Interesting question
-
That stranger is someone else's son, or father, or brother. My conscience would never allow an animal to take priority over a human life. Even with religion out of the picture humans have consciences.
So conscience is innate not learned?
WSS
So conscience is innate not learned?
WSS
I believe so. We all experience pain and pleasure and can empathize with others. These are all innate traits of the species. Religion IMO is of secondary relevance to the question. It would be heart-wrenching especially as I love my dog but I think I'd have to save the human.
-
That stranger is someone else's son, or father, or brother. My conscience would never allow an animal to take priority over a human life. Even with religion out of the picture humans have consciences.
So conscience is innate not learned?
WSS
So conscience is innate not learned?
WSS
Perhaps both. I do believe we get shaped by our environments and circumstances as well.
-
Depends on the person.
Are we talking Jeffrey Dahmer or a big chested brunette.
Typically I'd say saving the person is a no brainer. If they were like 80 years old I may opt for the pet though.
-
The way I heard it framed it is a stranger.
WSS
-
Be reasonable.
If the stranger is a hot chick you save her.
Kidding of course.
Save the stranger. In the court of law it might be negligent to choose an animal over human life. The courts are based around religion so that would be the deal breaker.
-
A kid is a no brainer. I guess I'd save an adult too but more reluctantly.
-
And Cysko that's the heart of the question.
The stranger means nothing to you, the dog has been your friend for years who count on you and loves you and trusts you and would probably give his life to protect you.
If you never saw the stranger again or if he got run over by a bus next week you wouldn't care. Losing your dog would break your heart for a long time.
And there is no natural reason for you to behave otherwise than save your friend the dog.
Why would you behave in an unnatural manner, hurting yourself?
And think about it whether you call it religion or philosophy or some vague moral set of made up rules it's all about denying what you want for some ethereal higher power.
WSS
-
Steve Buscemi the dachshund is family. That little dog would undoubtably take a bullet for me.
-
And Cysko that's the heart of the question.
The stranger means nothing to you, the dog has been your friend for years who count on you and loves you and trusts you and would probably give his life to protect you.
If you never saw the stranger again or if he got run over by a bus next week you wouldn't care. Losing your dog would break your heart for a long time.
And there is no natural reason for you to behave otherwise than save your friend the dog.
Why would you behave in an unnatural manner, hurting yourself?
And think about it whether you call it religion or philosophy or some vague moral set of made up rules it's all about denying what you want for some ethereal higher power.
WSS
And Cysko that's the heart of the question.
The stranger means nothing to you, the dog has been your friend for years who count on you and loves you and trusts you and would probably give his life to protect you.
If you never saw the stranger again or if he got run over by a bus next week you wouldn't care. Losing your dog would break your heart for a long time.
And there is no natural reason for you to behave otherwise than save your friend the dog.
Why would you behave in an unnatural manner, hurting yourself?
And think about it whether you call it religion or philosophy or some vague moral set of made up rules it's all about denying what you want for some ethereal higher power.
WSS
What is natural for some is not for others. Some view pets as family members, some as property and others view them as tools.
I don't think it's unnatural to save a family member over a stranger.
-
And Cysko that's the heart of the question.
The stranger means nothing to you, the dog has been your friend for years who count on you and loves you and trusts you and would probably give his life to protect you.
If you never saw the stranger again or if he got run over by a bus next week you wouldn't care. Losing your dog would break your heart for a long time.
And there is no natural reason for you to behave otherwise than save your friend the dog.
Why would you behave in an unnatural manner, hurting yourself?
And think about it whether you call it religion or philosophy or some vague moral set of made up rules it's all about denying what you want for some ethereal higher power.
WSS
What is natural for some is not for others. Some view pets as family members, some as property and others view them as tools.
I don't think it's unnatural to save a family member over a stranger.
What is natural for some is not for others. Some view pets as family members, some as property and others view them as tools.
I don't think it's unnatural to save a family member over a stranger.
Exactly my point Bacon.
Saving a creature very close to you would be the natural thing to do.
To let him die would be to defy nature.
WSS
-
I would save my pet. I will be that asshole.
Call it misanthropy but my dog has done me more solids and is willing to have my back way more than a random stranger.
-
Dog.
-
What kind of dumbass dog can't swim? Wtf does a dog that can't swim deserve to live?
-
The dog.
If your religious your going to end up in a better place and it was god's will. Thats what I'd tell his family anyway when I walk my dog every morning.
-
I would save my pet. I will be that asshole.
Call it misanthropy but my dog has done me more solids and is willing to have my back way more than a random stranger.
I would save my pet. I will be that asshole.
Call it misanthropy but my dog has done me more solids and is willing to have my back way more than a random stranger.
I bet your dog has done plenty of solids.
To be honest, if my pet were drowning, I wouldn't even see the guy most likely. I'm going for my dog first, who can probably get himself to safety with my help (maybe a push in the right direction) and then try to get to the other guy.
-
Without religion there are no morals. No idea of right and wrong.
So I'd have to say I'd let both drown.
Without religion there are no morals. No idea of right and wrong.
So I'd have to say I'd let both drown.
attaboy, shit all over this cool story from wss.
-
Steve Buscemi the dachshund is family. That little dog would undoubtably take a bullet for me.
Steve Buscemi the dachshund is family. That little dog would undoubtably take a bullet for me.
As much of a dick as you are sometimes, I will always have a soft spot for you that you named your dachshund steve buscemi. I roll everytime you bring him up. When you're mad at him do you yell out "Steven Vincent Buscemi"? I would lose it completely if I heard someone say that to their little dachshund.
as per the story, reluctantly i'd have to say the pet. Unless it's Walter or Stuart than there's no reluctance whatsoever....i'm probably giving them the finger and trolling them as i'm power backstroking for my pet.
-
Without religion there are no morals. No idea of right and wrong.
So I'd have to say I'd let both drown.
attaboy, shit all over this cool story from wss.
Actually shit all over any discussion among grown-ups.attaboy, shit all over this cool story from wss.
Then again he makes up his own morals which is not right nor wrong.
Which means that his perception of good and evil is no more valid then the Bible. Even though he feels free to scold others.
WSS
-
Since we're on the topic of moral and ethical conundrums, I figured i'd throw these out there as well. These are a set of thought-experiments that I first learned about in Psychology class in college, and they have always stuck with me (i'll post the 2nd part after we get enough responses). The first one goes like so:
The Great Train Problem (PART I):
Imagine that you work in a train yard, and your job is to control the railroad lever which guides trains from one track to another. Now, suppose that you notice that there is a runaway train barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, further down the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The runaway train is headed straight for them, and you do not have enough time to signal for help or to somehow stop the train before it reaches the people tied to the track; your only option is to pull the railroad switch lever. If you pull this lever, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you also notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:
1) Do nothing: you do not pull the switch, thereby saving the one person on the side track; however, the trains continues on and kills the five people on the main track.
2) Pull the lever: you pull the switch, diverting the train onto the side track where it will kill one person, but save the five people on the main track.
Which is the correct choice?
-
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better π
Register Login