- Joined
- Oct 19, 2012
- Messages
- 12,029
- Reaction score
- 3,530
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Now my feelings are hurt.
Since your position is that it's not objectionable to sacrifice human beings to save dogs, you can hardly complain about having your feelings hurt. Indeed, you can hardly complain about any mistreatment of any kind, since you've argued that if someone doesn't value a person for any reason, he can sit back and watch them die.
In a morally obtuse world like that, hearing you whine about having your feelings hurt is precious.
When are you going to understand that others feel more strongly and have more empathy for their pets than others? You will never convince those of us who view our animals as family members that we should let them drown in the lily-white scenerio you've painted: unknown human being over dog.
I think you should have learned a lesson here. You do not understand those of us who value pets as we value other family members. (Albeit lower on the hierarchy within the household.)
Actually I understand you all quite well. You just don't accept or appreciate the truth of that understanding. :shrug:
This question isn't about "sacrificing" human beings. It's about who would you choose - your own dog or a stranger. Who KNOWS what anyone would choose in these ridiculous scenerios? But those of us who consider our pets members of our family . . . our first instinct? Is to save that which we love.
Why is that so damned difficult to understand?
No, it's about the basis of that decision, and why you would come to the conclusion you have. That's what is at issue.
Frankly neither you nor anybody here has provided a coherent explanation of why saving a dog over a stranger is morally justifiable, except some generalities about how they love their dogs like family or strangers aren't worth saving. The upshot is an axiology that either claims dogs are persons or treats persons as things. Both of these claims are indefensible, and in fact you haven't defended them. I don't think you can, and frankly I don't think you even understand the issue.
I don't have to defend the issue. I was asked what I thought I might do -- save a stranger or save my dog. My answer is that I think I would save my dog. In reality, I don't know what I would do. No one of us who says, "my dog" knows for sure. It's typical moral no-win bull****.
If you don't understand that some people love their dogs as if they are family? That they are, in fact, family? No amount of gum-flapping is going to help you understand that.
How could anyone morally defend saving a dog instead of a human being? Can't be morally justified. But that doesn't change that it is what it is for some people. I'm not perfect. I don't beat myself up for it. I acknowledge that I sometimes don't take the moral high ground. *shrug*
I'll take this as an admission that you can't provide any coherent defense of your moral choice. That was exactly my point.
I personally never said otherwise. No one can.
Really? All that just to say you dont care about my feelings?Since your position is that it's not objectionable to sacrifice human beings to save dogs, you can hardly complain about having your feelings hurt. Indeed, you can hardly complain about any mistreatment of any kind, since you've argued that if someone doesn't value a person for any reason, he can sit back and watch them die.
In a morally obtuse world like that, hearing you whine about having your feelings hurt is precious.
I don't think this is true. I think people can reflect on their moral choices and explain them. I've tried to explain mine and make no apologies for it.
Morality is subjective.No, it's about the basis of that decision, and why you would come to the conclusion you have. That's what is at issue.
Frankly neither you nor anybody here has provided a coherent explanation of why saving a dog over a stranger is morally justifiable, except some generalities about how they love their dogs like family or strangers aren't worth saving. The upshot is an axiology that either claims dogs are persons or treats persons as things. Both of these claims are indefensible, and in fact you haven't defended them. I don't think you can, and frankly I don't think you even understand the issue.
I admit to exercising a somewhat judgmental attitude on my part so the fault is not theirs alone. In any case I sincerely appreciate your attempt to bring the emotions down to a more balanced level. Thank you.
If we assume the moral choice is always to value any human life over that of a pet how can anyone defend choosing to expend resources on owning a pet over using those same resources to feed a starving child?
If we assume the moral choice is always to value any human life over that of a pet how can anyone defend choosing to expend resources on owning a pet over using those same resources to feed a starving child?
Morally? You cannot. Sefishly (or "economically," or "realistically," etc.)? As seen by many responses...very easily.
If we assume the moral choice is always to value any human life over that of a pet how can anyone defend choosing to expend resources on owning a pet over using those same resources to feed a starving child?
It's a fair question. But I think we can distinguish.
First of all, the hypothetical made it clear: there is a clear choice between saving the drowning dog and saving the stranger. It's one or the other under the hypothetical. Not so with feeding your dog or preventing a poor child from dying of malnutrition somewhere in the world. The one is immediate, the second is contingent or at least not immediately subject to preventing. You can give money to a charity and hope it will ameliorate malnutrition and save a life. But it may or may not, and it's not something in your immediate control. The less invidious comparison is between (1) feeding a starving dog or (2) feeding a starving person right there in front of you. I'd give the food to the person. I think it would be immoral not to.
Second, the hypothetical is constructed to involve no risk or burden to the lifesaver. The idea is that you have to choose to save a dog or a person, not weigh the risk of saving one or the other. Weighing the risk is a fair thing to bring up, but it brings up other considerations. If the moral question is, do I risk my life to save a stranger, that's just not the same moral question as do I save a dog or a stranger (both of which without risk). I don't think there's anything particularly immoral in saying, the risk to my life is too great for me to try to save the stranger. It may not be a brave choice, but it's not an immoral one. That's something everybody has to decide for himself. Your question is less like the original hypothetical and more like the risk hypothetical. Helping others doesn't require us to give up everything we have, including the amenities of life (like pets).
So your question certainly raises an honest moral question (should we own certain amenities in an unfair world where 1B people are undernourished?). But it has nothing to do with pets. You could ask the same thing about spending money on basketball shoes, cell phones, and college tuition -- anything beyond the necessities of life -- instead of helping starving children. I would say that it is certainly a virtue for somebody to give up the amenities of life to help others, but I don't know if it's a vice to have some amenities, even if that means giving less to assist others in need. I think a better solution is not to give up every amenity for charity, but to engage in political action for a fairer system of resource allocation. In short, this is a complex social, political and moral question in a way the dog/stranger question isn't.
Several members have decided that saving the dog is the "morally right" thing to do.
Morally? You cannot. Sefishly (or "economically," or "realistically," etc.)? As seen by many responses...very easily.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?