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

[ParanoiD84]

lol those strangers is fucked, never stood a chance.

[Cerus]

We can wipe mosquitos out if we want to.

You keep thinking that.

[Rothg]

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 - - -



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 agree with you, what I want to hear is that you think witch burning was okay then, and not okay now. Or was it never okay?

[Deleted]

So over 200 people would just let a human die. Interesting.

[Stelio Kontos]

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 - - -



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.



Well said lol.

Funny thing is, he started it with implying I'd die. But hey, lay the blame on the guy on the other side of the debate, it's the typical thing to do.

But yeah, it is silly to argue with people who put the lives of their ferrets and cats over other human beings. I'll stop.

[Stasso]

There is nothing stranger than putting something you can't feel like, be like or act like over something that thinks, loves, and lives like you. People are putting stranger animals first over people who are like them..... they aren't viewing themselves as equal to fellow humans but a rat or bird deserves more love and life than war-torn nations. Close this disgusting thread of western privilege, if there wasn't such comfort available here you wouldn't be putting animals first, you be eating them.

[Itisamuh]

Human life is no more special than anything else, and my pets mean a whole lot more to me than random people.

[Stelio Kontos]

There is nothing stranger than putting something you can't feel like, be like or act like over something that thinks, loves, and lives like you. People are putting stranger animals first over people who are like them..... they aren't viewing themselves as equal to fellow humans but a rat or bird deserves more love and life than war-torn nations. Close this disgusting thread of western privilege, if there wasn't such comfort available here you wouldn't be putting animals first, you be eating them.

Most of the folks here have never been shy about saying what they think of non-whites. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the "yes" folks in this topic wouldn't put ANY animal's life over an African or Arab.

[Rothg]

Do you have selective amnesia or something?

No, I don't have selective amnesia. Thank you for your concern. I didn't remember it because you only quoted part of it and changed the context.

"If the person chooses his pet, I believe he would have made an objectively incorrect moral decision. It won't change anything of course, and I wouldnt do anything about it.

How is this different from Hitler choosing to gas jews? I think Htiler made an objectively incorrect moral decision. Either I'm wrong, or Hitler is."

Is the full quote, and in that context, I am clearly only juxtaposing the two scenarios to show that they are both incorrect moral decisions. They are both wildly different in scope and severity.

"Is it okay to save the cat over a human?" Right or wrong answer.

"Hitlers decisions okay?" Right or wrong answer.

No grey area, thats the similarity they share and that is it.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Its that certainty that you have that Hitler is wrong that lends me to believe that there is an objective moral truth. We may never fully understand it, but I think its there.

[Eazy]

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

Well, I think that depends... If your property is for example, 15 years of trying to find a cure to cancer and you're about to explain it(releasing in medical books your informations) to people, then the property is worth more than some low-thug life.

[Garnier Fructis]

Most of the folks here have never been shy about saying what they think of non-whites. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the "yes" folks in this topic wouldn't put ANY animal's life over an African or Arab.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not the case for me.

[ParanoiD84]

There is nothing stranger than putting something you can't feel like, be like or act like over something that thinks, loves, and lives like you. People are putting stranger animals first over people who are like them..... they aren't viewing themselves as equal to fellow humans but a rat or bird deserves more love and life than war-torn nations. Close this disgusting thread of western privilege, if there wasn't such comfort available here you wouldn't be putting animals first, you be eating them.

A stranger is a stranger aka not worth shit compared to your pets/family.

[Stelio Kontos]

A stranger is a stranger aka not worth shit compared to your pets/family.

So you'd be ok with me letting you die so I can save my, say, pet tarantula?

[ParanoiD84]

So you'd be ok with me letting you die so I can save my, say, pet tarantula?

You do that and see if i care lol, i help strangers all the time on a daily basis, and that still does not change that the stanger is fucked and he never stood a chance in this match up. So you can choose your pet and still continue to help strangers but they never stood a chance here.

[Stelio Kontos]

You do that and see if i care lol, i help strangers all the time on a daily basis, and that still does not change that the stanger is fucked and he never stood a chance in this match up. So you can choose your pet and still continue to help strangers but they never stood a chance here.

So, you'd accept dying so I could save my tarantula?

[Kretan]

I agree with you, what I want to hear is that you think witch burning was okay then, and not okay now. Or was it never okay?

I think that the idea of "okay" is entirely rooted in who has the power to enforce their version of right and wrong as well as their willingness to exert that power. The idea of "okay" is unique to the frame of reference. Being "okay" however doesn't mean you are correct in your assumptions. In the case of witch burning, it was "okay" to burn witches when everyone believed them to be evil beings of power or whatever their reason; the people burning the witches had public support, and the women would have certainly stopped the burnings if they had to power to do so. As soon as this idea was debunked, the people burning witches lost the power to enforce their view of "okay" because their basic assumptions were wrong and they lost public support. Burning witches was "okay", but it was never right in the end because its base argument was debunked as objectively wrong. They claimed the sky was green.

If we bring this full circle to the pet vs stranger debate, we can agree that right now no one has the majority to say what is ok and what is not. The problem with saying one side is wrong and the other is right at the core of it (like witch burning) is that there is an assumption that one side's base argument is just flat out objectively wrong while the other is right. The side of saving the stranger says "humans come before animals" while the side saving the pet says "my pet is emotionally attached to me". Are either of the quoted arguments objectively wrong like "a witch has special powers" is? I would say no because both sides have an opinion that is based in their own world view and level of self interest; neither side can be objectively wrong. You can't objectively say the person doesn't have a strong bond to their animal, and nothing objectively says a human comes before an animal. Therefore, it is "okay" to save whoever you want animal or stranger. If a law were passed forcing you to save a human before a pet, then saving the pet is no longer "okay". That doesn't mean it is wrong though just like it doesn't mean burning a witch is right

TLR The idea of what is "okay" is determined by power. In the absence of objective evidence to debunk one side, right and wrong typically defaults to what is "okay".

Its that certainty that you have that Hitler is wrong that lends me to believe that there is an objective moral truth. We may never fully understand it, but I think its there.

Hitler is not absolutely wrong because his frame of reference said he was right, but he is so close to being morally wrong because people with enough power say so, so many people consider it to be so. Just because one case is pretty cut and dry doesn't mean that grey areas where an objective moral truth fails don't exist.

[I Push Buttons]

So you'd be ok with me letting you die so I can save my, say, pet tarantula?

If your tarantula means that much to you, then who am I to dictate your life?

Some people value commodities, not even other living creatures, above human life... Just look at Republicans... I often point out in various political threads on here the almost sociopath level of indifference to human suffering Republicans exhibit... Many would rather homeless, sick, disabled, poor, etc., people die in the street than pay even 1 cent more in taxes to help them. Just ask Orlong, Vyxn, RickJamesLich, etc.

[ParanoiD84]

So, you'd accept dying so I could save my tarantula?

Something that will never happen anyways. Point is that i just dont care about people i never met. But just because i would choose to save my pet that does not mean i will go on a killingspree and kill every people i see, i will continue to be nice to stranger but i would never pick one before my animals.

[Themius]

If my cat died because someone put a human's life ahead of hers I'd have to fight to restrain myself from strangling them too.

This is just... stupid.

Damn you, how dare you save a person over a my pet!

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, sorry. I would even kill a random person to save my cat, it's a family member after a certain point.

You would kill a random person to save your cat?

We sure have some people on here with a fucked up sense of morals.

- - - Updated - - -

So over 200 people would just let a human die. Interesting.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1842429-Your-beloved-pet-or-a-stranger-who-would-you-save

Here's my thread on this topic...

[Rothg]

Hitler is not absolutely wrong because his frame of reference said he was right, but he is so close to being morally wrong because people with enough power say so that many people consider it to be so. Just because one case is pretty cut and dry doesn't mean that grey areas where an objective moral truth fails don't exist.

If even one case is cut and dry, it means there is an objective truth.

That in way means there arent many, many grey areas.