How About THIS Morals -Ethics Question?

[David Sklansky]

You are brought at gunpoint into a laboratory where you will be forced to choose which of two rooms will have those in it killed painlessly. If you refuse they all will be, so let's not even contemplate that option.

In one room is a very elderly person you have never met. In the other is your devoted three year old collie. Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies? What about any respected religions?

[PLOlover]

The highest morality would be to fight. I'll let others elaborate.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the philosophy of one protecting what one values the most.

Personally, I value my dog's life over a suprisingly large percent of human beings.

Change it to a cow and put a Hindu in that situation...

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the philosophy of one protecting what one values the most.

Personally, I value my dog's life over a suprisingly large percent of human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

dead on baby.

[PorscheNGuns]

Your collie is your collie, end of story.

The eldlery person could be the father of 3 or 4 people, or the grandfather of 15 people. He could have a loving wife. He could have a weekly golf outing every Sunday. He could etc etc etc.

The brutally selfish and therefore immoral thing to do would be to keep your dog, and its not even close.

The tricky situation would come up if it was your dog vs. a convicted rapist that you've never met.

-Matt

[EnderIII]

"The tricky situation would come up if it was your dog vs. a convicted rapist that you've never met."

This situation seems in no way tricky....unless you hate your collie because it ate your children.

[Lestat]

A collie is a possession. Granted, its a possession you can grow to love, but still a possession. Choosing to save your collie is on the same moral plane as choosing to save your Rolex.

[Jacob_Gilliam]

If an animal is just a possesion like a rolex, why do we have laws against animal cruelty? Still, it is logical that we would value our own kind over other species, so it would be hard to justify saving the dog.

[The Dude]

I'm having a hard time imagining an ethical approach that I could respect that would allow for saving the collie in this situation.

[West]

I think you probably need to rework your example. Choosing to not be coerced into making a decision like that is definitely an option.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You are brought at gunpoint into a laboratory where you will be forced to choose which of two rooms will have those in it killed painlessly. If you refuse they all will be, so let's not even contemplate that option.

In one room is a very elderly person you have never met. In the other is your devoted three year old collie. Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies? What about any respected religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
If an animal is just a possesion like a rolex, why do we have laws against animal cruelty? Still, it is logical that we would value our own kind over other species, so it would be hard to justify saving the dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, because animals are living creatures who feel pain and are capable of suffering. Laws should be in place to prevent their cruelty.

We maintain animals to be used as our pets and/or to otherwise serve our needs. I didn't mean "possession" to be a cold term. I myself love animals, but we have nevertheless made certain animals the possessions of humans. Perhaps a better question to have asked would be the choice between the painless killing of the old man or the torture of the collie.

I personally don't find these types of topics that Sklansky keeps bringing where he asks for a choice between two evils as overly philosophical or even useful.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, because animals are living creatures who feel pain and are capable of suffering. Laws should be in place to prevent their cruelty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trees are living and we can in no way determine that they don't "feel pain", yet if you want to cut down the cherry tree in your backyard noone is going to come down on you for cruelty to living things.
Anyway I'm just nitpicking, overall I agree that a dog is perceived as more or less a possession by society. Whether that is moral or immoral would be a tougher question.


I think the key in the example is that you have to make a choice between something that would cause (probably) just you suffering, and something that would probably cause other people to have to suffer (not the elderly person so much as their families). I would choose to take on the suffering personally rather than cause others to, and I believe that is the morally correct thing to do.

I think the choice would be more difficult for me if I had to choose between my brother dying and an unknown person from the world dying. It would be more difficult because my brother dying would cause me a lot more suffering than my dog (who I love very much) dying. But I can't come up with a good reason as to why it would be correct to kill the unknown person rather than my brother.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't find these types of topics that Sklansky keeps bringing where he asks for a choice between two evils as overly philosophical or even useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I liken these kinds of questions to someone asking "What would be the correct way to play a game of LHE where everyone else at the table is hypnotized into believing that you are always dealt the Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ/images/graemlins/diamond.gif?" The questions are sometimes very hard because our moral decision tree (like our LHE decision tree) is created by real situations that come up in our lives. It's much easier to come up with the solution to a problem when you have seen many similar problems to it than when it is totally off the wall like some of David's moral questions. But that is good, since by exercising the reasoning behind our moral process we are able to refine our moral thinking process and become more aware of what we really believe (and doubt some of the things that we have believed for a long time), and hopefully that will help us make better moral judgements in real situations in the future.

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps a utilitarian could make a case for it if given more information.

[Piers]

As always I would follow my instincts at the time, although I find it difficult to empathise with a future me selecting the collie.

As for other non-human life, I might give second thoughts to a pregnant Dodo.

Note – I don’t have a Collie, and have not had a pet I have had a deep feeling for a pet. I guess if I went through that experience I would give a different emphasis. I am also assume that never met means don’t know anything else about them (I assume therefore that they probably live in Asia and are most likely Chinese. /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Change it to a cow and put a Hindu in that situation...

[/ QUOTE ]
thats a toughy, a cow or a dog.
if the hindu is picking, id say the dog gets it

[housenuts]

i would save my dog over a very elderly person any day of the week.

[spaminator101]

what about hindus

[tolbiny]

Why is it that you place a higher value on a random human life?

[tolbiny]

This is an easy one for me- my emotional answer would be to save my dog.

If you want me to rationalize it i could come up with some garbage about evolution and how true altruism doesn't exist (or at least doesn't exist for long), and saving the elderly person would likely have no positive impact on my life, while having my dog will.
That would be the intellectual excuse, but emotionally i am selfish and want to be happy.

More difficult would be if others would know about the choice i made and i would have to live with their disapproval.

[JoshuaD]

If it was a Golden Retriever I'd choose the dog, but a Collie? C'mon. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
A collie is a possession. Granted, its a possession you can grow to love, but still a possession. Choosing to save your collie is on the same moral plane as choosing to save your Rolex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the collie is much more of a person in this situation than the man. You love the collie, it is a living being with emotions and feelings. Ya the man is human, but you don't know the first thing about him nor do you have any feelings for him. They are both living creatures and one means a lot more to you. Makes sense to pick the collie

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a cheap way out from trying to make a tough decision. This is the worst morality of all. You have been given the option of saving someones life, but you don't have the balls to pick who, so you decide to kill everyone.

[Lestat]

A collie cannot be "more" of a person. It's a dog.

I agree you can come to love a dog, but you would be acting in your own self interest. I pray a stranger never finds him or herself old and trapped in a burning building with you and your dog.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a cheap way out from trying to make a tough decision. This is the worst morality of all. You have been given the option of saving someones life, but you don't have the balls to pick who, so you decide to kill everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense, its not a way out at all. I believe the world would be a much better place if people refused to cooperate with bad people. I assume we agree that the gunman is a bad person whatever we mean by bad.

By simplefying the problem so much DS misses out on all the ramifications of the decision that make it moral e.g.

Will cooperation make it more likely he will do it again?
Will it be even worse next time?
Would he have even committed this act if he didn't expect cooperation?
etc.

I don't believe either choice DS wants to leave us with tends to make the world a better place than the other, and hence its not a moral choice for me. BTW I didn't say I wouldn't chose, just that the choice wouldn't be to do with morality - thats assuming the scenario prevents not cooperating as an option.

chez

[Lestat]

If he stuck to useful topics which do need to be debated like abortion, capital punishment, torture or death choices as they relate to war, etc. it would be reasonable. If he even put this question in the form of: You are in a buring building and must decide whether to save a 90 year old stranger or your border collie.... It might be a useful excerise to contemplate because you might actually one day find yourself in such a situation. Or maybe it's helpful for you to get your values straight, etc.

But the sense I get from the way he forms some of these questions is that they are a product of a deranged (albeit genuis) mind and that he is basically wrestling with these morbid questions himself internally.

[Lestat]

So basically we are talking about terrorism. Why not form the question as such instead of some silly implausible scenario of a gunman holding an old man and your collie hostage? These are real life questions we might need to face one day.

[BillC]

How about this then: Your choice is between 100 people being killed and having to tear the skin off of a 1 year old baby with a pair of plyers. This is from a freshman philosophy course...

[durron597]

To the people who chose dog:

What if you changed it to a 13 year old human and a 13 year old dog?

To the people who chose human:

What if the human was on a kidney machine and would die in 3-6 months anyway?

If you still choose human, what if the dog had pulled your son out of your house that was burning down, and still has a large scar from where he was burned?

[ QUOTE ]
How about this then: Your choice is between 100 people being killed and having to tear the skin off of a 1 year old baby with a pair of plyers. This is from a freshman philosophy course...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would refuse to chose. But I want to know how you answered.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
You are brought at gunpoint into a laboratory where you will be forced to choose which of two rooms will have those in it killed painlessly. If you refuse they all will be, so let's not even contemplate that option.

In one room is a very elderly person you have never met. In the other is your devoted three year old collie. Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies? What about any respected religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy, dog dies - food chain.

This example should have had two humans though not one human and one canine.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
i would save my dog over a very elderly person any day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost everyone is ignoring the question, which isn't what you would do.

I personally can't think of any philosohy or religion that you could appeal to...

Maybe Utilitarianism if you believe that the dog will bring more overall pleasure to the world than the man would.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would save my dog over a very elderly person any day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost everyone is ignoring the question, which isn't what you would do.

I personally can't think of any philosohy or religion that you could appeal to...

Maybe Utilitarianism if you believe that the dog will bring more overall pleasure to the world than the man would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Epicurian Hedonism - doing whatever makes the individual happiest.

chez

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You are brought at gunpoint into a laboratory where you will be forced to choose which of two rooms will have those in it killed painlessly. If you refuse they all will be, so let's not even contemplate that option.
<font color="white"> . </font>
In one room is a very elderly person you have never met. In the other is your devoted three year old collie. Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies? What about any respected religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

None that I know of, either way.

PETA is not a philosophy but aspires to be a religion.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
You are brought at gunpoint into a laboratory where you will be forced to choose which of two rooms will have those in it killed painlessly. If you refuse they all will be, so let's not even contemplate that option.

In one room is a very elderly person you have never met. In the other is your devoted three year old collie.

Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies? What about any respected religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

No and no.

[snowden719]

you should refuse to choose either room, I don't know why you don;t even consider that action.

[veganmav]

[ QUOTE ]
you should refuse to choose either room, I don't know why you don;t even consider that action.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were the guy who checked the river last to act with the nuts last night on party weren't you?

[snowden719]

you should do stand up. You sir, are funny. A funny funny guy. I bet they love you at parties.

[David Sklansky]

"In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation."

This is a ridiculous post. Not because there isn't some rationale to not cooperate with gunmen for some long term good. But because I specifically stipulated that it shouldn't be considered. It had nothing to do with the point. I could have said there were two burning buildings and you could only save one occupant. Or something along those lines. Anybody who interjects arguments about gunmen into this thread has some sort of problem.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
You are brought at gunpoint into a laboratory where you will be forced to choose which of two rooms will have those in it killed painlessly. If you refuse they all will be, so let's not even contemplate that option.

In one room is a very elderly person you have never met. In the other is your devoted three year old collie. Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies? What about any respected religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is my problem with these types of questions: You don't know what you would do a lot of times until you are in the situation. I think the Stanford test proved that (the interrogation/torture one). We can make an assumption, but that is about it. If you would have asked some of the U.S. soldiers if they would have tortured Iraqi's before they left, my guess is that most would have said "no"; even the ones who ended up doing it. I think you could say the same thing about most of the Nazis/SS/Gestap/etc...

craig

[mackthefork]

Would anyone find out if I killed the old guy? Chances are I would if he was very old. The dog makes me happy, the old guy just complains about my dog shitting on his lawn.

Mack

There is no logical, objective answer. The reason that most of us would pick the human is that we can more emotionally relate to the human than the dog. Neither is more important,in the way that one clump of atoms is no more important than another clump of atoms.

So, it would cause me more pain to ignore the human and pick the dog, than to pick the human and ignore the dog.

Shooby /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation."

This is a ridiculous post. Not because there isn't some rationale to not cooperate with gunmen for some long term good. But because I specifically stipulated that it shouldn't be considered. It had nothing to do with the point. I could have said there were two burning buildings and you could only save one occupant. Or something along those lines. Anybody who interjects arguments about gunmen into this thread has some sort of problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no, I protest. I'm happy to remove the gunman from the problem, as I said but in doing so I claim you remove the moral issues from the decision.

If you think chosing the dog or the man has more than nodding aquaintance with a moral decision then I think you misunderstand the nature of morality. Address this if you like, but don't misunderstand my post.

Are you suggesting it is ridiculous to suggest you are missing the point?

chez

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
A collie cannot be "more" of a person. It's a dog.

I agree you can come to love a dog, but you would be acting in your own self interest. I pray a stranger never finds him or herself old and trapped in a burning building with you and your dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't count being human as a requirement for being a person. Like someone here said, we are more likley to relate emotionally to the human than the man because we are the same species. However in this situation, the love and concern for the dog which is the kind one has for a family member is more powerful than the emotional bond we have with this random human. The dog is more of a person because we are more connected with it.

If you can say you love a friend more than for the pleasure he/she provides you, but as something deeper, then you can say the same for a dog or any animal.

Now if you change the man with a baby, or more people then it becomes more tricky. I think at some point you feel emotionally more for the people than your dog, so you pick the people. Even if they are strangers.

what if you had to choose between a three year old CHILD and an elderly lady?

[hmkpoker]

I save the collie.

I estimate it to be unlikely that the elderly person has any dependants (information to the contrary might make me think otherwise), and I have some emotional attachment to the collie.

Lassie lives.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a ridiculous post. Not because there isn't some rationale to not cooperate with gunmen for some long term good. But because I specifically stipulated that it shouldn't be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You stipulated that it shouldn't be considered because if we refuse both will be killed. That's not a good enough reason for some of us, so if you don't want it to be considered, ask the question differently.

[ QUOTE ]
I could have said there were two burning buildings and you could only save one occupant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, because animals are living creatures who feel pain and are capable of suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how you say an animal is just a possession on par with a watch, and the very next post you say animals are living creatures who feel. Don't fret, logical consistency is obviously not a prerequisite for this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
...off the wall like some of David's moral questions. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is that they usually aren't moral questions, they are subjective values questions. What one person values may differ.

The life of a man about to die in 12 nanoseconds or the life of your dog -- you decide the "moral" answer! Yawn.

[FlFishOn]

A young ocra whale is sick in the Seattle area. A multi-million dollar rescue effort is undertaken (funding is both privare and public). Mission success is nowhere near 100%, more likely the whale will die 25% of the time anyhow. The species will benefit from one more individual only in the tiniest way, orcas are doing just fine, thank you.

How many children's lives could have been saved/improved with this similar level of funding? When a society chooses to spend millions on a whale don't they also choose to not spend millions on our own species?

I was disgusted by this at every report.

[ QUOTE ]
A young ocra whale is sick in the Seattle area. A multi-million dollar rescue effort is undertaken (funding is both privare and public). Mission success is nowhere near 100%, more likely the whale will die 25% of the time anyhow. The species will benefit from one more individual only in the tiniest way, orcas are doing just fine, thank you.

How many children's lives could have been saved/improved with this similar level of funding? When a society chooses to spend millions on a whale don't they also choose to not spend millions on our own species?

I was disgusted by this at every report.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are playing into Sklansky's hands. If the money for an orca rescue is voluntarily provided for, then its their choice what they want to contribute to. I agree that millions for an orca seems excessive in light of other pressing concerns. So what's your cutoff value? If someone spent $5 to save a whale, isn't the same argument that they could have better spent $5 on a homeless child? For that matter, forget the orca rescue. Couldn't the $5 you spent on a movie last night have gone to starving children? Should every dollar spent beyond mere subsistence be given to charity? Where do we draw the line?

[Scotch78]

Pretty much everyone seems to be assuming that human life is more valuable than non-human life, yet that is a very difficult premise to support. We would certainly like to believe its truth, but it is not a particularly logical assumption to maintain.

Scott

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everyone seems to be assuming that human life is more valuable than non-human life, yet that is a very difficult premise to support. We would certainly like to believe its truth, but it is not a particularly logical assumption to maintain.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

The audience is biased, however. They are all humans after all.

[Lestat]

It is possible to possess a living creature with feelings. I don't see any logical inconsistency between the two posts I made.

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible to possess a living creature with feelings. I don't see any logical inconsistency between the two posts I made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, then is it possible to possess a Rolex watch with feelings?

QED.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
A collie is a possession. Granted, its a possession you can grow to love, but still a possession. Choosing to save your collie is on the same moral plane as choosing to save your Rolex.




[/ QUOTE ]
This is just completely incorrect.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the choice would be more difficult for me if I had to choose between my brother dying and an unknown person from the world dying. It would be more difficult because my brother dying would cause me a lot more suffering than my dog (who I love very much) dying. But I can't come up with a good reason as to why it would be correct to kill the unknown person rather than my brother.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is your brother a good person? If so I think that is reason enough to save your brother. Assuming the other person could be anybody, they could be a teacher or they could be a serial rapist. I would much rather choose to save the person that I know is a valued member of society regardless of whether or not he is your brother.

[Macedon]

Didn't read any of the reponses. The question is too easy. The old man must be saved if your value system are rational and based on humanistic principles.

Anything less would be reflective of a sub-human philosophy, a bizarre (illogical) religious/ideological belief, or some equally irrational value system.

[tolbiny]

"The old man must be saved if your value system are rational and based on humanistic principles."

You make a lot of assumptions.

[Lestat]

We're missing each other. Feelings have nothing to do with it. The question pertains to the "chooser's" feelings, not the old man, not the dog, and not the fact that a watch doesn't have feelings.

Btw- What does QED mean?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A collie is a possession. Granted, its a possession you can grow to love, but still a possession. Choosing to save your collie is on the same moral plane as choosing to save your Rolex.




[/ QUOTE ]
This is just completely incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[Macedon]

[ QUOTE ]
"The old man must be saved if your value system are rational and based on humanistic principles."

You make a lot of assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes. The whole question is based on assumptions; that is, that we would know, or be capable of knowing what to do.

Since it is obvious that mankind is working with limited intelligence, if placed in a situation like this a person would be best to approach the problem with the most reasonable point of view he can muster. Since an objective value system has not been bequethed to us from above, a humanistic approach, IMO, provides the most rational (least biased) way of assessing the value of one decision over another.

Pure logic is obviously not applicable here since this is not a mathematical question. Until a logical formula is given for assigning value to non-mathematical things, we will have to make-do with a humanistic* approach.


*Without thought to god, religion, ideologies, etc.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
You are brought at gunpoint into a laboratory where you will be forced to choose which of two rooms will have those in it killed painlessly. If you refuse they all will be, so let's not even contemplate that option.

In one room is a very elderly person you have never met. In the other is your devoted three year old collie. Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies? What about any respected religions?


[/ QUOTE ]

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the philosophy of one protecting what one values the most.

Personally, I value my dog's life over a suprisingly large percent of human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

[David Sklansky]

"If you think chosing the dog or the man has more than nodding aquaintance with a moral decision then I think you misunderstand the nature of morality."

I neither know nor care if the decision is is a moral one an ethical one or has some other name. All I care about are the reasons, if any behind it, and whether it logically contradicts other decisions that same person makes.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you think chosing the dog or the man has more than nodding aquaintance with a moral decision then I think you misunderstand the nature of morality."

I neither know nor care if the decision is is a moral one an ethical one or has some other name. All I care about are the reasons, if any behind it, and whether it logically contradicts other decisions that same person makes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay sorry about that. I think your title confused me.

chez

[tolbiny]

Why can't you take a selfish approach- take the course that would allow you to live your life as comfortably as possible?

[bholdr]

screw the dog. really, it's a dog. i like my dog a whole lot more than almost any person, but, she's just a dog.

...but, what if, instead of a dog, there was a young, healthy gorilla, capable of communicating via sign language, etc, behind door number 2?

[PLOlover]

The real answer, once I recognized your question when you said ok no gunmen, two burning buildings ...

Ok. First of all you have a property right in the dog. He belongs to you. A stranger you have no connection to.

So. Two burning buildings you can be completely justified if you choose to save your dog, which is your property.

But. In the coerced example of the gunman, you may incur some liability, criminal liability and civil liability, if you choose your property and thereby arguably assist/accomplice the murder.

So I think you are under no obligation to act to save anyone, however, taking any active role which results in a crime can in the most extreme case put you in the role of an accomplice. The Patty Hearst example comes to mind.

[Lestat]

So you're saying he shouldn't have titled it a moral -ethics question, but a material and legal question?

[chomsky53]

david, posting faggot [censored] doesnt make you smart. it makes you a faggot. i think even you can see why.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying he shouldn't have titled it a moral -ethics question, but a material and legal question?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a sense all law is just the practical ramifications of the public morality.

I also think all natural rights are founded on private property, something like that.

But you know the bible is a lawbook and most people would say it is about morality.

I don't think it has to do with ethics as ethics is more of a "you have a duty to more than one person in an issue", and how to deal with it.

[Kripke]

If you are a believer in ethical egoism, you might want to choose the dog.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm

However, if you are not mentally ill, even contemplating saving the dog is not an option.

- Kripke

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
david, posting faggot [censored] doesnt make you smart. it makes you a faggot. i think even you can see why.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least change your name. Come on man!!

craig