The Value of Life

[Shryke]

The human. No question.

[turinturambar]

I'd still save the human even if s/he was a mass-murderer or a rapist or somesuch. If I'm gonna save a human, I'm gonna save a human. It's not my place to pass a moral judgement regarding what level of wrongdoing counts as the cut-off point for rescue.

I don't think I'd save the person if I KNEW they were a mass-murderer(because then, in a way, you'd be saving the animal AND other people). On the other hand, in the hypothetical, the person is just some schmo who you know nothing about.

Anyways, somebody before was talking about how some people put animals BEFORE humans...and it reminded me of this:

http://fr.truveo.com/puff-daddy-kills-peta/id/3675273249

[Whiskeyjack]

I know a handful of people who would choose the animal. Worse, they would choose any animal, not just a beloved pet.

I'd save my pet over a random human.

I'd also save a random animal over a random human.

[Frog Eater]

Would anyone's response change if they knew that the person in question was a "bad" person. Not necessarily a mass murderer or "the worst person in the world", but maybe a petty criminal who had been lying about disability to get welfare and was a negligent parent (or whatever, make up whatever you think to be a bad but normal person). Is there ever an amount to which a person had done so many bad deeds that you'd think it was better to not try to save them?

what if the human was Dick Cheney? My dog gets saved WAY before Dick Cheney.

what if the human was Donald Rumsfeld? My dog gets saved again!

Mass murder found guilty by a jury of his peers? My dog rests easy again!

Petty criminal lying to get welfare, or negligent parent? My dog might be nervous.....

school bus full of kids? My dog and I part ways in this world at least.

I suppose if we are making a hypothetical argument, I can have hypothetical answers.

My dog comes before lots of people, but probably not the innocents.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

I'd save my pet over a random human.

I'd also save a random animal over a random human.

Softie.

I wouldn't save either. I would point and laugh at their death agonies. Then afterward, I would go to the human's funeral and gun down all of their family members. And burn the house down of the pet owner.

[Kat]

I'd save my pet over a random human.

I'd also save a random animal over a random human.

Sociopath! :P

[Maithanet]

I think a more valuable (and interesting question) would be:

Would you choose your dog or a random schmoe if there were only 100 dogs left in the world? (you might need to assume your dog isn't fixed).

At that point, the dog is worth a lot more than just any old dog. I'd probably still go with the person, but I would question my decision.

[Humble Asskicker]

It's a simple decision for me. My dogs mean more to me than anything in life. I wouldn't even hesitate before choosing their lives over a stranger's. I would save any of my animals lives before any of my family's lives. Sibling, parents...anyone.

This shouldn't be misunderstood as me saying that I wouldn't care if the stranger was killed, just as I wouldn't suggest people who would save the stranger over their dog wouldn't have any reservations about the situation, or feel terrible for the consequences. It would be a difficult situation, even though my decision would be immediately clear.

If you're not a troll, and I truly don't thnk you are, you might want to rethink some of your attitudes. I mean, what kind of a person values a dog's life over ANY child?

I'm a troll (I am, in fact, the Ted Kennedy of Trolls, I'm delighted to point out), but this is not one of my trollish posts. I will explain where I'm coming from.

I do not believe human life is sacrosanct, that it's inherently superior to other animals because...God says so, I guess. Or importance of solidarity within your own species. Or any other fabricated philosophy that someone carefully considered, and without any real world substantiation at all, preached and propagated.

Human life or welfare has no value other than what we impute, is my default perception. The same with the life and welfare of other animals. This could be incorrect, but we'll never know in this life. Because there are no ways to measure these absolutes that people propose (and often enough, contradict each other in), it's just guessing.

Now, I recognize the value (to me) of an ordered society. It provides a standard of living that I enjoy. I don't have to worry about rubbing sticks for fire, or dying from a cold. I like my little leisures as well. Therefore I endorse the concept of setting human life, as a general principle, above other animals. I'm not some PETA fanatic who screams that all experiments on animals should desist, and that humans should be experimented upon in their stead. Previous discussions have enlightened me to the reality of precedence and legal feasibility.

One cannot, generally, set animals on a higher or equal tier to humans because it is completely impractical and impossible to implement, in mass. This is a necessary compromise to my values.

However, on an individual level, it becomes more feasible. Relic's hypothetical is an example. I place a higher value on dogs because of their qualities (tangible - such as appearance - and intangible - such as personality). The qualities that define each respective human as an individual sometimes appeal to me and sometimes repel me (someone with a good sense of humor and intelligence is terrific to be around, but someone dull and simple is a chore), but the collection of these qualities, for any person I've met, has not equaled in overall appeal to the ones found in my animals, or many types of animals I've been acquainted with. It's simple personal preference.

You can say: This person understands calculus, therefore he is superior to your dogs. To which I would respond, I recognize the potential contributory value he has to society and me, but as an individual in circumstances that would threaten him or my dogs, it is not worth saving him over. Knowing calculus, or possessing whatever gift one might be endowed with, is only a virtue so long as there is someone to say "Hey, I think this is great. This propels things in a direction I think we should go." And in Relic's hypothetical, it is only yourself there to act on that sentiment, or not believe in it and refrain from acting.

As for a child, well, we happen to live in a very maternal society. Most societies are. Our society places value on the "innocence" of youth (a vague label which I haven't actually observed myself in children) and their potentiality. I think of potentiality as a moot point, as much with children as I would if said about the stranger (the stranger might just be about to cure cancer or end world hunger!). It could go any way, and so that's more a neutral observation rather than a virtue to me, but I will recognize it to be a complex consideration (still unanswerable and moot though).

It's not about the animals, I think, so much as my emotion. Just as a person would rescue their own child over a stranger, simply because of the emotional connection they have. But I think the same can be said about any stance in this hypothetical, unless one stated outright and explicated that the only reason they would choose the stranger is because they perceive a greater contributory potential.

You know there are going to be people who say that animals are just as important as humans. Mark them, mark them well and never be in a position where they need to choose between you and an animal.

If you value your own life over a strange animal, then indubitably. It's the same with any other position: X person says they value the lives of their parents/spouse/friend/child over the lives of you, and would rescue them over you; so if you value your life over said individuals, of course you wouldn't want to be in a situation where you would invariably lose your life.

I think this statement is somewhat misleading in its tone, though. It doesn't mean that person wouldn't be a great person to have around. Maybe they would serve as an awesome, caring friend otherwise, who would help you out of straits that most other people wouldn't.

And if it's a matter of objecting to the values themselves, I suppose it's hardly unusual. This isn't the only time when people want to have nothing to do with those who don't share their values. A staunch Christian who wants everyone to live by their doctrine probably would want to avoid someone raised amongst naked hippies. (:bow: <-- is for naked hippies everywhere)

As for the consideration that there may be an absolutely "right" choice to this situation, I find it disturbing but not impossible. It's disturbing to me because if there are "rights" then a lot of people will be wrong through no real fault of their own. They may have very strong convictions, and be utterly convinced in what they believe, but it doesn't matter, because they are wrong. They may range from very stupid or blindingly brilliant minds, but it doesn't matter, because they are wrong. Through the simple accident of their circumstances (the mind they were born with, and the values they acquired in their unique path in life), they are wrong. They were, literally and metaphorically, born wrong.

It makes it even more disturbing if there is an absolute punishment for these transgressions. They were born to be wrong and punished.

Anyway, I haven't really said anything new. I imagine many already predicted this sort of response before it was made, as these threads have been made before. But I wanted to post, if only because...because...because....why the fuck did I just spend all that time writing this post?

KHAAAAAAAAN!!!

I'm gonna get myself a smoke.

[Relic]

why the fuck did I just spend all that time writing this post?

KHAAAAAAAAN!!!

I'm gonna get myself a smoke.

because you're home with the flu liek i am and you have nothign better to do?

[Humble Asskicker]

because you're home with the flu liek i am and you have nothign better to do?

:lol: It could be worse. A city I used to live in is now beset by SWINE FLU!!3@!@! In fact, my former alma mater had graduation canceled because of it.

So I'm spared that excitement, at least.

[Relic]

:lol: It could be worse. A city I used to live in is now beset by SWINE FLU!!3@!@! In fact, my former alma mater had graduation canceled because of it.

So I'm spared that excitement, at least.

would that be NYC?

Ive heard this like 50 times over the last few days -

them - "so whats up?"

me -" im sick. feel like ass"

them - "you got the swine flu?"

me - "can you try to be original plz thx"

[AquariumDrinker]

My dog mean a lot to me and I would have to know the person before I chose them over my dog.

If it was a truly random person, I would chose the person, on the off chance that the person would be some one close to me.

If it was a random person that would in no way have an impact on my life, I would chose my dog.

However, it is only my current dog that I would chose, she is my running partner and I value that deeply. If it was a random animal or another of my pets, I would chose the person.

I admit it, I am selfish but at least I have come to terms with it.

[Greywolf2375]

Honestly, I think it would be interesting to see what a persons true reaction is in this situation. Is it to respond (imo) logically and save the person, or emotionally, and save the dog. I could, very easily, see myself saving my dog as an intial reaction since he saved my life twice.

And, if this is present day, I totally save my dog since he died almost 30 years ago; if he's walking around now, that's just pure bank from the science world and George Romero.

[WarGalley]

I don't know if Joe Schmo is a likable guy or even a good human being but I know how I feel about man's best friend.

would that be NYC?

Ive heard this like 50 times over the last few days -

them - "so whats up?"

me -" im sick. feel like ass"

them - "you got the swine flu?"

me - "can you try to be original plz thx"

I was sick last week and this dialogue happened almost verbatim.

[Ken Stone]

However, on an individual level, it becomes more feasible. Relic's hypothetical is an example. I place a higher value on dogs because of their qualities (tangible - such as appearance - and intangible - such as personality). The qualities that define each respective human as an individual sometimes appeal to me and sometimes repel me (someone with a good sense of humor and intelligence is terrific to be around, but someone dull and simple is a chore), but the collection of these qualities, for any person I've met, has not equaled in overall appeal to the ones found in my animals, or many types of animals I've been acquainted with. It's simple personal preference.

I appreciate you looking at this situation logically and rationally, but I think you come to the wrong conclusion.

Ask this question in another way. What if the situation were random human vs robot that was programmed to appear to have a personality, and be really cute and adorable? Would you save the robot? If likable personality and cuteness is what is at issue here then you should save the robot, no? Keep in mind, this isn't an expensive robot. This is a robot that can be had pretty much for free at any time. There is an over abundance of these robots every where.

A dog is pretty much a biological robot molded by evolution to appeal to us on an emotional level.

[Ken Stone]

This question really got me thinking. What if the situation where there was a stranger who needed an organ and only your dog matched blood types. Donate your dog and the stranger lives, but the dog dies. Would you do it?

What if it was a blind stranger who could use your dogs eyes? Would you donate the eyes of your dog? Would you do it if it meant the dog had to die?

To me these are pretty simple questions to answer. Without question I would give up my dog. Wouldn't even think twice about it.

[turinturambar]

It's a simple decision for me. My dogs mean more to me than anything in life. I wouldn't even hesitate before choosing their lives over a stranger's. I would save any of my animals lives before any of my family's lives. Sibling, parents...anyone.

This shouldn't be misunderstood as me saying that I wouldn't care if the stranger was killed, just as I wouldn't suggest people who would save the stranger over their dog wouldn't have any reservations about the situation, or feel terrible for the consequences. It would be a difficult situation, even though my decision would be immediately clear.

<snip>

Anyway, I haven't really said anything new. I imagine many already predicted this sort of response before it was made, as these threads have been made before. But I wanted to post, if only because...because...because....why the fuck did I just spend all that time writing this post?

KHAAAAAAAAN!!!

I'm gonna get myself a smoke.

Basically....you place value on animals above humans because they don't have a level of intelligence high enough to clash with your personality.

Animals are simplistic in nature(for the most part) and don't have the ability to have detailed opinions on various matters, thus you get a long with them much better.

What kind of value to you place upon mentally handicapped people(by which I mean severe mental handicap in which the person is basically on par with many animals intellectually)?

[Relic]

What kind of value to you place upon mentally handicapped people(by which I mean severe mental handicap in which the person is basically on par with many animals intellectually)?

Whoa...

I appreciate THA's response. I disagreed with it, but i appreciated the thought that went into it. The above question does not belong in this thread. Handicapped people are not "animals" (or at least no different from other human beings). Please stay on topic of animal life vs human life.

[turinturambar]

Whoa...

I appreciate THA response. I disagree with it, but i appreciated the thought that went into it. The above question does not belong in this thread. Handicapped people are not "animals" (or at least no different from other human beings). Please stay on topic of animal life vs human life.

I didn't say that handicapped people are animals. I never meant to imply that, so if that's the way you took it I'm sorry.

I was just trying to see where HA's reasoning comes from. Is it the animals? Or is it simply the lack of conflict that makes him prefer animals over his own FAMILY. It seems he prefers something or someone who's personality doesn't clash with his, and the main reason why an animal's personality doesn't clash with his is because an animal isn't capable of reasoning and opinion which may cause conflict or negative emotions.

Half of these animals would likely piss on him or eat him when he dies, yet he places value on their lives over his own family? Must have been a messed up family...... or something. I find it difficult to imagine how anybody would choose the life of an animal over their own family.

[Liffguard]

A dog is pretty much a biological robot molded by evolution to appeal to us on an emotional level.

And a human isn't?