Is your family pet's life worth more to you then a strangers?

[May90]

So if a goldfish and a human were holding on to the edge of a building and you could only save one, there's no wrong answer?

Correct. Morals are subjective by their nature, and what one person considers to be wrong another might see as right.

[Tabrotar]

When was the last time you saw a German Shepard that didn't have to be locked up because it was such an asshole? I visit peoples homes for work and 90% of the German Shepards I see are locked up in pens, viciously barking and trying to get at me.

I mean I get why you went there but, that's a poor choice of breed to use in your example, all nation of origin concerns aside.

Hm maybe you´re just someone pets don´t like? Or ugly, or some other characteristics which would make you a non-person for dogs?

[Unholyground]

That's pretty messed up. Would you be okay with a family member choosing their pets life over yours?

If so, what an interesting life you lead.

I do lead a pretty interesting life.

[Garnier Fructis]

This whole 'innate value of a human life' business is nonsense.

I guess there's only enough value to justify always saving a human over and animal. But it can't have all that much value, because we're totally fine justifying the deaths of humans in other scenarios.

[Erudean]

So human life only has value to you when it is physically before you?

Yet you claim my valuing my family member's life over a strangers life means there is something wrong with me...

Fucking bullshit.

Never said that. You said I would not get broken up about things happening halfway around the world. You are right for the most part. There is nothing I can do about it. It does not make it less tragic, it just invokes less of an emotional response. I did tear up watching footage of the 2011 Tsunami in Japan though, watching people be down and crushed on amateur video. Obviously a traumatic event has much more of an impact when it happens right in front of you. This does not change the value of any human life, and certainly never makes it lower than that of an animal.

You however are presented with an event, in which not only are you present, but you have the clear capability to determine the outcome. It is a reflection of how you view the innate value of a human life, vs that of an animal, "family pet" or no.

[Dreknar20]

all morals being subjective.

all morals are absolutely and completely subjective

[Tijuana]

Hm maybe you´re just someone pets don´t like? Or ugly, or some other characteristics which would make you a non-person for dogs?

So the homeowner put the dog in a pen because he had a premonition that I would be there and that Fluffy would not like me??

Quite the contrary, I love how I get to meet so many dogs. I always joke that I know every dog and married woman in town from my work.

[Deleted]

My pet of course. There's no inherent value in being human. Hitler was a human, Osama Bin Laden was a human, so is Donald Trump. What have they done for the world? My cat taking a dump on my lawn is better for the greater good than any of the formerly mentioned humans. How many valuable humans do you know of? Either people are outright evil, dumb enough to be dangerous or completely worthless(As in working only for the sustainability of society and themselves). Only a tiny portion of our population has anything valuable to offer. But sure, if that stranger is Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking, Neil Degrasse or someone similar then I'll throw my cat under the bus.

[dr2022]

False.
The Holocaust was evil.
Genocide is evil.
Rape is evil.
Cold blooded murder of an innocent is evil.

Don't try and kid yourself with the delusion of all morals being subjective.

These are not moral questions though.

[Erudean]

This whole 'innate value of a human life' business is nonsense.

I guess there's only enough value to justify always saving a human over and animal. But it can't have all that much value, because we're totally fine justifying the deaths of humans in other scenarios.

Killing another human is justified in many scenarios. Choosing the life of an animal over a stranger is not.

[Rothg]

I do lead a pretty interesting life.

What're your family reunions like? Thanksgiving diners?

[Forgettable]

My ranking, 1 is most important:

1. People I care about
2. Random people
3. Shitty people
4. Animals I care about
5. Random animals
6. REALLY shitty people (Murders, rapists etc)

[Kretan]

My pet comes before any stranger. My pet is a family member to me and has priority. I don't care who the stranger is or what they are like.

[Rothg]

These are not moral questions though.

Yes they are. "Is killing every Jewish person okay?"

Moral question.

"Is it okay to rape this person?"

Moral question.

And if you're in a room with 10 other people who say "yeah man, it's totally fine to rape that person!"

It doesn't make it okay. Because it's objectively evil.

[Azadina]

My pet of course. There's no inherent value in being human. Hitler was a human, Osama Bin Laden was a human, so is Donald Trump. What have they done for the world? My cat taking a dump on my lawn is better for the greater good than any of the formerly mentioned humans. How many valuable humans do you know of? Either people are outright evil, dumb enough to be dangerous or completely worthless(As in working only for the sustainability of society and themselves). Only a tiny portion of our population has anything valuable to offer. But sure, if that stranger is Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking, Neil Degrasse or someone similar then I'll throw my cat under the bus.

Tell your boss that you find him/her to be as worthless as Osama Bin Laden. See how well it'll go. Don't tell it as joke either, be serious about it.

[AtomicSpoon]

Random stranger in say a car wreck or some similar accident I would choose them. Some asshole breaking into my house or trying to steal/harm my dogs (The PETA assholes that steal pets off porches come to mind) I might not shoot to kill but I will put someone down. Once you make that decision to perform in repairable damage to one of my family members you are giving up the rights for me to give a shit about you as a person.

[Kretan]

Killing another human is justified in many scenarios. Choosing the life of an animal over a stranger is not.

That's the problem. You view the choice as "an animal" vs a stranger. If I saw a stray cat vs a human, I would pick the human. My pet is not a random animal. I make this choice based on self interest first of all. My self interest is my cat. If it was my cat vs a person about to get hit by a bus, my cat would be the first to leave the street. Doesn't mean I will feel good about it, but that's what I would do.

[I Push Buttons]

Never said that. You said I would not get broken up about things happening halfway around the world. You are right for the most part. There is nothing I can do about it. It does not make it less tragic, it just invokes less of an emotional response. I did tear up watching footage of the 2011 Tsunami in Japan though, watching people be down and crushed on amateur video. Obviously a traumatic event has much more of an impact when it happens right in front of you. This does not change the value of any human life, and certainly never makes it lower than that of an animal.

You however are presented with an event, in which not only are you present, but you have the clear capability to determine the outcome. It is a reflection of how you view the innate value of a human life, vs that of an animal, "family pet" or no.

And that is the crux of this argument... You people seem to think a family pet is just "an animal" while those of us who would save our pets think of them as valued members of our families that we love.

As I said earlier, a strictly utilitarian view... Human life is X, animal life is Y. X>Y, everything else is irrelevant in your mind. Which is absurd to me.

[Erudean]

These are not moral questions though.

Do I really need to go jeopardy style for you and rephrase them all into questions? Or are you capable of figuring out the questions on your own?

They were obviously justified morally by the people that committed them, and quite the opposite for the victims. Who was right and who was wrong? It is plainly obvious who was in the wrong today. The answer is irrefutably self evident.

- - - Updated - - -

And that is the crux of this argument... You people seem to think a family pet is just "an animal" while those of us who would save our pets think of them as valued members of our families that we love.

As I said earlier, a strictly utilitarian view... Human life is X, animal life is Y. X>Y, everything else is irrelevant in your mind. Which is absurd to me.

The crux of this argument is that you have mistakenly elevated an animal in your mind to the place of a human family member, which is quite frankly disturbing.

[Deleted]

Tell your boss that you find him/her to be as worthless as Osama Bin Laden. See how well it'll go. Don't tell it as joke either, be serious about it.

Trust me, it works, asserts dominance. :P