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

[Garnier Fructis]

Problem is, folks never think these things out all the way.

You saved your little shit machine over a stranger; congratulations. Now, I lost a loved one due to a stranger choosing an animal over saving my loved one.

At the very least I'm coming for your animal; you are never with them 24/7.

I guess it's at least commendable that you'd be willing to die to get your revenge.

[Moralgy]

Problem is, folks never think these things out all the way.

You saved your little shit machine over a stranger; congratulations. Now, I lost a loved one due to a stranger choosing an animal over saving my loved one.

At the very least I'm coming for your animal; you are never with them 24/7.

And you'll be lucky if it stops with the animal. Part of the reason we had certain normative beliefs (like humans mattering more than animals) is that it helped promote commodious living in the community. Everyone in a sense was prompted to look out for and help each other, both to make sure they got helped in return and to reduce the likelihood of revenge-based violence.

Take away those normative beliefs, and revenge is back on the tables, boyos.

You are over thinking this as well. How would you know someone "picked the animal over your loved one" in a scenario where people are fleeing something like a burning building?

[Deleted]

And that happens when we propagate systems where peoples' whims are worth more than human life.

I don't figure that it's that cut and dry, tbh

Humanity is still not above those things As I mentioned before, if it's my child you let die to save your pet, you are going to follow soon enough. At that point I'd be zero interested in what's right and what's wrong, as you took everything away from me.

Humanity is a concept of masses ; It's existence does not represent a medium to which explains your responsibility.

I have always, and will always, find it a weak excuse to perpetuate the abstract idea of something, in the face of personal actions.

"It's just my culture! It's humanity! It's the Society!"

Lies, Weak excuses and failure to accomedate for one's owns flaws.

[Rothg]

"how is this different"

Hmmmm where could I derive equivalency from with that statement, I wonder.

Is anyone else seeing this? Am I really about to have to argue how apples and oranges are not equivalent?

[Kretan]

First off, I just want to say that I appreciate your amiability, May90. We may disagree, but I enjoy hearing and learning from your opinion.

That being said, do you believe that right and wrong is determined by what the majority thinks about it?

eg, slavery was okay when the majority of people thought it was.

Burning women because the majority of people thought they were witches were okay.. etc.

Do those things BECOME wrong as we figure it out? Or have they always been wrong?

The morally right I think is ultimately determined by which side of the opinion ultimately has A) the willingness to enforce their opinion and B) the power to do so. If neither side has both A) and B), then the decision is a grey area of personal opinion. If they have both A) and B), their opinion becomes right. Hitler lacked B) in the end.

[Gulharum]

Pretty sure you can't kill someone for damaging or threatening to damage property.

I think it depends on where you live, but in same cases, if someone is trespassing and will not leave despite you telling them to, you may shoot them.

[Stelio Kontos]

I guess it's at least commendable that you'd be willing to die to get your revenge.

That's cute. Pets are killed all the time. You know how many get poisoned and they never find the culprit?

An idiot kicks in the door and makes a big show of it, instead of using a poisoned bit of food.

[Kretan]

That's why society had rules for so long about putting humans first, for example. Not because it was universally agreed upon to be right, but because it lessened the likelihood of vendetta-related violence. Look at pre-modern societies today (like Papua New Guinea) and interpersonal violence for wrongs done to them is rife.

Revenge is never rational, it doesn't mean any of us is immune to seeking it.

There is no rules to choosing a human over a pet though. There is a rule against revenge for that decision.

[I Push Buttons]

Is anyone else seeing this? Am I really about to have to argue how apples and oranges are not equivalent?

Only that isn't what you did... Using your own example your bullshit argument was something along the lines of "apples have seeds, oranges have seeds... How are apples and oranges any different?"

That was YOUR argument... You literally said "saving the pet is morally wrong... Hitler gassing the Jews was morally wrong... How is saving the pet any different than Hitler gassing the Jews?"

THAT WAS LITERALLY YOUR OWN FUCKING ARGUMENT CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN WORDS?

[Rothg]

It comes down to the number of people who would support your viewpoint. I thin it is safe to say that most people (near unanimous) would support the idea that hitler's moral code was wrong. I think from evidence of polls here and elsewhere it is safe to say that no such massive majority exists in this threads premise. Not everything can be labelled in a black and white fashion....I never understood some people's obsession with needing to have a black and white answer to absolutely everything in life.

I hear you.

Its just that in medieval times, 9/10 people would tell you its okay to burn a supposed witch at the stake. And according to you logic, it comes down to the number of people who support your viewpoint.

I think burning women at the stake because you think they may be using magic is a pretty black and white thing.

I don't know why some people need everything to be black and white, there are PLENTY of things that are not readily black and white. Like, assisted suicide of mentally disabled people who ask to be killed. Thats a tough grey question. Mercy killing of an injured soldier, thats a tough question.

Burning a woman cause she floats or killing millions of people because they celebrate Hannukah is black and white though.

[Kelathos]

First, the most likely scenarios involve the choice being unknowingly exclusive. A lot of situations do not fully reveal themselves to everyone while they are occurring. So often, if that choice is made, it might simply be out of ignorance.

Second, if my pet was harming a person... I'd stop them. If that required killing the pet... then so be it.

Third, if I knowingly had to choose between two lives... I'd immediately be torn. Worse if it's a pet vs a person. The pet is a part of my family... a part of me and my affection. I cannot lose them without losing a part of myself.

[Stelio Kontos]

There is no rules to choosing a human over a pet though. There is a rule against revenge for that decision.

You choose your cat or ferret over my child or wife and there aren't enough rules to stop what's going to happen. Just hope it ends with a poisoned pet.

[Garnier Fructis]

That's cute. Pets are killed all the time. You know how many get poisoned and they never find the culprit?

An idiot kicks in the door and makes a big show of it, instead of using a poisoned bit of food.

I've already had a pet die from poisoning (someone left antifreeze out and killed most of the cats in my neighborhood). None of my pets go outdoors unsupervised now. You'd have to break into my home to poison my pet. At which point, yee-haw self defense.

[Stelio Kontos]

I've already had a pet die from poisoning (someone left antifreeze out and killed most of the cats in my neighborhood). None of my pets go outdoors unsupervised now. You'd have to break into my home to poison my pet. At which point, yee-haw self defense.

So you're home 24/7 there, cowboy?

[Rothg]

Only that isn't what you did... Using your own example your bullshit argument was something along the lines of "apples have seeds, oranges have seeds... How are apples and oranges any different?"

That was YOUR argument... You literally said "saving the pet is morally wrong... Hitler gassing the Jews was morally wrong... How is saving the pet any different than Hitler gassing the Jews?"

THAT WAS LITERALLY YOUR OWN FUCKING ARGUMENT CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN WORDS?

Calm down man, I don't want you to have a heart attack or anything. Where did I say "How is saving the pet any different than hitler gassing the jews?"

I only used Hitlers actions as an example of an objectively incorrect moral decision.
I also think that saving your pet over the life of a random stranger is objectively wrong moral decision.

I think stealing $5 from my brother is an objectively wrong moral decision.

None of those things are equivalent, and I would never argue as such, except to say they are all objectively bad decisions.

[May90]

First off, I just want to say that I appreciate your amiability, May90. We may disagree, but I enjoy hearing and learning from your opinion.

That being said, do you believe that right and wrong is determined by what the majority thinks about it?

eg, slavery was okay when the majority of people thought it was.

Burning women because the majority of people thought they were witches were okay.. etc.

Do those things BECOME wrong as we figure it out? Or have they always been wrong?

Well, no, I don't think the majority determines what is right or wrong; and that's exactly one of the main arguments in support of morals being subjective. Morals are not like, say, math theorem, which you can objectively prove and no one can say, "I disagree with this proof", while making any sense. Every person sees different things as "right" and "wrong". Saying that there are objective "rights" and "wrongs" is like saying that there is objective beauty: even if it exists, it will never be accepted as one, so its existence is really moot.

Objective things are things that do not depend on perspective. For example, Sun's surface is objectively hotter than Moon's; there is no "point of view" from which it will be different, it is just a fact of nature (provided our physical theories are correct in this regard, that is). Morals are different; Hitler's actions aren't wrong objectively, they are wrong from the overwhelming majority of points of view present nowadays.

I simply don't see how one would go about proving that anything is "objectively right" or "objectively wrong". You could mention people's suffering due to Hitler's actions, but some may say that that suffering was justified. You can say that it cannot be justified, and people will respond, "But we justify suffering of terrorists". It can go on forever, and you will never prove anything.

Thanks for taking the time to share your beliefs so amiably. I think I will just agree to disagree with you, slightly. I think you're right in that sometimes, there are no correct moral answers. But other times, I think there are. And like you said, thats an entirely different discussion. In any case, I've enjoyed the banter.

The problem is, there is no observable way to prove that something is correct or not regardless of perspective. A statement that cannot be proven can hardly be accepted to be correct. You could redefine the words a bit though. For example, I consider the right actions those that make people happier overall; of course it is a very general statement, and it needs clarification when we talk about specific actions - but overall, something that makes people happier is better in my book than something that makes people unhappier. But, again, there are points of view disagreeing with that; some people think that suffering is necessary for a person to grow strong and resistant...

[I Push Buttons]

Where did I say "How is saving the pet any different than hitler gassing the jews?"

If the person chooses his pet, I believe he would have made an objectively incorrect moral decision

How is this different from Hitler choosing to gas jews? I think Htiler made an objectively incorrect moral decision.

Do you have selective amnesia or something?

[Kretan]

I hear you.

Its just that in medieval times, 9/10 people would tell you its okay to burn a supposed witch at the stake. And according to you logic, it comes down to the number of people who support your viewpoint.

I think burning women at the stake because you think they may be using magic is a pretty black and white thing.

I don't know why some people need everything to be black and white, there are PLENTY of things that are not readily black and white. Like, assisted suicide of mentally disabled people who ask to be killed. Thats a tough grey question. Mercy killing of an injured soldier, thats a tough question.

Burning a woman cause she floats or killing millions of people because they celebrate Hannukah is black and white though.

Yes I agree. I think that if enough people support a viewpoint, it becomes accepted. Over time, that opinion might change. For our current time in this thread, I don't think either side has enough people to claim they have an over riding majority other than to conclude that the decision is up to the one with the power to choose. One side thinks people lost the idea that you should stick up for your fellow man while the other could think the ones sacrificing their pet are heartless to a loved one.

The assisted suicide example is a great analogy of a heated debate. To take it one step further, who decides what is a heated debate vs what is as stupid as burning a witch? That's where I get the opinion that it is decided by popular support and the ability to enforce it. If you told someone in the witch burning times that it was ridiculous to burn a woman and witches don't exist, you would be heralded as an idiot (and maybe a witch yourself). Right and wrong is not written in stone; it's written in popular opinion and power.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're home 24/7 there, cowboy?

We get it; you would go on an unstoppable murderous revenge rampage. Just state your opinion that you disagree with those who would save their pet and end this hypothetical passive aggressive crusade lol.

I could go on longer about why you'd have a very tough time, but I think I'm done with this dick waving contest.

Well said lol.

[Garnier Fructis]

So you're home 24/7 there, cowboy?

I could go on longer about why you'd have a very tough time, but I think I'm done with this dick waving contest.

[Kretan]

Well, no, I don't think the majority determines what is right or wrong; and that's exactly one of the main arguments in support of morals being subjective. Morals are not like, say, math theorem, which you can objectively prove and no one can say, "I disagree with this proof", while making any sense. Every person sees different things as "right" and "wrong". Saying that there are objective "rights" and "wrongs" is like saying that there is objective beauty: even if it exists, it will never be accepted as one, so its existence is really moot.

Objective things are things that do not depend on perspective. For example, Sun's surface is objectively hotter than Moon's; there is no "point of view" from which it will be different, it is just a fact of nature (provided our physical theories are correct in this regard, that is). Morals are different; Hitler's actions aren't wrong objectively, they are wrong from the overwhelming majority of points of view present nowadays.

I simply don't see how one would go about proving that anything is "objectively right" or "objectively wrong". You could mention people's suffering due to Hitler's actions, but some may say that that suffering was justified. You can say that it cannot be justified, and people will respond, "But we justify suffering of terrorists". It can go on forever, and you will never prove anything.


The problem is, there is no observable way to prove that something is correct or not regardless of perspective. A statement that cannot be proven can hardly be accepted to be correct. You could redefine the words a bit though. For example, I consider the right actions those that make people happier overall; of course it is a very general statement, and it needs clarification when we talk about specific actions - but overall, something that makes people happier is better in my book than something that makes people unhappier. But, again, there are points of view disagreeing with that; some people think that suffering is necessary for a person to grow strong and resistant...

Well I think that there is a line in which something can be considered objectively right or wrong in any case. That line however is impossible to define. Assisted suicide is impossible to be right or wrong, but Hitler is clearly objectively wrong.