kills them both.

Meleager's thread of life is connected to a block of wood. Should the queen (Althaea) burn the block of wood?

Youv'e obviously never had a pet.

Actually, I've had a female dog named Lady for 14 years. I had her when she was three months old, and went with her to the vet for her euthanasia last year in August. I held her in my arms to comfort her while she drifted to sleep. I am hardly ignorant when it comes to having an animal friend share three quarters of my life.

And yet I would have saved another human being's life before I would have saved hers. The reasons why are explained in my previous post. Now unless you're interested in discussing motives or reasons why animals are worth more than human beings in a way that's not disrespectful toward me, I suggest you go hang yourself or go play in traffic or something.

(Yeah, I'd save your ass over the dog's too. Even though I would cringe at having to share my debris in your company.)

not disrespectful toward me, I suggest you go hang yourself or go play in traffic or something.

(Yeah, I'd save your ass over the dog's too. Even though I would cringe at having to share my debris in your company.)

Save it, asshole. I'd rather the dog saved than me.

Think of it this way, would you save your own brother, or TWO random people you've never met before in your life?

Haha.

Now that's a much harder moral debate, since all those to be saved or drown are human beings.

I don't have a brother, but I suppose if I had I would save him first. It's probably out of my animal instinct to save family first. And I'd wish the two guys to find a family member nearby to save em before they drown.

I'd save Spot.

It's all about the Monkeysphere (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html)


That's f*ckin brilliant!

I'd save the dog. No criminal is worth it.

Possibility 1: The dog knows how to swim (most do). I save the thief and join him in a cabal reminiscent of Lupin III.
Possibility 2: I'm not really a dog person. I head for the thief, help him in exchange for his help in a much larger heist.
Possibility 3: Still apathetic of the dog's situation, I approach the thief, appearing to help him. Then, I drown him and loot the corpse of any previous thievings.

Fuck spot, save the thief... is there enough time for that?

As long as you don't spend too much time talking about it, yes.

The Legless Pirate wants to save the thief. There's something humorous there but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Well I'd save the theif this is why I'd do it, He's oviously not a christian so has a christian It is my duty and responsability to save him. You'll lose your dog but isn't it worth it so that when you get to heaven that man might be standing there to thank you for giving him the gift of eternal life.

Or your dog might be there ready to take revenge on the ungrateful owner.

"GRRRR!"
"I was coming back for you Spot....HONEST!"

in this sort of situation, the proverbial dog would tend to be the priority. the reason being that you get unconditional love from an animal. for all we know the thief may have been sucidal and wanted to die. in his frustration of you saving him he may have bitten/murdered you. therefore, the dog being to stupid to be suicidal would of course be top priority...

Dogs are stupid beasts. Save the thief, then charge him a "life-saving fee".

If it was a cat instead of a dog, I'd save the cat, even at the cost of my life.

I swim over to the struggling thief, and throttle him. I then use his lifeless, but bloated body as a rescue float. Swim over to the now drowned dog, and hold onto his lifeless corpse, in case I make it to a desert island and need something to eat.

Oh yeah, and go through the guy's pockets for loose change.

On a split decision i'd probably save the dog.

However i'd regret the decision afterwards, people find it much easier to get over the death of a dog than they do a human, i'd probably be causing far more sadness by saving the dog than i would if i saved the thief.

This was mentioned by Chodolo but to th rest of you , read the monkey sphere at www.pointlesswasteoftime.com im not sure how accurate it is but its pretty interesting

Spot.

The thief should know how to hang unto something.

I like to think that i value human life but I'd always save the dog!

I'd get the dog, obviously and grant poor Mother Nature a reprieve from having to support another human being. We've already done enough damage.

- Asylum Nova

The value of a human life depends on the particular human it belongs to. To hell with the theif.

i'd save my dog.

his life is as valuable as anyother life. and we're talking about saving the life of a loved one here. i probably wouldn't even notice the theif.

Dog.

1 - It saved my life
2 - the human is a theif

The last time I checked, materials-wise the human body is worth $23.49. I simply tack $100 on top of that to cover the personality and potential for great things. I don't make it higher due to the supply.

The last time I checked, materials-wise the human body is worth $23.49. I simply tack $100 on top of that to cover the personality and potential for great things. I don't make it higher due to the supply.

Yeah, but is it available at Walmart.

Woof!

So far the dog is winning 24 to 13 with three saving neither and a few with nonsensable answers.

Yeah, but is it available at Walmart.
Sooo, never been to the back room I take it?

i'd save my dog.

his life is as valuable as anyother life. and we're talking about saving the life of a loved one here. i probably wouldn't even notice the theif.

Surely you don't actually mean that literally? If all life is equal then you would never take antibiotics

I would, hands down, save the dog. I do not value human life much above any other form of sentient life. And not even non-sentient life is too far away (though I really don't care about those unicellular organisms). If I had a close personal tie to the human, perhaps, but I love animals very much, and consider it arrognace to regard humans as separate from Animalia.

How do you define sentient?

The dog of cource. I have had closer friendships with all of my animals than most of human kind.

Lets say you go on a cruise. Some how you are able to take along your faithful dog Spot who once saved you from drowning in a bathtub full of gin by selflessly drinking the contents. Although the vet bill was horrific you gladly paid it because after all he saved your life. While aboard ship a man comes up to you and starts a conversation. Through a series of misunderstandings not seen since Threes Company he has mistaken you for a criminal. He confides that he too is a neer-do-well who has been in and out of prison most of his life. He intends to steal the Vangaurd diamond worn by Lady Chardsworth. His partner missed the boat and he wants to recruit you to help him steal it. Being an honest person you say sorry no thanks. Before you can report him to the captain there is an load noise. The boiler blew up and the ship is sinking. Before you know it you are floating in the ocean hanging on to a piece of debris. 40 yards to the east you see your faithful dog Spot struggling to reach you. To the west another 40 yards is the thief barely able to tred water and about to drown. Do you paddle over and save your dog. Or do you save the thief. One of them will drown because there is no way to save one without the other drowning. Which do you save?

Is the life of a human, even this one, more valuable than that of an animal?

Me...I save my dog.

First the dog is my best freind and saved my life. I owe him to save his life.

The man doesn't deserve to die but neither does my dog. All things staying as they are lean to my dog.

So I choose the dog and that has made all the difference.

I'd save the dog.

Of course, a better question would be what do you think you should do? Just because we have certain moral beliefs doesn't always mean we follow them.

Lets say you go on a cruise. Some how you are able to take along your faithful dog Spot who once saved you from drowning in a bathtub full of gin by selflessly drinking the contents. Although the vet bill was horrific you gladly paid it because after all he saved your life. While aboard ship a man comes up to you and starts a conversation. Through a series of misunderstandings not seen since Threes Company he has mistaken you for a criminal. He confides that he too is a neer-do-well who has been in and out of prison most of his life. He intends to steal the Vangaurd diamond worn by Lady Chardsworth. His partner missed the boat and he wants to recruit you to help him steal it. Being an honest person you say sorry no thanks. Before you can report him to the captain there is an load noise. The boiler blew up and the ship is sinking. Before you know it you are floating in the ocean hanging on to a piece of debris. 40 yards to the east you see your faithful dog Spot struggling to reach you. To the west another 40 yards is the thief barely able to tred water and about to drown. Do you paddle over and save your dog. Or do you save the thief. One of them will drown because there is no way to save one without the other drowning. Which do you save?

Is the life of a human, even this one, more valuable than that of an animal?

Me...I save my dog.
I would attempt to rescue the human, not because his life was more valuable, but because he's not as clever as the dog and therefore less likely to survive.

I'd save the dog.

Of course, a better question would be what do you think you should do? Just because we have certain moral beliefs doesn't always mean we follow them.

Ahhh, but that's the point. What you think you should do means nothing if you won't do it.

I think regardless of what most people say, most would stay on the floating debris and watch everyone else drown.

Just like that girl in the movie, Titanic. But then again, I would pay to watch Leonardo diCaprio drown in icy water.

So far the dog is winning 24 to 13 with three saving neither and a few with nonsensable answers.

I would have thought my price quote would have made it obvious I'd save the dog. But then again, I'm not always the clearest in the world.

I would have thought my price quote would have made it obvious I'd save the dog. But then again, I'm not always the clearest in the world.

You didn't put a price on the dog so there is nothing to compare.

So long Spot, you shoulda perfected that dogpaddle.

So then would you stay on the debris or go to save the criminal why save someone who is guilty of theft

Sooo, never been to the back room I take it?

Back rooms make me nervous.

So then would you stay on the debris or go to save the criminal why save someone who is guilty of theft
Because one's occupation should have no merit when discussing the value of their life.

Because one's occupation should have no merit when discussing the value of their life.

You think of theft as an occupation?! People with occupations contribute to society in some way. A career thief drains society by:

1) Causing grief to those he has stolen from.
2) Invades the privicy of those he steals from.
3) Makes insurance premiums rise.
4) In all likely hood pays no taxes (After all what can he put on his tax form for occupation).
5) Increases security costs for home and businesses.

This reminds me of a story:
When I worked in a prison there was a career thief that I talked to frequently. I'll call him Sam. Sam told me that the reason he broke into houses was because he couldn't stand that anyone else would have something that he either didn't have or something better than he had. I asked him what he did with the stuff he stole. He told me he sold it.
I said, "well then you don't have that stuff anyway."
He replied "No, but neither does the other guy."
"What if", I asked, "The other guy went out and bought the same stuff again with the insurance money."
"I'd go back and steal it again."
Kind of explained why he kept getting caught, and why a guy who was just a burgular, was doing hard time in a maximum security prison.

duh i would save the dog seeing as how i would have a much stronger emotional atechment to him.

The dog of course. People have the intelligence to know what's going on and come to an acceptance, but the animal would just be terrified and not have a clue what to do.

EDIT: :p

You didn't put a price on the dog so there is nothing to compare.

Ah. Thanks. That's what I get for writing a post when in a caffeine high.

Save good ol' Spot!
1. Plenty of humans already exist. One death won't do much.
2. The guy was a criminal, so screw'm.

If the criminal was the only person that needed saving, I would save him.

I would save the dog. Because let's face it, I've known the dog for awhile and love the dog, and it's an everyday part of my life and I would mourn it if it died.

The guy on the other hand, is not only someone I just met, but is also a thief. I have no respect for criminals and find them rather distasteful. I wouldn't mourn some guy I barely new and didn't like. I might be kinda like 'Wow... that guy died. Huh.' But well, if I could save myself, he should've managed it.

So yeah... dog, cat, ferret, whatever. It's getting priority over some guy.

Now if it was a child drowning, the decision would be much harder.

Ahhh, but that's the point. What you think you should do means nothing if you won't do it.

Not necessarily. As someone else mentioned earlier, what you can perfectly rationally claim is the correct course of action in the comfort of your own home is not always what you would do in a time of stress.

For instance, I do not believe one should commit violence against another person just for the purposes of revenge. If someone raped one of my sisters, on the other hand, I do not know that I would live up to that ideal.

Of course, a better question would be what do you think you should do? Just because we have certain moral beliefs doesn't always mean we follow them.

Ahhh, but that's the point. What you think you should do means nothing if you won't do it.

Not necessarily. As someone else mentioned earlier, what you can perfectly rationally claim is the correct course of action in the comfort of your own home is not always what you would do in a time of stress.

For instance, I do not believe one should commit violence against another person just for the purposes of revenge. If someone raped one of my sisters, on the other hand, I do not know that I would live up to that ideal.

I think your example proves my point. What you know you should do is let the police handle it. But if that is not what you would do, your belief is useless. If you mean that is your conviction for someone elses sisters, but not yours, that is hypocritical.

I believe that if someone rapes my neighbors sister and my neighbor harms the rapist I would support my neighbor in his decision. Hell, I'd probably go with him and I don't even know his sister. The important thing to know about yourself is what you would do, not what you should do.

If someone raped my sister I know what I would do, but you won't see me posting it. I'll take the "Fifth" on that one.

What is a belief system if we don't use it? It is nothing. Knowing what is right is fine, but I already know what most people would think is right in my example. I want to know what they would really do.

I think your example proves my point. What you know you should do is let the police handle it. But if that is not what you would do, your belief is useless. If you mean that is your conviction for someone elses sisters, but not yours, that is hypocritical.

I believe that if someone rapes my neighbors sister and my neighbor harms the rapist I would support my neighbor in his decision. Hell, I'd probably go with him and I don't even know his sister. The important thing to know about yourself is what you would do, not what you should do.

If someone raped my sister I know what I would do, but you won't see me posting it. I'll take the "Fifth" on that one.

What is a belief system if we don't use it? It is nothing. Knowing what is right is fine, but I already know what most people would think is right in my example. I want to know what they would really do.

Having a moral belief system but knowing you may well not live up to it in all situations, or indeed knowing you wouldn't, is not at all hypocritical. A moral system should be based on rational reflections on what the ideal would be. That we will probably never live up to that ideal is a given, we're not perfectly rational beings. What a moral system does, however, is allow for actions to be judged right or wrong and punished, if necessary, accordingly.

It would only be hypocritical if I claimed I would not deserve to be punished in response to my actions. I never claimed that and never will.

In my opinion far too many people attempt to base their moral system on the basis of what they would, rather than should do. This results in the dangerous mentality of self-justifying all your actions. Basically too many people are incapable of accepting that they can, or could, act immorally.

You say that "I already know what most people would think is right in my example." Just out of curiosity, what do you base this on?

You think of theft as an occupation?! People with occupations contribute to society in some way...
Whether or not it contributes to society, it is still a "career" choice (as you yourself referred to it) and so a temporaneous occupation of one's time. It should have no more relevant weight to a valuation of the worth of a life than the body decoration people choose to wear or the television shows they choose to fry their brains on.

I value human life to the extent that I'd never condone violence, or a violent response to a given set of circumstances.

I value human life to the extent that I'd never condone violence, or a violent response to a given set of circumstances.

Hypothetical: So if you saw someone strangling a small child, you would not intervene? Even though you knew the child would die before a policeman could be summoned by you?

Hypothetical: So if you saw someone strangling a small child, you would not intervene? Even though you knew the child would die before a policeman could be summoned by you?

What part of my post did you fail to understand?

Ok, I guess the child dies, and you stand there watching.

Ok, I guess the child dies, and you stand there watching.

Well, you guess wrongly, then. Sheesh.

It would require an act of violence on your part to stop the strangling. So how are you going to stop him otherwise? Wishful thinking?

It would require an act of violence on your part to stop the strangling. So how are you going to stop him otherwise? Wishful thinking?

You're changing the conditions. Using violent means to prevent the child being strangled was not a requirement of your original supposition.

Tsk-tsk. Don't think you can pull the rug from under my feet, Gun.

How else do you propose to stop it? We've already said that the strangling is underway, and will be complete before a policeman can be summoned. So, tell me, how would you stop it?

How else do you propose to stop it? We've already said that the strangling is underway, and will be complete before a policeman can be summoned. So, tell me, how would you stop it?

By talking to the strangler.

Ok, let's try another. I doubt that would work, as it never worked to stop my wife's attacker (stabbed or beaten, not strangled).

We're in Iraq. People are shooting at us, and getting closer when they can.

You see me take aim at a man who is reloading his weapon.

Are you going to talk to me? Don't waste your breath, because I'm going to shoot anyway.

Ok, let's try another. I doubt that would work, as it never worked to stop my wife's attacker (stabbed or beaten, not strangled).

We're in Iraq. People are shooting at us, and getting closer when they can.

You see me take aim at a man who is reloading his weapon.

Are you going to talk to me? Don't waste your breath, because I'm going to shoot anyway.

Enjoy your reindeer games, Blitzen.

I'm not in Iraq. But it would seem you'd like to be. Aren't you the same fellow who told me the other day that you enjoy killing in combat? Perhaps you ought to re-enlist and get your thrills out of your system.

I wouldn't talk with you under the curcumstances you've outlined. I'd put as much distance between us as humanly possible. I may not condone violence, or violent responses, but put to the test, I'd value my own existence over yours. Not to say that'd be the case with all other humans, Gun - but for you, I'd make that exception.

I'm done with this.

Having a moral belief system but knowing you may well not live up to it in all situations, or indeed knowing you wouldn't, is not at all hypocritical. A moral system should be based on rational reflections on what the ideal would be. That we will probably never live up to that ideal is a given, we're not perfectly rational beings. What a moral system does, however, is allow for actions to be judged right or wrong and punished, if necessary, accordingly.

It would only be hypocritical if I claimed I would not deserve to be punished in response to my actions. I never claimed that and never will.

In my opinion far too many people attempt to base their moral system on the basis of what they would, rather than should do. This results in the dangerous mentality of self-justifying all your actions. Basically too many people are incapable of accepting that they can, or could, act immorally.

You say that "I already know what most people would think is right in my example." Just out of curiosity, what do you base this on?

"I already know what most people would think is right in my example," was probably a poor choice of words on my part. What I believe most people would think is the right thing would be to save the thief. I would base this on the assumption that as a general rule people believe that humans are the higher form of life therefore should be saved before an animal.

By exulting the animal and debasing the human I was attempting to challenge that way of thinking to see what the results might be. If I had said, "a dog I had never seen before and a man I had never seen before" I have no question (in my mind) that the outcome would have been the opposite of what I found here.

It was surprising to me that the dog won so easily. I thought his disadvantage (because he was a dog) was such that I needed to tilt the scales to greatly favor him. Apparently I was wrong. I think if I had asked what would be the morally correct action to take, even my tilting of the scales, would not have been enough to save the poor dog.

I believe this because you are making people think of the situation from the head when in life most of our decisions are a struggle between the head and heart. When you say what should you do, you are pulling them out of the story to rationalize, and I wanted them to stay in the story and answer in the heat of emotion in a place where this struggle takes place.

I don't believe we are that far apart in philosophy. We are just looking from different angles.

If you want to start a thread to test your theory by all means do so. I'm working on something else. Feel free to use my example if you wish. I could be wrong. :)

Humans are special species and they should be pittied and saved.

Value of my life: 1000 points
Value of my girl's life: 900 points
Value of my daughter's life: 750 points
Value of my dog's life: 100 points
Value of the life of a compatriot: 10 points
Value of some random stranger's life: 1 point
Value of a random muslim's life: -1 points
Value of someone I know but rather dislike's life: -1000 points

Whether or not it contributes to society, it is still a "career" choice (as you yourself referred to it) and so a temporaneous occupation of one's time. It should have no more relevant weight to a valuation of the worth of a life than the body decoration people choose to wear or the television shows they choose to fry their brains on.

I disagree with your conclusion, but I respect your opinion, and value your input.

Thanks

[QUOTE=Dobbs Town]By talking to the strangler.

Darn, I wanted a shot at this.
What if you're with your Wife/Husband/Life partner and a man with a knife approaches. It is winter. He is wearing a ski mask and gloves. The street is deserted except for the three of you. He shoves you to the ground and stabs your partner in the heart killing them instantly. Then drops the knife next to their lifeless body and slowly walks away. Do you let the killer get away, do you take revenge, do you use the knife to try to prevent his escape, or do you start a conversation with him? What?

Value of my life: 1000 points
Value of my girl's life: 900 points
Value of my daughter's life: 750 points
Value of my dog's life: 100 points
Value of the life of a compatriot: 10 points
Value of some random stranger's life: 1 point
Value of a random muslim's life: -1 points
Value of someone I know but rather dislike's life: -1000 points

I hope you carry a calculator when you take the gang out for a day in the park.
If trouble starts it could get complicated. :p

Darn, I wanted a shot at this.
What if you're with your Wife/Husband/Life partner and a man with a knife approaches. It is winter. He is wearing a ski mask and gloves. The street is deserted except for the three of you. He shoves you to the ground and stabs your partner in the heart killing them instantly. Then drops the knife next to their lifeless body and slowly walks away. Do you let the killer get away, do you take revenge, do you use the knife to try to prevent his escape, or do you start a conversation with him? What?

I can't believe how paranoid you are. You spend a lot of time cobbling together 'what if' scenarios that hinge on mysterious evil-doers attacking people for no perceptible reason. Here's the likely scenario:

I'm with my Significant Other, in winter, on a deserted street. A man wearing a ski mask and gloves approaches us. We direct him to the hardware store, where he can get his steak knives sharpened. No one gets killed. Everybody's happy.

No wonder you Americans arm yourselves to the teeth - you assume the worst possible outcomes to innocuous situations.

I can't believe how paranoid you are. You spend a lot of time cobbling together 'what if' scenarios that hinge on mysterious evil-doers attacking people for no perceptible reason. Here's the likely scenario:

I'm with my Significant Other, in winter, on a deserted street. A man wearing a ski mask and gloves approaches us. We direct him to the hardware store, where he can get his steak knives sharpened. No one gets killed. Everybody's happy.

No wonder you Americans arm yourselves to the teeth - you assume the worst possible outcomes to innocuous situations.

Quote-Dobbs Town:"I value human life to the extent that I'd never condone violence, or a violent response to a given set of circumstances."

I find that statement a little far fetched so I layed out what I thought would be a worse case situation. If you don't want to play that's fine but does that mean you would save the thief over the dog. There is no violence in that situation so I can't be 100 percent sure which you would choose. That is the real subject of this thread anyway.

If the dog could take a whole tub of gin, it's probably pretty damn strong, it can wait. I'd go over to the criminal, then hold his head on the water. Once he stops thrashing maybe let him take a breath then do it again. Eventually I'd get bored and just kill him. Then I'd go and help my dog.

I probably have less respect for life than any of you, not only would I risk the life of my dog, I'd kill the criminal. But hey, I think it's rather logical.

If the dog could take a whole tub of gin, it's probably pretty damn strong, it can wait. I'd go over to the criminal, then hold his head on the water. Once he stops thrashing maybe let him take a breath then do it again. Eventually I'd get bored and just kill him. Then I'd go and help my dog.

I probably have less respect for life than any of you, not only would I risk the life of my dog, I'd kill the criminal. But hey, I think it's rather logical.

Would you kill him because he is a thief or because you just want to kill?

"I already know what most people would think is right in my example," was probably a poor choice of words on my part. What I believe most people would think is the right thing would be to save the thief. I would base this on the assumption that as a general rule people believe that humans are the higher form of life therefore should be saved before an animal.

By exulting the animal and debasing the human I was attempting to challenge that way of thinking to see what the results might be. If I had said, "a dog I had never seen before and a man I had never seen before" I have no question (in my mind) that the outcome would have been the opposite of what I found here.

It was surprising to me that the dog won so easily. I thought his disadvantage (because he was a dog) was such that I needed to tilt the scales to greatly favor him. Apparently I was wrong. I think if I had asked what would be the morally correct action to take, even my tilting of the scales, would not have been enough to save the poor dog.

I believe this because you are making people think of the situation from the head when in life most of our decisions are a struggle between the head and heart. When you say what should you do, you are pulling them out of the story to rationalize, and I wanted them to stay in the story and answer in the heat of emotion in a place where this struggle takes place.

Actually I know plenty of people who believe that morality is an essentially emotional concept. My tutor for my dissertation when I did my degree (Raimond Gaita if anyone's ever heard of him) argued such a position. It's a perfectly valid position. I disagree with it, but that's because I differ in fundamental ways on the nature of morality, but that's not a position I can wholly objectively justify (equally you can't wholly objectively justify the opposite position). We had a number of very interesting discussions on the subject, which unfortunately meant we rarely discussed the actual nature of my dissertation, but I'd not have had it any other way.

His book, The Philosopher's Dog, BTW, is an excellent case for extending morality to animals. Again, I don't agree but it is very well argued if you accept the fundamental premises.


I don't believe we are that far apart in philosophy. We are just looking from different angles.

If you want to start a thread to test your theory by all means do so. I'm working on something else. Feel free to use my example if you wish. I could be wrong. :)

Well, what little theory I do have is based on so many assumptions that I don't feel it would be worthwhile to test it. I'm happy to accept other positions, as long as they are well argued and consistent. Where I do draw the line is where people try to argue from the position that animals are actually better than humans because they don't commit moral crimes. Not only is this false (plenty of animals behave in ways we would find abhorant for humans) it assumes that animals can actually make moral choices. I can only support that position if it means that animals should be held accountable for immoral acts. The day I see a squirrel in court for stealing nuts is the day I accept such an argument.

Where I do draw the line is where people try to argue from the position that animals are actually better than humans because they don't commit moral crimes. Not only is this false (plenty of animals behave in ways we would find abhorant for humans) it assumes that animals can actually make moral choices. I can only support that position if it means that animals should be held accountable for immoral acts. The day I see a squirrel in court for stealing nuts is the day I accept such an argument.

I have three dogs, one is very smart (B.C. for short), the other two...well not so much. If one of the other dogs has something that B.C. wants she will get real playful with the other one then run to the door like she wants to go out and play. The other dog will follow. When I let them out the other dog will go out and B.C. will turn around and go get what the other dog had. Does this violate the code of morality? Probably not in doggie world. Dogs by instinct are greedy. It's just natures survival skills. Dogs and all other animals react the way they do because it helps or helped them survive when they were wild. Some animals such as dogs can be taught behaviors that may simulate morals (don't bite the guests) and it is fairly rare for a wild animal to be canabalistic (except in cases of famine) but they do not appear to have morals.

Unless the arguement is that morals are, in the case of all animals including humans, based on evolved instinct and/or learned behavior. Perhaps morals as we may understand them don't really exist, and are simply natures way of preserving the species. Humans are more highly evolved therefore have a greater number and more complex set of rationalized behaviors. Therefore, what we call morals, would vary based on the needs of the individual species. The problem is we project our vision of morality on other species which is not really fair. So your nut stealing squirrel is perfectly moral...in a squirrelly way.