New Dog -Man Question

[David Sklansky]

Actually almost the same question as far as I'm concerned. But I have to change it to avoid the silly, off the subject, responses.

You have in your hand a medicine that will degrade so fast that the only two beings you can reach in time to save from death is the puppy of a guy you never met three houses down (which will be completely cured), or a neighbor who you have also never met who will only live an extra twenty four hours even with the medicine. After which you will leave town for good and never be associated with your choice.

Are there good arguments to save the puppy? If so would any pass muster by any religion? Would you save it even if there aren't any good arguments?

I AM GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually almost the same question as far as I'm concerned. But I have to change it to avoid the silly, off the subject, responses.

You have in your hand a medicine that will degrade so fast that the only two beings you can reach in time to save from death is the puppy of a guy you never met three houses down (which will be completely cured), or a neighbor who you have also never met who will only live an extra twenty four hours even with the medicine. After which you will leave town for good and never be associated with your choice.

Are there good arguments to save the puppy? If so would any pass muster by any religion? Would you save it even if there aren't any good arguments?

I AM GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I save the human, because I'm South Korean and I'm hungry. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[AlphaWice]

Skip the story. I would phrase it like this.

You have the option to save either a dog for life, or an average, american citizen for 24 hours. Everyone except you are unaware of your choice. Are there good arguments to save the dog?

---------


I choose to save the dog, and here is why. In the choice, we are basically comparing a very small duration of human life versus a much larger duration of dog-life.

The value that the owner of the puppy gets over the duration of the dog-life, I *think* is much larger than the value that the man gets over his one extra day.

Furthermore, the neighbor is already useless if he will only live an extra day. What could he possibly accomplish in one day that he hasn't already?

[Non_Comformist]

for what it's worth I choose the puppy.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually almost the same question as far as I'm concerned. But I have to change it to avoid the silly, off the subject, responses.

You have in your hand a medicine that will degrade so fast that the only two beings you can reach in time to save from death is the puppy of a guy you never met three houses down (which will be completely cured), or a neighbor who you have also never met who will only live an extra twenty four hours even with the medicine. After which you will leave town for good and never be associated with your choice.

Are there good arguments to save the puppy? If so would any pass muster by any religion? Would you save it even if there aren't any good arguments?

I AM GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading all of your moral/ethics post I truly hope you never become dictator of the U.S. I really don't want to be put to these tests. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

craig

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Skip the story. I would phrase it like this.

You have the option to save either a dog for life, or an average, american citizen for 24 hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does nationality have to come into this?

A human is a human, be it a citizen of the US, Africa, Argentina, or South Korea.

[ QUOTE ]

I choose to save the dog, and here is why. In the choice, we are basically comparing a very small duration of human life versus a much larger duration of dog-life.

The value that the owner of the puppy gets over the duration of the dog-life, I *think* is much larger than the value that the man gets over his one extra day.

[/ QUOTE ]

*scoff*

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, the neighbor is already useless if he will only live an extra day. What could he possibly accomplish in one day that he hasn't already?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, maybe he could spend that day with his family, tell them how much loves them? Sort out his affairs in this world and maybe even contemplate his affairs in the next?

Amazed,
SDM

[The Dude]

I can't think of good reason given your exact stipulations, no.

[The Dude]

I agree with your entire post.

There's is no objective answer. Emotions aside, neither life for is any more significant than the other.
Because I can relate to the human being almost exclusively, I would give it to the human being, because the human would have extra time to see family,etc. That decision is based on emotion, of course, but it's hard to overide the ol' brain's operating system.
So, I'd give it to the human, because I can relate,plus, I don't like animals,so there. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Shooby

[AlphaWice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Skip the story. I would phrase it like this.

You have the option to save either a dog for life, or an average, american citizen for 24 hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does nationality have to come into this?

A human is a human, be it a citizen of the US, Africa, Argentina, or South Korea.



[/ QUOTE ]

Then others would've made the argument that, say, some diseased human in a very poor country would rather die, or that somehow the value of their life (given their quality of life) is less.

Furthermore, the story implies that it is in America, or atleast an industrialized nation. Where else would "your neighbor" own a domesticated dog?

I'd like to also point out that I am from Canada.

------------------

I would also like to point out that I don't even like animals either, and yet I still choose the puppy. I don't even think it's that hard of a choice.

[Piers]

Probably save the human.

However what if there is a train that I will miss if I try to save either of them?

LOL. What if I'm in the middle of a SNG, and can't be bothered. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
There's is no objective answer. Emotions aside, neither life for is any more significant than the other.
Because I can relate to the human being almost exclusively, I would give it to the human being, because the human would have extra time to see family,etc. That decision is based on emotion, of course, but it's hard to overide the ol' brain's operating system.
So, I'd give it to the human, because I can relate,plus, I don't like animals,so there. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Skip the story. I would phrase it like this.

You have the option to save either a dog for life, or an average, american citizen for 24 hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does nationality have to come into this?

A human is a human, be it a citizen of the US, Africa, Argentina, or South Korea.



[/ QUOTE ]

Then others would've made the argument that, say, some diseased human in a very poor country would rather die, or that somehow the value of their life (given their quality of life) is less.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are dying anyway with or without the medication.

All you are buying with the medication is time, you are paying for their last day on earth and it is virtually free (technically it is at the expense of a puppy but that somehow seems hypocritical to even bring up unless you are a vegan)

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, the story implies that it is in America, or atleast an industrialized nation. Where else would "your neighbor" own a domesticated dog?

[/ QUOTE ]

Columbia people have dogs, just like in most of south america.

Shocking huh? Who would've thought those backwards dirt poor latinos that occupy that large mineral rich region would have any sort of 'civilization', here I thought their only role was to export all their minerals and manual labour for the benefit of their northern neighbours ... go figure! /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Also there's ... what's that place called, oh yeah Europe, I hear they have neighbours and dogs. (German Shepard, Dobermann etc)

[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to also point out that I am from Canada.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you go to an American school though? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif (j/k)

[ QUOTE ]

I would also like to point out that I don't even like animals either, and yet I still choose the puppy. I don't even think it's that hard of a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever heard of the food chain?

I hope I haven't caused offence by my tone, I am just honestly amazed this is even an issue.

Dogs get killed everyday. In South Korea dogs are bread and eaten.

We eat tons of animals and animal by products on a weekly basis, some of those animals have a shitty life from the get go (caged chickens) others are killed in a way that is unpleasant for us to witness. (cows - slaughterhouse or kosher/halal)

Human beings got to the top of the food chain by killing animals, it's what we do.

Whether you believe in the Garden of Eden, Evolution, or else, no one is disupting the first clothes a human made was the skin of an animal.

I love animals, greatly, but they are beneath us.

That doesn't mean their life isn't worth "anything" and it doesn't mean you can choose to treat them disrespectfully. (people who abuse animals deserve the [censored] kicked out of them to see what it feels like)

But it does mean that when the chips are down, a human's life is worth more than an animals.

If anybody disagrees with that, they are either stupid and/or a hypocrite.

Sincerely,
SDM

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there good arguments to save the puppy? If so would any pass muster by any religion? Would you save it even if there aren't any good arguments?


[/ QUOTE ]

1) Yes, saving the guy for 24 hours is a waste of time, even he should pick the puppy.

2) Probably not, what of it?

3) Yes.

Mack

[AlphaWice]

I will not bother with your useless flame. Here is what I dispute.

[ QUOTE ]


But it does mean that when the chips are down, a human's life is worth more than an animals.

If anybody disagrees with that, they are either stupid and/or a hypocrite.

Sincerely,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

In this example, we have chosen a day (86400 seconds) of human life to be compared to the life of a dog. <font color="blue"> Answer me this: What is the least x, for which you will still trade x seconds of human life for the life of a dog? </font>

I find your reply that "anyone who disagrees is stupid" to be rediculous. Also, your "food chain" argument is fallacious. Just because humans eat (among other things) dogs, doesn't mean that a dogs life is above a humans life.

When I made my claim that saving the dog was what I would do, I didn't make the claim that it was the "right" choice absolutely. OTOH, you claim that anyone who chooses the dog is "stupid", even though the evidence to support the choice of the human is not clear yet. Why don't we discuss the issue further?


EDIT: Another fact that you have not considered, is that we are not weighing the life of an animal alone. There is also the value that the owner of the dog gets from the dog.

[DougShrapnel]

This one is easily the man for 24 hrs. Where as the other dog-man was easliy the dog. My life is worth more to me than your life. My dogs life is worth more to me than a random persons life. However a random dogs entire life is not worth more than an anything above a insignificate ammount of time of a random persons life. Why? People assign worth to stuff all the time. Take a look at your AD&amp;D insurance policy. A digit and a thumb on your strong arm is worth the same as your entire arm on your week arm. Does that make sense?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

In this example, we have chosen a day (86400 seconds) of human life to be compared to the life of a dog. <font color="blue"> Answer me this: What is the least x, for which you will still trade x seconds of human life for the life of a dog? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

2 minutes, maybe 1.

[ QUOTE ]

I find your reply that "anyone who disagrees is stupid" to be rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, your "food chain" argument is fallacious. Just because humans eat (among other things) dogs, doesn't mean that a dogs life is above a humans life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean, "Doesn't mean a human's life is above a dog's life".

On that issue, I assumed you would read between the lines and see that humans are smarter, and have accomplished more than any species of dog has. (Has a dog ever written a poem that has moved it or another of it's species to tears?)

Animals rely on instinct, we have conscience, rationality, logic, creativity etc.

Not to mention we have the power to erradicate the whole canine species if we choose to, or alternatively give it new life in the form of new breeds and cloning.

They exist because we let them, that is the food chain, know your place on it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

When I made my claim that saving the dog was what I would do, I didn't make the claim that it was the "right" choice absolutely. OTOH, you claim that anyone who chooses the dog is "stupid", even though the evidence to support the choice of the human is not clear yet. Why don't we discuss the issue further?

[/ QUOTE ]

See above. (and sorry if I offended as said before)

[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: Another fact that you have not considered, is that we are not weighing the life of an animal alone. There is also the value that the owner of the dog gets from the dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have weighed this fact, people get over the death of animals, it doesn't effect them to the point of the loss of a human family member, and if it does, those people are in a very small minority and I would wager are extremely over-sensitive to many things in this dark, dark world.

The only "monkey wrench" in the mix you could create in this scenario, is if a child was the owner of the puppy and that child was dying of a terminal illness.

That's a fucker of a situation (pardon my french) and complicates things.

On the one hand do you give the adult an extra day to wrap up his earthly and more importantly spiritual affairs (ie- The Casino Bus is leaving in 5 minutes, last bet for Mr. Pascal /images/graemlins/wink.gif ) but by doing that put a 'sinless' child through more emotional pain on earth by witnessing the loss of it's pet, OR do you maxmimize the sinless child's happiness by letting the pet live and deprive the man of the extra day, of which in it he could have neatly closed his life here and potentially opened the new one (if it exists) in the world thereafter?

As I said, it's a fucker of a situation. (Though I still think the man should get the extra day since the child is sinless, my heart would break for a child who has suffered so much in their shortlife to have witness their pet die too)

Oy Vey. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Human life is many orders of magnitude more valuable than animal life. That's accepted in our society, so the answer is an easy one.

I can't think of a single argument that changes this. If the person soon to die knew he had 24 hours to live and preferred to save the puppy, and had no family or friends, then and only then would I save the puppy.

[txag007]

I think I know where you are going with this, so I'll bite. I save the human every single time.

Why? The same reason I'm not a vegetarian. I value human life over that of any other animal.

[ QUOTE ]
Human life is many orders of magnitude more valuable than animal life. That's accepted in our society, so the answer is an easy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course, we live in a society of humans -- just because humans have decided that their lives are more important than any other creatures in the universe, this is not an objective evaluation of their actual value.

If you value human life above all else, you pick the human. If you take a utilitarian view in which you say the human has 24 hrs to enjoy the world and the dog may get 10 years to do so, then you can take the dog. Oh my! Did I just claim a dog's life is worth more than a humans?!?! No, I didn't, so set your flamethrowers on idle. The underlying premise in reponses which claim that a member of the human species somehow has the right to life more than a member of all other species is silly. Of course, we are talking about a medicine developed by humans in this question, so it is not a simple right-to-life question (this is right-to-medicine actually), so maybe that should imply that humans should take precedence -- this is a reasonable argument to automatically taking the human. But if the question (and the other ad nauseum questions along this line) are intended to bring about the debate of what's more important, human life or non-human life, the answers are never objective because they all come from humans, who have been raised (indoctrinated if you will) with a human-centric view of the universe, many of whom believe (brainwashed if you will) that the entire universe was created as a backdrop for their own existence.

We all have a certain value with which we assign to animals and people, alike. Get rid of the human-developed medicine in the question, and change it from saving (where death is the "natural" result of passive action) to killing (where death is unnatural result of active action). Then the question more clearly focuses on just the persons underlying value sustem.

If you had to choose which is euthanized, would you choose either (a) human who is about to die in 24 hrs, or (b) healthy puppy.

Or, what if (b) ant.

Or how about, (b) endangered panda bear.

Or, (b) whale (another very sentient being).

Or make (a) a child molester.

The point is that all the answers are just a measure of each individuals value system -- some favor human life in all cases (even murderers), some weigh the "value" of the species in question a little more, etc.

But none of these debates are a question of right vs. wrong, or some moral 'truth'. And they lead to no further enlightenment on moral or ethical questions.

[ QUOTE ]
Why? The same reason I'm not a vegetarian. I value human life over that of any other animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your stance and it's fine, but points out that this isn't a question of morality, its a question of personal values.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually almost the same question as far as I'm concerned. But I have to change it to avoid the silly, off the subject, responses.

You have in your hand a medicine that will degrade so fast that the only two beings you can reach in time to save from death is the puppy of a guy you never met three houses down (which will be completely cured), or a neighbor who you have also never met who will only live an extra twenty four hours even with the medicine. After which you will leave town for good and never be associated with your choice.

Are there good arguments to save the puppy? If so would any pass muster by any religion? Would you save it even if there aren't any good arguments?

I AM GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally its not a moral decision. The scenario could form part of a moral decision in more complex situations and that confuses people into thinking there is a moral dimension.

I don't know which I would do, but on past evidence I would probably do very little.

chez

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
If you take a utilitarian view in which you say the human has 24 hrs to enjoy the world and the dog may get 10 years to do so, then you can take the dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.

By allowing the man another 24 hours, he may decide to donate his organs, OR just by having that 'closure' time with his family, will make them happy and make the grieving process easier, which means they will be more productive than if he had died without spending that 'closure' time with them. (grief can cause psychological issues and render humans less productive than if they never were faced with the death of a close loved one)

The man also on his death bed may inspire someone via phone call or final artistry, wheras it is doubtful a puppy has inspired someone in such a meaningful way. (I'm sure it has happened, but humans tend to be better at all round)

Also, there is no guarantee the dog may live 10 years, and at best you are gambling with 24 hours of a man's life for that of a dog's that may decide to chase a car one day and find out it's not a good idea.

[ISF]

Odds are I would be two lazy to save either, but given the choice probably the dog. I would imagine that the owners of the dog would get more utility from several years of its life then a person would out of living an extra 24 hours on the verge of certain deth.

[ QUOTE ]
Why? The same reason I'm not a vegetarian. I value human life over that of any other animal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Another logic flaw. The two have nothing to do with each other.

You eat meat because you don't value animal life more than your enjoyment of eating meat.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you take a utilitarian view in which you say the human has 24 hrs to enjoy the world and the dog may get 10 years to do so, then you can take the dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.

By allowing the man another 24 hours, he may decide to donate his organs, OR just by having that 'closure' time with his family, will make them happy and make the grieving process easier, which means they will be more productive than if he had died without spending that 'closure' time with them. (grief can cause psychological issues and render humans less productive than if they never were faced with the death of a close loved one)

The man also on his death bed may inspire someone via phone call or final artistry, wheras it is doubtful a puppy has inspired someone in such a meaningful way. (I'm sure it has happened, but humans tend to be better at all round)

Also, there is no guarantee the dog may live 10 years, and at best you are gambling with 24 hours of a man's life for that of a dog's that may decide to chase a car one day and find out it's not a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever, i said you *can* take the dog. In other words, a utilitarian view *may* allow justification for saving a dog versus someone who will be dead the next day. The rest of your post merely supports that this is a value question versus moral/ethical -- you point out the unknown value of the dog's life (may be dead next week), the value of organ donation, the valuie in allowing grievers a final goodbye, blah blah blah.

[ QUOTE ]
That's your stance and it's fine, but points out that this isn't a question of morality, its a question of personal values.

[/ QUOTE ]

And before someone says "aren't questions of personal values actually morality questions"? This is not the sense I mean it.

Example: I value a top-notch computer and couldn't care less about a TV as long as it functions. Another values a plasma TV but uses a nearly obsolete computer. A debate about the merits of the two stances is not a morality debate.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Whatever, i said you *can* take the dog. In other words, a utilitarian view *may* allow justification for saving a dog versus someone who will be dead the next day. The rest of your post merely supports that this is a value question versus moral/ethical -- you point out the unknown value of the dog's life (may be dead next week), the value of organ donation, the valuie in allowing grievers a final goodbye, blah blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea what Utilitarianism means?

Jeremy Bentham would be rolling in his grave. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
This one is easily the man for 24 hrs. Where as the other dog-man was easliy the dog. My life is worth more to me than your life. My dogs life is worth more to me than a random persons life. However a random dogs entire life is not worth more than an anything above a insignificate ammount of time of a random persons life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If both are random than human life is far more significant. However I think the question is about which will bring more happiness to human life.

[ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea what Utilitarianism means?

Jeremy Bentham would be rolling in his grave. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't capitalize it, did I? Thus I meant it in the general sense of the word.

Just like objectivist may generally describe an objective approach, and Objectivist would imply supporting the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand. Or libertarian versus Libertarian. Or democratic versus Democratic. more blah blah blah

[AlphaWice]

Doesn't the question imply that the man already knew he was sick, and already "closed up his life"?

[txag007]

"You eat meat because you don't value animal life more than your enjoyment of eating meat."

My example may be poor, but let me try to defend it: If I valued all animals on an equal level as humans, I wouldn't EAT THEM. That being said, I don't eat dog. I think that, however, is more of a cultural thing.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea what Utilitarianism means?

Jeremy Bentham would be rolling in his grave. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't capitalize it, did I? Thus I meant it in the general sense of the word.

Just like objectivist may generally describe an objective approach, and Objectivist would imply supporting the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand. Or libertarian versus Libertarian. Or democratic versus Democratic. more blah blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it has nothing to do with capitalization.

If you view Utilitarianism with the "blah blah" of my points above (which you dismiss) you'll see by adding time to the human it is closer to the concept than saving the dog.

[hmkpoker]

I initially jumped to the idea of saving the life of the man for 24 hours, but now I'm not sure.

I think saving the puppy might spare the owner from potential grief, which might in fact be better than giving the dying man an extra 24 hours of terminal illness.

Buuuuuut...since I'm assuming Sklansky intended this question to function in something a little more vacuum-like, my opinion is that a day of human life is worth more than a lifetime of dog...however...there has to be some break point if we are to assign any kind of worth to animal life...I'm not sure where that is, I may be wrong, it depends entirely on the opinion of the answerer, and I don't care to investigate it.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the question imply that the man already knew he was sick, and already "closed up his life"?

[/ QUOTE ]

More time, more options.

[Georgia Avenue]

Many of the response here surprise me…some of the people who seem to be the resident defenders of their religions have answered that they would save the dog…along with some staunch non-believers. And the pro-dying-dude camp is equally mixed…it seems like there are many ways to come to the conclusion that humans are more important than animals. Funny thing that…apparently no matter what the basis for your opinions might be, the conclusion usually ends up being the most self-interested. The utilitarians and the Christians unite in their ego-centrism!

I’m mostly joking, but I do think that for most people “People&gt;animals” is blindly axiomatic rather than a considered opinion. This question is doing some good work exposing that.

My own answer is: I have no clue. I do believe that animals have souls, but I don’t really think it’s murder to kill them. I don’t believe in a “Great Chain of Being,” but I do think animal testing is vital. In this situation, I think I would just do whatever felt right in the moment, because I could use the guy’s whole 24 hours thinking about it. Let’s put it this way: if I have never seen either one, I pick the man to live, because I might feel guilty about the thought of his death. If I can see either one, I surely would pick the puppy.

Wubbywubbywubby…I just loooove puppies!

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
If I can see either one, I surely would pick the puppy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd judge on who's the most aesthetically pleasing is that it? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[tolbiny]

Nah, the question that is coming is
"so why don't you take all the money you spend on dog food, and send it to staving kids in Ethiopia?"

[ QUOTE ]

If you view Utilitarianism with the "blah blah" of my points above (which you dismiss) you'll see by adding time to the human it is closer to the concept than saving the dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you are making a utility-based analysis to weight the remaining lives, and therefore doing *just what I said*! I never gave an answer as to what that utility-based analysis would result in because its based on personal opinions as to "value".

[Georgia Avenue]

Only because I'm very confused. Honestly, I do value human life more than animals, but I don't know why, and it's maddening. I also value soft tacos more than hardshells, but I'm aware than that's just personal taste (even though I think I'm right and hardshells are gross...). Besides practical and legal concerns, I'm not sure (or I have no clear reason to believe) that in an absolute sense (in God's eyes, or in the form of the Good or whatevs) animals are less than humans. What makes one living creature more "important" than another? Nature/evolution certainly doesn't give a crap about that!

And yes, I would say the same thing about a baby snake or bug or whatever, though emotionally there's no chance of me picking that over a person.

[tolbiny]

Of course the man may decide that what he really has always wanted to do is ass rape 10 yr old boys you'd feel like right bugger then, wouldn't you?

[ QUOTE ]
but I do think that for most people “People&gt;animals” is blindly axiomatic rather than a considered opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that axiom doesn't necessarily imply that "All people under any condition &gt; All animals under any condition". The same camp that says humans first, animals second, may not feel the same way if it was 24 hrs for Charles Manson, or slaughter Shamu.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I can see either one, I surely would pick the puppy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd judge on who's the most aesthetically pleasing is that it? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Large amounts of human and amimal evolution are driven by what is aesthetically pleasing, its as ingrained in us as anyting else.

[ QUOTE ]
it depends entirely on the opinion of the answerer

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Which makes it a debate about subjective value, not objective morality. The "good vs. evil" (or right vs. wrong) approach doesn't work, as usual.

[ QUOTE ]
"You eat meat because you don't value animal life more than your enjoyment of eating meat."

My example may be poor, but let me try to defend it: If I valued all animals on an equal level as humans, I wouldn't EAT THEM. That being said, I don't eat dog. I think that, however, is more of a cultural thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you can argue for saving an animal at the expense of a human even if you value them unequally. Say, 1 sec of human life versus lifetime of a whale. If you choose the whale, that doesn't mean you value whales equally, just that you values 80 yrs whale &gt; 1 sec human (not 80 years whale = 80 years human).

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you view Utilitarianism with the "blah blah" of my points above (which you dismiss) you'll see by adding time to the human it is closer to the concept than saving the dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you are making a utility-based analysis to weight the remaining lives, and therefore doing *just what I said*! I never gave an answer as to what that utility-based analysis would result in because its based on personal opinions as to "value".

[/ QUOTE ]

Utilitarianism is often summed up as "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."

Since humanity &amp; society stands to benefit more from the extra 24 hours the man is given than from the puppy's life, then the Utilitarian thing to do is to buy the human more time.

Yes you *can* argue for the dog and (in a vacuum) that's fine, but compared to the alternative, there is only one choice.

Anybody who chooses the dog I would wager has never lost anybody truly close to them.

Cheers,
SDM

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
for what it's worth I choose the puppy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you view Utilitarianism with the "blah blah" of my points above (which you dismiss) you'll see by adding time to the human it is closer to the concept than saving the dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you are making a utility-based analysis to weight the remaining lives, and therefore doing *just what I said*! I never gave an answer as to what that utility-based analysis would result in because its based on personal opinions as to "value".

[/ QUOTE ]

Utilitarianism is often summed up as "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."

Since humanity &amp; society stands to benefit more from the extra 24 hours the man is given than from the puppy's life, then the Utilitarian thing to do is to buy the human more time.

Yes you *can* argue for the dog and (in a vacuum) that's fine, but compared to the alternative, there is only one choice.

Anybody who chooses the dog I would wager has never lost anybody truly close to them.

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, one could make a case that the dog provides greater happiness to a greater number than the man's final day provides. You are making an absolute conclusion (man must live) based on subjective values (because the man provides greater happiness for a greater number which certainly may in fact not be the case!).

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
On that issue, I assumed you would read between the lines and see that humans are smarter, and have accomplished more than any species of dog has. (Has a dog ever written a poem that has moved it or another of it's species to tears?)

Animals rely on instinct, we have conscience, rationality, logic, creativity etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite our consciences, rationality and logic, human beings nevertheless do many foul things to other human beings (and other creatures) due to greed and selfishness. You seem to be implying that human beings are essentially worth more intrinsically than other animals....because we're smarter? I don't think so.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention we have the power to erradicate the whole canine species if we choose to, or alternatively give it new life in the form of new breeds and cloning.

They exist because we let them, that is the food chain, know your place on it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So your argument devolves into might makes right. Not much of an argument.

West, this guy has yet to post anything resembling a logical argument to date. I think he should be in the "because that's how I was raised to think" forum rather than philosophy.

[DeadRed]

[ QUOTE ]
Since humanity &amp; society stands to benefit more from the extra 24 hours the man is given than from the puppy's life, then the Utilitarian thing to do is to buy the human more time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice handwaving. Try justifying this statement instead of claiming it as fact.

I, personally, would rather have to explain to a family that their father/husband will die today instead of tomorrow so that little Johnny will have a life-long companion as opposed to telling Johnny his puppy dies so Mr. Jones gets to add 1/200 % to his lifespan.

[Macedon]

The arguments for the dog are absolutely absurd.
Imagine if you found out (afterwards) that the man down the block was your biological father. [You were adopted. Neither one of you were aware of the other's existence.]

If you would have saved him, you would have had 24 hours to spend with him, talk to him, tell him that you love him.

Are you glad you saved Fito?

Obviously and of course, the above hypothetical is meant to play on your emotions. But you get the main point.

Even if it isn't your dad and YOU (particularly) have nothing invested emotionally with the guy, you SHOULD have something invested in the consideration of OTHER people's feelings, emotions, relationships, etc....

One man's love of his dog is not equal (in value) to one person's love of their father or brother, etc.

[ QUOTE ]

Obviously and of course, the above hypothetical is meant to play on your emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for at least admitting this train of thought has little to do with reason and everything to do with knee-jerk emotions.

[Macedon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obviously and of course, the above hypothetical is meant to play on your emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for at least admitting this train of thought has little to do with reason and everything to do with knee-jerk emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the example of the father was meant to elicit a knee-jerked emotion, but the consideration of other's feelings, attachments, etc, is carefully considered, reasonable, and mostly devoid of emotion.

The consideration of man, or mankind in general, can be done without emotion. You can start by placing values onto all living things based on some rational criteria. (Cuteness would not be included in that criteria)

[ QUOTE ]
The consideration of man, or mankind in general, can be done without emotion. You can start by placing values onto all living things based on some rational criteria. (Cuteness would not be included in that criteria)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then it wouldn't be a stretch to say 1 dog life (and its impact on humans it is associated with) is worth more than one nanosecond extra in a dying man's life. If you concede this, then you will be admitting that the rest (24 hr : 1 life) is just quibbling over those value estimates, and thus saying that anybody who'd consider a case for the dog is not irrational or absurd or immoral, just that their value estimates differed from yours.

It's kind of like a woman saying she'd accept sleeping with someone for $1 million, but also considering that sex for $100 is immoral. She's already admitted that sex for money isn't the issue, just the price.

[John Cole]

Easy answer to both questions: the human life is more valuable inherently (but I'm not Peter Singer) and more worth the saving.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This one is easily the man for 24 hrs. Where as the other dog-man was easliy the dog. My life is worth more to me than your life. My dogs life is worth more to me than a random persons life. However a random dogs entire life is not worth more than an anything above a insignificate ammount of time of a random persons life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree. If both are random than human life is far more significant. However I think the question is about which will bring more happiness to human life.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was suprprised to see agreement with what I said. I'm positive that happiness in my life is more important to me than happiness to human life. I give to charities mainly based becuase it makes me happy to do so. I'd put it at maybe 800 to 1. If I made a desision that inflected a proportionate amount of of misery on 800 people to my happiness, I think I could live with that. Am I cruel or honest? Cause I know many people that make decisions with a far larger others misery to personal happiness ratio, and find very few examples of altruism.

[Macedon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The consideration of man, or mankind in general, can be done without emotion. You can start by placing values onto all living things based on some rational criteria. (Cuteness would not be included in that criteria)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then it wouldn't be a stretch to say 1 dog life (and its impact on humans it is associated with) is worth more than one nanosecond extra in a dying man's life. If you concede this, then you will be admitting that the rest (24 hr : 1 life) is just quibbling over those value estimates, and thus saying that anybody who'd consider a case for the dog is not irrational or absurd or immoral, just that their value estimates differed from yours.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well sure, you are imagining a rational value system with your example. To take it further, if this man was a mass-murderer who had no love ones, no redeeming societal value, then the dog would certainly be more valuable [to us] than the man.

However, you have to assume, since Sklanksy did not state otherwise, that this man is regular in every way and that his life has value equal to that of our own.

Since Sklansky said 24 hours, it IS irrational, absurd and immoral to choose the dogs life over the man's. The fact that he is dying is almost completely irrelevant to the total argument about value.

You do see that...right?

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

id save the puppy. puppys rule.

[malorum]

Utilitarian calculus may result in a decision in favour of the puppy depending on the exact circumstances of the case.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
However what if there is a train that I will miss if I try to save either of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends where your going.

How much would missing the train upset/please eg. mother, pro's at the Vic etc...

but I like the initial Chrisian response ("probably the human"), I think your on you way over to our side Piers.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
The consideration of man, or mankind in general, can be done without emotion. You can start by placing values onto all living things based on some rational criteria. (Cuteness would not be included in that criteria)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, has mankind shown itself to have greater moral value than other animals? Why?

[ QUOTE ]
One man's love of his dog is not equal (in value) to one person's love of their father or brother, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Since Sklansky said 24 hours, it IS irrational, absurd and immoral to choose the dogs life over the man's. The fact that he is dying is almost completely irrelevant to the total argument about value.

You do see that...right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't see that. And again, you're not choosing the dogs life over the man's, you'd be choosing (presumably) years of a dogs life over 24 hours of a man's.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it depends entirely on the opinion of the answerer

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Which makes it a debate about subjective value, not objective morality. The "good vs. evil" (or right vs. wrong) approach doesn't work, as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

It never does. These arguments seem so pointless.

I am very curious as to where fearless leader is going with this stuff.

[hurlyburly]

Saving the puppy is more important because maybe his destiny will be to rescue Jimmy from the well, or be the next McGruff or someone's seeing eye dog. He has potential.

Does the neighbor know he's dying? 24 hours isn't much to give, and if he's that far gone it's certainly not a gift to him or his family.

Don't care what religion supports it or who saving puppies offends.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since humanity &amp; society stands to benefit more from the extra 24 hours the man is given than from the puppy's life, then the Utilitarian thing to do is to buy the human more time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice handwaving. Try justifying this statement instead of claiming it as fact.

I, personally, would rather have to explain to a family that their father/husband will die today instead of tomorrow so that little Johnny will have a life-long companion as opposed to telling Johnny his puppy dies so Mr. Jones gets to add 1/200 % to his lifespan.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) No one has said the dogs owner is little, or named Johnny.

2) People get over the death of animals more than humans. (Fact)

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
West, this guy has yet to post anything resembling a logical argument to date. I think he should be in the "because that's how I was raised to think" forum rather than philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find the flaws in my argument.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Despite our consciences, rationality and logic, human beings nevertheless do many foul things to other human beings (and other creatures) due to greed and selfishness. You seem to be implying that human beings are essentially worth more intrinsically than other animals....because we're smarter? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember this thread the next time you eat a hamburger.

But seriously, your argument is nonsense because although humans have the capacity to do bad things (dogs attack and sometimes kill kids also you know) you aren't focusing on all the good humans are able to do, over dogs. (well except Lassie and Inspector Rex but they are/were exceptions)

[ QUOTE ]

So your argument involves might makes right. Not much of an argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP, and I'm not saying might makes right, just pointing out the great divide in power between humans and dogs, who we keep around as companions and food. (if you're Korean)

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember this thread the next time you eat a hamburger.


[/ QUOTE ]

You remember this thread next time someone is killed in Iraq. Or mugged in an alley.

You can talk about vegans and hamburgers all you want, I think it's beside the point of the question. Whether or not someone who chooses the dog over the man is a hypocrite, is beside the point of the question.

[ QUOTE ]
But seriously, your argument is nonsense because although humans have the capacity to do bad things (dogs attack and sometimes kill kids also you know) you aren't focusing on all the good humans are able to do, over dogs. (well except Lassie and Inspector Rex but they are/were exceptions)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not forgetting the good humans can do over dogs. I'm not forgetting the bad humans can do over dogs either.

How simplistic can you get?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there good arguments to save the puppy? If so would any pass muster by any religion? Would you save it even if there aren't any good arguments?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. No. And no.

Where are you going with this ?

And can you go a little faster ?

[oreogod]

Depends if shes hot, single and what she is willing to do for you in those 24 hours she has left.

In all seriousness, she probably knew before this that she had 24 hours left to live, so unless she still has some emotional baggage to unload I dont really see the point.

Id probably let her decide, throw the medicine on the floor, walk away and let her choose.

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]

Whether you believe in the Garden of Eden, Evolution, or else, no one is disupting the first clothes a human made was the skin of an animal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, that must be why Genesis 3:7 says "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings" /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember this thread the next time you eat a hamburger.


[/ QUOTE ]

You remember this thread next time someone is killed in Iraq. Or mugged in an alley.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? How does that make sense?

"Humans do bad things, [censored] em they deserve to die" is that your point?

[ QUOTE ]

You can talk about vegans and hamburgers all you want, I think it's beside the point of the question. Whether or not someone who chooses the dog over the man is a hypocrite, is beside the point of the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshit, the reason you eat animals without guilt, but would never eat a human unless absolutely forced (and even then I imagine some would choose to starve) highlights the difference in life value between them.

If you truly believe animals have the same life value as humans then you wouldn't eat them or products made by them. (ie- vegan)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But seriously, your argument is nonsense because although humans have the capacity to do bad things (dogs attack and sometimes kill kids also you know) you aren't focusing on all the good humans are able to do, over dogs. (well except Lassie and Inspector Rex but they are/were exceptions)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not forgetting the good humans can do over dogs. I'm not forgetting the bad humans can do over dogs either.

How simplistic can you get?

[/ QUOTE ]

Convincing argument.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whether you believe in the Garden of Eden, Evolution, or else, no one is disupting the first clothes a human made was the skin of an animal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, that must be why Genesis 3:7 says "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings" /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

"loin coverings" hardly constitutes as "clothes".

If you were out in the street with nothing but your underpants on, you'd be looking for "clothes". (read the story of how Jacob stole Esau's blessing)

[Kripke]

[ QUOTE ]
I AM GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is very hard to see.

- Kripke

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I AM GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is very hard to see.

- Kripke

[/ QUOTE ]

I second that.

Enough with the procrastination Sklansky, make your point.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
If you truly believe animals have the same life value as humans then you wouldn't eat them or products made by them. (ie- vegan)


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this man. I have been vegetarian for 12.5 years and finally went vegan 2.5 years ago. And I don't know if I place animal life on the same level as humans. I am lucky because I am rarely in situations where I have to choose between killing a dog or a human (by "rarely" I mean "never"). But, I think one, at least me, can be vegan because they want to minimize suffering. But, I also didn't read the whole thread, so I might not even be talking about what you are talking about. I am vegan because I don't like causing or supporting pain (yes I know I have contradictions in my life..I am not perfect).

craig

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you truly believe animals have the same life value as humans then you wouldn't eat them or products made by them. (ie- vegan)


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this man. I have been vegetarian for 12.5 years and finally went vegan 2.5 years ago. And I don't know if I place animal life on the same level as humans. I am lucky because I am rarely in situations where I have to choose between killing a dog or a human (by "rarely" I mean "never"). But, I think one, at least me, can be vegan because they want to minimize suffering. But, I also didn't read the whole thread, so I might not even be talking about what you are talking about. I am vegan because I don't like causing or supporting pain (yes I know I have contradictions in my life..I am not perfect).

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Craig,

I did not mean that 'all vegans think animals are equals to humans' etc.

What I mean't was that, if somebody says "a human's life is no more valuable than a dogs/animals" that that person would be a hypocrite then if they had no qualms about eating animals but wouldn't fathom the thought of eating a human also.

For if there is no distinction of value of life between the two, why is a distinction made at the dinner table?

Cheers,
SDM

[housenuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, maybe he could spend that day with his family, tell them how much loves them? Sort out his affairs in this world and maybe even contemplate his affairs in the next?


[/ QUOTE ]

has he not already done this?
if he needed the 24 hours to make peace with his family i'd give it to him. if everyone knew he was already close to dying anyways and he'd essentially said his goodbyes, i'd give it to the dog.

[PLOlover]

I think the EV play here is to flush the medicine down the drain to avoid pissing off whoever you didn't give it to.

[Tall Kitchen]

Although not a religion, hedonism would probably permit you to save the puppy. The death of the puppy would have to cause you more pain than the death of the man.

More contemporary, intuitionism might apply. You would have to be aware immediately that saving the puppy is morally right.

Zoolatry? You'd have to think the puppy was superior to man in general.

Theologically, saving the puppy in preference of saving the man would probably be directing it equal (or greater) affection, contrary to the Church's moral teaching.

[GuyOnTilt]

Skimmed thru most of this thread. I found it weird that those posing the question of "t(human life) &gt; puppy life for what value of t" didn't realize that the inequality isn't that simple. Both the human and puppy will die eventually even if you were able to fully "cure" them (I'm assuming). I think David is at partial fault for not providing the information.

David did not specify what the illness was or how fast it would take full effect, which makes his proposed question flawed IMO. Let us suppose the disease in question is aging. In his scenario, the drug would add an extra 24 hrs to his neighbor's life while allowing the puppy to live forever? This is obviously not what he intended, but using this extreme it becomes obvious why the added information of how long each would live without the medicine and also how long the puppy would live with it need to be stated.

With this extra information, the question could then be restated with answer being a ratio of the value of a human life to the value of a puppy/dog's life. E.g. if someone were to ask:

t(H) = 10 years(D)

This ignore's the improved quality of life the puppy's continued existence would cause its owner (which it appeared was being ignored anyway despite the fact that the human's continued existence and its impact on their friends, family, etc was being considered), which opens up a new idea of indirect impact. Continued, that would lead to the idea that the life of a human who has 10 close friends would be worth more than the life of a human who has 2 close friends and so on.

I could be thinking incorrectly in all or some of this 'cause I just woke up, and I have a lot of [censored] to do in the next 3 hrs so I don't have time to proof read or think this thru, so someone will probably correct my thinking.

GoT

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF? How does that make sense?

"Humans do bad things, [censored] em they deserve to die" is that your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, my point is that I fail to see how the fact that humans can move you with a poem, or do nicer things than that makes them morally superior to dogs. You can certainly make that argument, but you're going to have to do a lot better job than you have so far. Humans do a lot of lowlife stuff too.

[ QUOTE ]
Bullshit, the reason you eat animals without guilt, but would never eat a human unless absolutely forced (and even then I imagine some would choose to starve) highlights the difference in life value between them.

If you truly believe animals have the same life value as humans then you wouldn't eat them or products made by them. (ie- vegan)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that I do eat animals without guilt. I think the most likely reasons why I do not eat humans, but I do eat animals are:

1) I'm human,

and

2) I've been raised eating certain animals (not dogs btw)

It has NOTHING to do with humans having higher moral value than dogs or other animals.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

As far as I can see there are two things he can be doing here:

1. Building a simple money pump to show the people that we don't even realize the flawed logic we use in value problems.

2. I guess this is related, but it seems more interesting to me. In the first man-dog question, many people claimed they would save their dog because they value something known to them. Many of these people also admitted that saving their dog over a human would not be in line with their religion or ethics. In the second, pretty much no one saved the puppy, to show this wasn't just a group of people who greatly value dogs. He wants us to realize how often we value separate ideas (Here "Caring for living things you know" and the religious/ethical system of your choice) without ever taking into question that these two values can conflict.

[hurlyburly]

"Zoolatry? You'd have to think the puppy was superior to man in general."

You aren't choosing one life over another here. You're choosing a life over a 24-hour extension to the end of a life.

[Tall Kitchen]

Similarly, you're choosing to avert certain death, said aversion expiring between zero and twenty-four hours. I think the distinction is semantic. In normative ethics you'd need to also suggest a theory of value or theory of conduct based on definitive criteria for choosing life and averting death, including a method for valuating the time of an extension of life. Otherwise, I don't see how that matters. Ergo...

In hedonism, it doesn't matter whether you're saving a life or extending it - you're just trying to avoid your pain.

In intuitionism, it wouldn't necessarily matter - you're doing what you believe is right, regardless of the pain to yourself that might result.

In Zoolatry, it doesn't matter either - you're just favoring the superior life form (the puppy).

Theologically, you’re also favoring the superior life form (the man).

[RainDog]

I suppose I'm a fool for not realizing how many people would sacrifice the puppy here. It's an easy choice for me and a very easy one at that: Save the dog! No guilt.

I shall also mention that I eat meat, and proudly!

I'd like to validate my position, but I don't know where to start here and I don't want to rant on indefinately.

Humans are not superior to animals and the logic that we are simply because we eat them and dominate them (do we?) is absurd. Are we superior to the world because we live on it? And furthermore, are viruses a superior being to ourselves?

Yes, I eat meat (and this doesn't make me a hypocrite)...it's not wrong to do so. One lifeform shall live off another. Try as we might to be generous vegans, it is the nature of humanity consume and we shall continue to do so. Death is not something to be feared. The moral necessity to prevent the death of another being comes with good intentions, but shall ultimately fail. Suffering on the other hand is a different matter and the only certain "Evil" I can grasp.

This man is dying and perhaps suffering (though not a point of my argument). He could possibly accomplish something in his last 24 hours, set of an chain of events that leads to world peace perhaps? Then the puppy might save a boy named Timothy from drowning in a well. These things aren't likely.

While I wouldn't criticize someone for eating dog (I certainly never could, but that's likely a societal thing), this dog doesn't appear to be bred for consumption but rather is in a position to enjoy a long healthy life. How is this man's meager 24 hours worth more than a happy lifetime for a sentient being. Dog's are joyous animals when treated properly, I admire and am a little jealous of that capacity of love and zest for life that dogs have and why take it from the cute little bugger so that some fart could extend the sordid business of dying and goodbyes.

You see I like dogs. I like people a great deal too. My "likeing" isn't a great argument (Well it is for myself), but you see I don't come across many "bad" dogs. Bad dogs are bad because they've had bad owners. Now bad owners? They may have had harsh conditioning themselves, but as a human, they have the capability of overcoming that. My point here is that a strange dog is awarded more likeablity points than a strange human, even though I don't view either as inherently superior.

If my arguments aren't enough, then tack on one that has already been made. The dog will likely provide years of joy and improve the lifetime of the humans he shares company with. The dying man will merely be the benefactor of a days worth of tears and uncomfortable smiles.

I'm sure I've missed many points and haven't addressed others enough. But now I have my foot in the door of this argument and we can go further if necessary. It's not a matter of values here where there is no right or wrong. I'm certainly right in this matter.

I would estimate that more utility would be gained by saving the dogs life as opposed to the human's limited time.
Dog's love jerky treats - man do they love 'em!