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

[Stasso]

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

This is comparing apples(humans) to oranges(pets). You are saying that a being you can't possibly understand because it is different is less than a stranger than someone who you can understand and communicate to. Do you not see the disconnect or are we really that doom.

If we benefit humans lives it will in turn rise the tide for pets and animals as well, but until we can show unconditional compassion for our own species what right do we have to give to any others?

[ParanoiD84]

unconditional compassion for our own species what right do we have to give to any others?

Go tell that to all the murderers, rapists, terroists etc etc etc the list is very very long, im nice to strangers but they would not stand a chance in this match up, so go tell that to all the people and there is tons who is bad and dont deserve to take up space on this planet.

[Damajin]

As someone who just lost her therapy cat a few weeks ago and is still crying at the sight of other cats, I'd say her life was worth the same as a human. Stranger or no stranger. People tell me it was just a cat, but not to me because she was with me for 4 years. Not a lot, but in those 4 years we grew as close as any family member. She had a soul, she had her own way of doing things and she was a darned pest at times.

Would I have jumped infront of the car to save her if I had been there? Hell yes. Why? Because her life mattered just as any other. And if it could've spared me the pain that I'm going through right now then yes, even more so.

I miss her like crazy and it hurts to know that she won't be moving away with me.

Also, this is her.
Sorry for the large image...

Looks like a Bombay, they're beautiful sweet cats. I have one right now and they're incredibly affectionate and devoted animals, way more than people ever expect or give any cat credit for.

[Deleted]

This is comparing apples(humans) to oranges(pets). You are saying that a being you can't possibly understand because it is different is less than a stranger than someone who you can understand and communicate to. Do you not see the disconnect or are we really that doom.

If we benefit humans lives it will in turn rise the tide for pets and animals as well, but until we can show unconditional compassion for our own species what right do we have to give to any others?

Do you really think this is about right and wrong? What fantasy world are people living in? This is about people putting their own interest above an unrelated strangers interest. We do this all the time for a lot less valid reasons than another life, human or otherwise. You'd further your own career even if it meant the end of another persons career, livelihood and possibly life and you wouldn't think twice about doing that. We're even encouraged to do that on a societal level. But when it's about putting an animal that has emotional value to you above a human that has no emotional value to you then we're suddenly so damn protective of our own species, calling crimes against humanity, assigning arbitrary values etc. The hypocrisy is insane. That's the actual disconnect on this topic.

[Kretan]

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.

I don't agree. I think that every opinion in existence either has an objective truth or a grey scale of opinion. Hitler was wrong and "okay" at the same time. There are some things that exist that cannot have a right and wrong, but everything needs an "okay" at all times. In the absence of right and wrong, "okay" takes precedent and points towards a grey scale right and wrong.

In order for an opinion to have an objective truth, there needs to be scientifically verifiable evidence to back one side or the other. In the absence of scientific evidence, popular and opinion and power determine what is "okay". Is there any scientifically objective evidence and truth to back the idea that humans come before animals? I would think the answer is no, so then the next level is do you think there is scientific evidence and truth to back the choice between human and animal? I think the answer is again no. The next level then is do you think there is scientific evidence to back the construct of what someones choice should be between two entities where neither one is scientifically backed by truth to come first? I think finally the answer is yet again no. Because of that, what is right and wrong defaults to what is "okay", and "okay" is determined by power and support. Since neither side has enough power, and both sides have support, both sides are "okay".

This has been a fascinating thought experiment by the way.

[Revi]

No. Treat others as you'd reasonably want them to treat you. If someone else had the choice between saving their cat and saving my kid, I'd hope to live in a society where they'd save my kid. Best I can do is to act in accordance with the society I want to live in.

Emotionally my pet would be far more important, but not more important if I had to choose who lives.

[BloodyPoptart]

I've browsed these forums as a non-member for a long, long time. It's full of naysayers with half-formed opinions who seem to always want to jump on a thread for no other reason than to tell OP he or she is wrong.

Between that, and the absolutely insane/idiotic way people show themselves to be on various other social media (let alone how oblivious and rude they are while driving or in the stores) yes. I'd go so far as to say I'd drop bombs on cities to save my pet, because it's a win/win for the world at large.

[Stelio Kontos]

I've browsed these forums as a non-member for a long, long time. It's full of naysayers with half-formed opinions who seem to always want to jump on a thread for no other reason than to tell OP he or she is wrong.

Between that, and the absolutely insane/idiotic way people show themselves to be on various other social media (let alone how oblivious and rude they are while driving or in the stores) yes. I'd go so far as to say I'd drop bombs on cities to save my pet, because it's a win/win for the world at large.

Was the name Edge-Lord taken when you signed up?

[Deleted]

As someone who just lost her therapy cat a few weeks ago and is still crying at the sight of other cats, I'd say her life was worth the same as a human. Stranger or no stranger. People tell me it was just a cat, but not to me because she was with me for 4 years. Not a lot, but in those 4 years we grew as close as any family member. She had a soul, she had her own way of doing things and she was a darned pest at times.

Would I have jumped infront of the car to save her if I had been there? Hell yes. Why? Because her life mattered just as any other. And if it could've spared me the pain that I'm going through right now then yes, even more so.

I miss her like crazy and it hurts to know that she won't be moving away with me.

Also, this is her.
Sorry for the large image...

As someone who has always loved cats, this broke my heart. I hope you're alright.

[Raetary]

you are going to follow soon enough.

and then make your life even worse by killing me and getting put in a nice cozy prison cell and rot there for the next years

[May90]

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.

But why? Why is Hitler objectively wrong? I think almost everybody agrees that his actions went against everything our modern civilization stands for, and that's what makes us see him as evil - but, again, it is our subjective opinion, even if it is almost unanimous. In my eyes, Hitler is one of the worst persons to ever walk this planet (although Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot might have been worse) - in someone else's mind, he might be a hero who stood up for German people and is only judged harshly today because the victors are always right... There is a lot of room for opinions here.

The objective truth is: many people have died or suffered due to his actions. "Wrong" or "right", it is irrelevant: this is what happened, and we should try our best to not allow it to happen ever again.

[SteveRocks]

My dog's life holds more value to me than any human stranger and many of my friends...hell even some of my extended family members.

People suck. Dogs are Awesome.

[Kretan]

But why? Why is Hitler objectively wrong? I think almost everybody agrees that his actions went against everything our modern civilization stands for, and that's what makes us see him as evil - but, again, it is our subjective opinion, even if it is almost unanimous. In my eyes, Hitler is one of the worst persons to ever walk this planet (although Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot might have been worse) - in someone else's mind, he might be a hero who stood up for German people and is only judged harshly today because the victors are always right... There is a lot of room for opinions here.

The objective truth is: many people have died or suffered due to his actions. "Wrong" or "right", it is irrelevant: this is what happened, and we should try our best to not allow it to happen ever again.

I agree with your premise totally. It depends on what scenario you are trying to define as objective. I am not a history buff (engineering), but if I am correct, a major point for Hitler was the blonde hair blue eyed german was a superior race, and that was a major motivation for him doing what he did. That is objectively wrong. There is nothing objectively superior about blonde hair and blue eyes or German. If his objective reason for doing what he did was rooted in that, then he is objectively wrong (like burning witches....the women murdered had no special powers).

If however you define the reason for his actions as trying to stand up for Germany because his national pride said he must, then I would assert that the gray scale of opinion applies, and it is as close to being objectively wrong as you can get without actually being objective. History unfolded, and the side opposing him had the motivation and power to push the grey scale of opinion against him and made him wrong....but not objectively wrong.

[Stelio Kontos]

and then make your life even worse by killing me and getting put in a nice cozy prison cell and rot there for the next years

Her life's already been ruined by some misanthropic troglodyte letting her child die to save his ferret, where she spends the rest of that ruined life is irrelevant.

[Deleted]

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

Here's my thread on this topic...

Yeah, I remember. Pretty crazy if I am totally honest.

[Deleted]

Yeah of course

[Arganis]

When most people think their cat and dog is worth more than the average human it tells you everything you need to know about humanity.

[Theinquisition]

Generally speaking...yes

[Theinquisition]

When most people think their cat and dog is worth more than the average human it tells you everything you need to know about humanity.

It depends on the person.

I mean, lets take MMOC. If I had to sacrifice my pet to save someone like immortalrich, or skroe, or even Celista...yes. they are just good all around people.

some others....no. I would unplug their life-support to charge my phone.

They know who they are.

[May90]

I agree with your premise totally. It depends on what scenario you are trying to define as objective. I am not a history buff (engineering), but if I am correct, a major point for Hitler was the blonde hair blue eyed german was a superior race, and that was a major motivation for him doing what he did. That is objectively wrong. There is nothing objectively superior about blonde hair and blue eyes or German. If his objective reason for doing what he did was rooted in that, then he is objectively wrong (like burning witches....the women murdered had no special powers).

If however you define the reason for his actions as trying to stand up for Germany because his national pride said he must, then I would assert that the gray scale of opinion applies, and it is as close to being objectively wrong as you can get without actually being objective. History unfolded, and the side opposing him had the motivation and power to push the grey scale of opinion against him and made him wrong....but not objectively wrong.

Well, one's belief might be objectively wrong, but it doesn't necessarily make acting on that belief wrong. For example, I might believe that the Moon is my girlfriend, and I need to get to her by any possible means - so I build a self-made spaceship for that and make my design available to everyone, hence causing one of the biggest technological leaps in the history of mankind. While my reasoning was wrong, I ended up doing something that the overwhelming majority of people will see as awesome.

In case of Hitler, it would be really hard to create a consistent system of morals in which he can be seen as a good/right person (provided one is looking at all of his deeds, not just nitpicking those that suit their agenda) - but it is probably possible to do.