Sorry For Yet Another Dog Post

[David Sklansky]

People have been giving resonses to my previous questions that are quite good while showing that I have yet to succeed in my quest for a certain category of question. With those responses in mind I alter the question thusly:

Your acquantaince neighbor will die in about three hours surrounded by his family who have already said their goodbyes. A medicine that will keep him alive for six more hours is available a few blocks away and you volunteer to fetch it. When you get there you are told that to extract the medicine, three ownerless dogs will be put through incredibly intense pain for thirty minutes. The medicine for some reason requires that they be alive and unsedated.

Would you have them go through with the procedure (assuming it won't happen at all if you refuse)? Can you give a reason for your decison that would be persuasive to someone whose gut feeling would be to do the opposite?

[PokerNeophyte]

David,

I think this question falls in a genuine gray area. Six hours is enough time to have some value and, I think human life is a lot more valuable than the avoidance of doggy pain. Of course, there's no way to derive an euation figuring out an "exchange rate" between the two. For someone not inclined to perform the procedure, I would point out the value to the dying man in having just a little more time to be with his family and the value to his family. Of course, I think one can only point out reasons why human life is very valuable; I think it would be harder to argue for a claim like, one minute of human life is worth 10 hours of excrutiating doggy pain.

Even if an exchange rate is out of reach, I think you can make your point more vividly if the medicine requires torturing 1,000 dogs and will extend the man's life by only one second: Avoiding some large amounts of doggy pain will be more valuable than maintaining some small amounts of human life. Therefore, human life does not have the absolute value that some people might like to place on it.

I would be interested to hear from the people who thought they held that view whether they would be willing to torture the 1,000 dogs for the extra second of human life. And, if not, I'd be curious to hear whether they really think their commitments about the value of human life would require them to hold such a view. I'd be surprised to discover that a religious system actually took a stand on such far out cases.

This seems like a no-brainer. A human bieng can achieve 100,000 more good in six hours than can a dog who is not even dying. Also think of what this particular person may have accomplished in his/her lifetime. Although the thought of people torturing animals makes me sick to my stomach, i think the person easily deserves the six hours, without a doubt.

[PokerNeophyte]

Sloth,

How about if you have to torture 1,000 dogs and it will only extend the man's life by 1 second?

-PN

[Non_Comformist]

seems like alot of effort to go through just to give someone 6 more hours. plus I am a huge dog lover. I would need some sort financial incentive in order to do it.

[David Sklansky]

"I think you can make your point more vividly if the medicine requires torturing 1,000 dogs and will extend the man's life by only one second: Avoiding some large amounts of doggy pain will be more valuable than maintaining some small amounts of human life. Therefore, human life does not have the absolute value that some people might like to place on it."

Who said that was my point? Obviously it is not. Otherwise I would have used your question.

[hurlyburly]

The reward just isn't there imo. He's got 3 hours as it is, has everything all accounted for, and 6 hours only extends the suffering of the family.

If I could give him back 6 hours from his life of his choosing, his favorite six hours, I'd do it. But the crappy six hours at the end, when most of his dignity is gone and he's already made peace, no gain here.

This is less about the dogs, more about what is being provided to the person in exchange.

[PokerNeophyte]

Apologies for being so presumptuous. What is your point?

[DougShrapnel]

When you say you are going to do something you should do it. Be a man of your word, and torture the dogs. Don't make verbal contracts you can't keep.

[RJT]

The key here is that they have already said their goodbyes. This is very important to the living. It does make a difference in the grieving process. I know, I have been through the death of loved ones with and without goodbyes. What are the families wishes given the scenario?

As far as being religious - and death. A true believer understands death as not a bad thing. I would want more time assuming my loved one was not going through pain in these last six hours. But, that is strictly selfish reasons. I am not saying it is the right thing.

I don’t really understand all of your examples relative to humans and animals. I do have two dogs whom I love (not really sure that is the right word). But still , I can’t fathom any real comparison of animal life to human life.

[Lestat]

The one factor that has yet to be mentioned so far in any of these threads is fear. Or more precisely the fear of death.

There is an irony here...

Both the truly logical and the truly religious should not fear death (albeit for different reasons). However, the religious person might choose the torture of of the dogs based on the teachings that nothing is more precious than human life. But no logician worth his weight in salt, would believe that 6 hours of life is worth more than the suffering of any living creature.

[David Sklansky]

"When you say you are going to do something you should do it. Be a man of your word, and torture the dogs. Don't make verbal contracts you can't keep."

You are joking right? If not will someone please wring his neck?

[David Sklansky]

"But no logician worth his weight in salt, would believe that 6 hours of life is worth more than the suffering of any living creature."

Really? That's a bold statement. And you imply that would be true even if he needed those six hours to say his goodbyes. Care to explain why no good logician would disagree with you? And by living creatures do you include sea cucumbers? What about lobsters?

What if six hours gave the individual enough time to donate his 100,000,000 dollars to dying African children?

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
What if six hours gave the individual enough time to donate his 100,000,000 dollars to dying African children?

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I getting something out of it or not? Because it doesn't look like it and I already stated what I would need.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if six hours gave the individual enough time to donate his 100,000,000 dollars to dying African children?

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I getting something out of it or not? Because it doesn't look like it and I already stated what I would need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...ok...so he gives you 1,000,000 dollars and gives the dying Africans 99,000,000. PROBLEM SOLVED! right?

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if six hours gave the individual enough time to donate his 100,000,000 dollars to dying African children?

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I getting something out of it or not? Because it doesn't look like it and I already stated what I would need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...ok...so he gives you 1,000,000 dollars and gives the dying Africans 99,000,000. PROBLEM SOLVED! right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep he can have the medicine!

[ QUOTE ]
Sloth,

How about if you have to torture 1,000 dogs and it will only extend the man's life by 1 second?

-PN

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant even fart in less than one second. the dogs can have that one.

-sloth /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lestat]

<font color="red">And you imply that would be true even if he needed those six hours to say his goodbyes. </font>

I don't think I said this. You stated that his family was around him and had already said their goodbyes.

So what would you say the intrinsic value of a life is with only 6 hours left? Just as a financial option expires worthless out of the money, so must life. I hope you are not saying that a logical mind must be cold and insensitive to pain and suffering. I also hope you are not saying that you must logically arrive at the same answer for a 6 year child who is NOT about to die. I fail to see how any logician would put more worth on the last 6 hours of life than on the pain and suffering of any other animal.

Btw- I don't believe sea cucumbers or crustacians are considered to be animals capable of feeling joy or sadness such as a dog can. So that point is moot.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give a reason for your decison that would be persuasive to someone whose gut feeling would be to do the opposite?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, how about that I don't condone torture?

It's easy to debate these things in front of your computer, but in the turmoil of the situation, screw the dogs. If I looked at this in the sterile environment of my logical brain, maybe the dogs,but that goes out the window sometimes.

Shooby. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

In fact, if this this were studied, you might find that the logical part of the brain might not even function well enough to make this decision. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
"When you say you are going to do something you should do it. Be a man of your word, and torture the dogs. Don't make verbal contracts you can't keep."

You are joking right? If not will someone please wring his neck?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only joking partialy. A correct response to my post was humor. Another objection of my post was force you to create another dog question. So I could laugh about it.

I've have tried to answer these dog questions to the best of my abilities. To me they are an interesting thought exercise with no correct answers. However, I am getting restless and I want to hear your point. Since I expect it to be life altering, I'm willing to wait until you find the perfect example of your point. In all the other questions you were given a choice of two "bad options" and forced to choice one. Additionally you where restricted so that you could not take any other logical 3rd action, Such as preventing both the dog and persons death. However this one you agreed and not just agreed you volunteered to get the medicine, I assume because you felt the 3 hrs was worth something otherwise you would not have got up at all. With questions so laid out and controlled, it’s important to consider as much as you know about the problem and then decide. You can't just sit around and wax about the merits of each option and never come to a conclusion. You "volunteered" to get the medicine and you are met with an obstacle. Not getting the medicine is nothing more than sloth.

If the point of all these dog posts is that people aren’t entirely logical. Then I agree with you. Logic can be very difficult concept to understand. And people untrained and inexperienced with logic will fail to grasp your point even after you make it. You will prove to them that they aren’t being logical, and then by the very nature of an illogical person will ignore that proof.

If the point of these dog posts is that an absolute morality does not exist. I say that morality is how we wish the world to be, utopia. With a God (This world is utopia) those who don’t obey and have faith in the lord are punished. And those with faith are rewarded with utopia. Without a god a utopia is still a useful idea. People that tried to answer morally discussed the value of human life. Morally diverting a bomb to kill 100 people instead of 1000 is correct. The Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah stories are examples of these.

I guess I didn’t play the “dog game” right since all my answered are based off of how the world actually is as opposed to what the most moral answers are. Which I think is a much more important consideration when making choices.

I think somehow you want to make the point that that answering these moral questions is silly, but you have some sort of twist. We shall see.

[David Sklansky]

"If the point of all these dog posts is that people aren’t entirely logical. Then I agree with you. Logic can be very difficult concept to understand. And people untrained and inexperienced with logic will fail to grasp your point even after you make it. You will prove to them that they aren’t being logical, and then by the very nature of an illogical person will ignore that proof."

Just tonight that realization has been hitting me especially hard. It may send me back to the poker forums.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Just tonight that realization has been hitting me especially hard. It may send me back to the poker forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frustration is usually a precursor to a breakthru. Besides what would the sponsers of Math, Science, Philosophy think. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
It may send me back to the poker forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do it. Come on over to 1-Table Tourneys. We's good people.

[ QUOTE ]
"If the point of all these dog posts is that people aren’t entirely logical. Then I agree with you. Logic can be very difficult concept to understand. And people untrained and inexperienced with logic will fail to grasp your point even after you make it. You will prove to them that they aren’t being logical, and then by the very nature of an illogical person will ignore that proof."

Just tonight that realization has been hitting me especially hard. It may send me back to the poker forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget there may be mechanisms at work which affect the type of people responding to your posts, resulting in a disproportionate:

% People who read your posts who are illogical
% People who respond to your post who are illogical

and for other reasons maybe:

% People who are illogical

I have no right to make the choice on how long another person lives. I am merely a proxy in this case. I have volunteered to get the medicine, him and his family are expecting it, and because of this the dogs will suffer. At the end of the day, they are dogs. If I knew he would prefer the more dignified choice of dying earlier rather than causing suffering, I would not get the medicine but would return and explain the situation.

I am a vegetarian and only eat free range eggs for moral reasons, which is far more than I can say for most people who said they'd spare the dog. The amount of pain and suffering chickens, cows, pigs and like go through to end up on the dinner plate would astound most people. And yet it serves no purpose to human life other than tasting good, and is accepted by our society. In most cases the worst and unnecesary parts of it are tolerated because it saves 50c on your BBQ chicken/cut of steak. Says a lot about where society stands on issues like this.

Good question David.

[veganmav]

I am veganmav, meaning, I am vegan. I am mainly vegan because I believe that the great taste that I get from eating meat and animal products, is far outweighed by the extreme suffering that these animals go through before they become food. Given that meat and animal products are not necessary to maintain human life, I refrain from eating them.

ie: maybe some extreme animal pain is worth the extension of some mans life for some short time, but me pleasuring my mouth for some short time with meat, is deffinately not worth extreme animal pain.

[Piers]

Fred – Fetching drug.
Sally – Dying acquaintance neighbour.

Fred does not want to get medicine:

You should stick to your commitments. There are people expecting you to get it and you will be letting them down if you don’t. You never know maybe the medicine will be enough to allow Sally to make a complete recovery. Surly the lives of three dogs are worth the chance that Sally might make a complete recovery however small.

Fred wants to get the medicine:

How do you think Sally will feel when she finds out you had to torture three dogs to give here an extra couple of hours of life? Hopefully Fred or Sally’s a dog lover, which would make the argument a clincher. Also how do you know it will work anyway, chances are you will be just killing those dogs for nothing. The guy who runs this place is a charlatan, I expect you will just be getting dirty water.

The bits not in bold are extra arguments that might help Fred make the desired decision.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"If the point of all these dog posts is that people aren’t entirely logical. Then I agree with you. Logic can be very difficult concept to understand. And people untrained and inexperienced with logic will fail to grasp your point even after you make it. You will prove to them that they aren’t being logical, and then by the very nature of an illogical person will ignore that proof."

Just tonight that realization has been hitting me especially hard. It may send me back to the poker forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe a good example for your changing axioms post?

chez

[flair1239]

I would not do this.

By dying at home surrounded by his family he already has it better than most.

Also from personal experience, I can say I could have done without the last 6-hours of my Dad's life. It just was not alot of fun.

Maybe this is less about the dogs, and more about just accepting the inevitable. He has already said his goodbyes, his family is there already. IT is just unecessary to inflict anymore pain on anyone involved in the situation.

Yet another subjective values question posed as a morality question.

Why not just debate which is more moral: pink or orange.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But no logician worth his weight in salt, would believe that 6 hours of life is worth more than the suffering of any living creature.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, how many logicians worth their salt eat meat? How highly do most good logicians value the suffering of any living creature, compared to fleeting time or fleeting pleasures?

[SomethingClever]

This really depends on the state of the dying man.

Does he desire to be kept alive another 6 hours? Is he begging for you to go through with this? Or is he already at peace, having said his goodbyes?

Or maybe he's a research scientist who is 4 hours away from discovering the cure for cancer as he scribbles equations on his deathbed.

Without knowing a little more about the man's precise situation and desires, I can't say for sure.

But what I can say is there would be certain circumstances in which I would deem it worthwhile to put the dogs through this pain.

Assuming the man is 4-tabling, he could get a good 1500 hands in, in 6 hours.

Toruture the dogs, ship the pots.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no right to make the choice on how long another person lives. I am merely a proxy in this case. I have volunteered to get the medicine, him and his family are expecting it, and because of this the dogs will suffer. At the end of the day, they are dogs. If I knew he would prefer the more dignified choice of dying earlier rather than causing suffering, I would not get the medicine but would return and explain the situation.




I am a vegetarian and only eat free range eggs for moral reasons, which is far more than I can say for most people who said they'd spare the dog. The amount of pain and suffering chickens, cows, pigs and like go through to end up on the dinner plate would astound most people. And yet it serves no purpose to human life other than tasting good, and is accepted by our society. In most cases the worst and unnecesary parts of it are tolerated because it saves 50c on your BBQ chicken/cut of steak. Says a lot about where society stands on issues like this.

Good question David.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am also a vegetarian who only eats free range eggs I am a little surprised by your first paragraph in relation to your second one. First: "At the end of the day, they are dogs." And therefore? I could say at "the end of the day the man is just another human". I think one needs to examine what it means to be an animal versus a human as it pertains to their respective rights. Conclusory language like "it's just a dog" is not particulalrly helpful and, in fact, is the geneal attitude of people who (to take just one example) eat pork without any regards to the simply outrageous amount of suffering to which 99+% of hogs in this country are subjected.

Second: Why does it matter that you had undertaken to do this task for the man. The hypo here allows you to exercise moral judgment and discretion. What if it turns out that the man had lied and you had to inflict the pain and suffering not on dogs but on babies. Does your earlier undertaking obligate you to go ahead. The point is that you can make an independent judgment as to what is correct in this situation.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound too harssh. In my boook, you are to be commended greatly for your lifestyle choices.

[Dan Mezick]

[ QUOTE ]
A medicine that will keep him alive for six more hours is available a few blocks away and you volunteer to fetch it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You commit to fetching. Key to my answer below is this assumption: it is promise-level commitment to fetch the medicine, at the time of commitment.

Off you go to face the tortured-dogs dilemma head on.

Either you make good on your promise, or you do not. If you make good, you maintain personal integrity. If you do not, personal integrity is compromised and unravels.

The fact you are not in command of all the facts at the time of commitment is immaterial to the dilemma you face.

You learn to ask better questions before committing next time, in any event. At least one mammal gets tortured, no matter what.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact you are not in command of all the facts at the time of commitment is immaterial to the dilemma you face.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dan, if your focus is on the promise-keeping aspect of this (as it seems to be) then of course it is very material what you knew when you made said promise. It is silly to sugest otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
First: "At the end of the day, they are dogs." And therefore? I could say at "the end of the day the man is just another human".

[/ QUOTE ]
That should read "At the end of the day, they are just dogs, and he is human. I will do whatever is reasonable to avoid animal suffering, but my first and overwhelming priority is human life and the obligations I have undertaken."

In this case I'm acting on behalf of someone else, and the choice is not entirely mine to make. I have volunteered, others could have gone in my place, and I agreed to get the medicine. In the absence of other considerations, I'll do it mostly for this reason, combined with the fact that humans are valued more highly than animals. If I was in a hospital, as a doctor, and I had to make a similar determination where the choice is mine and I'm required to make an ethical decision taking everything into account, I would let the man die.

In the original scenario if I knew he was animal lover and would rather die sooner than have dogs harmed, I would also not get the medicine.

So the context is very important here.

[Dan Mezick]

Either promises are revocable, or they are not.

A revocable promise seems a 100% contradiction of terms.

Many people join the military based on legally binding promises. The "legally binding" aspect assures that each promiser makes good on any promise made lightly with irresponsibilty.

If all people kept all their promises, such legal binding would be unnecessary.


promise
1. A declaration assuring that one will or will not do something; a vow.

v. prom·ised, prom·is·ing, prom·is·es
v. tr.

1. To commit oneself by a promise to do or give; pledge: left but promised to return.

v. intr.

1. To make a declaration assuring that something will or will not be done.


in·teg·ri·ty Audio pronunciation of "integrity" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tgr-t)
n.

1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

[coheedandcambria]

If you are just asking for an opinion here it is. I would rather watch three of the people I encounter on a daily basis (two plus twoers exempt of course)suffer for a half hour each so a dog could extend his life by six hours.
I would let three random people die so my cat could live.

[AlphaWice]

In the previous question, I chose the dog.

Here, I claim that I would choose to have 10^100 _ownerless_ dogs tortured to save the man for even one second. Why? Because I don't give a [censored] about dogs.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are just asking for an opinion here it is. I would rather watch three of the people I encounter on a daily basis (two plus twoers exempt of course)suffer for a half hour each so a dog could extend his life by six hours.
I would let three random people die so my cat could live.

[/ QUOTE ]

and i thought there was a slight chance you were a half decent person
tell me your joking

[housenuts]

no, there is no need to do that to the dogs. basically the family is just waiting around for the person to die..really the time waiting for death is more painful than the tranquility and peace that the death will bring. basically you are just going to make them wait around uneasily for another 6 hours.

the only argument for getting the medicine is that now the family expects you to return with it. they expect to have another 6 hours. if you return empty handed it would be like you just took 6 hours off the life of their family member.

still i wouldn't hurt the dogs

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give a reason for your decison that would be persuasive to someone whose gut feeling would be to do the opposite?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
Either promises are revocable, or they are not.

A revocable promise seems a 100% contradiction of terms.


[/ QUOTE ]
Dan,

The trouble with your analysis is that promises contain implied elements which are not explicitly stated.

In this case, when he agreed to get the medicine, both parties assumed it would be without unusual danger or personal loss. For example, if the following scenarios came up, it could be argued that they are outside the parameters of the original promise:

1. The medicine costs $100,000 (his life savings) and he won't be reimbursed.
2. The pharmacist demands gay sex first
3. Some crazy guy has the medicine and demands two fingers be cut off in return for it.

hahaha, i just read this latest post. and apparently this thread has become really "gaY".

[veganmav]

I wonder how David feels about this specific question...

1. On the first day of creation, God created the dog.

2. On the second day, God created man to serve the dog.

3. On the third day, God created all the animals of the earth (especially the horse) to serve as potential food for the dog.

4. On the fourth day, God created honest toil so that man could labor for the good of the dog.

5. On the fifth day, God created the tennis ball so that the dog might or might not retrieve it.

6. On the sixth day, God created veterinary science to keep the dog healthy and the man broke.

7. On the seventh day, God tried to rest.......but He had to walk the dog.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Either promises are revocable, or they are not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mere promises are always revocable as a matter of law. To simplify matters a bit, promises can become binding contracts when there is consideration. Here I assure you that in this hypothettical no contract has been formed. So there is no legal obligation to be fulfilled.

But we are dealing with a moral situation here. There is a moral value to fulfilling promises simply because you made them even in the absence of a binding contract. However, in making promises people make certain reasonable underlying assumptions about what is being required of them. I won't elaborate because OOO has already done so very well in his response to you. In brief though, it would be reasonable for us to expect to have to walk some distance to carry out this promise sicne we said we would go get the medicine but not necessarily reasonable if there were obstacles, such as the proverbial "going through hell and high waters" or, in this instance, torturing animals.

Moreover, if breaking promises isa moral bad then it needs to be weighed against other moral bads and goods. So, even if it was morally bad to break the promise, that might be outweighed by the moral good of not getting involved in/preventing torture. Now in weighing these different moral values, people can come to different results. Maybe you put a premium on keeping promises above all else. Well we can debeta that principal but I will say thatit is fine for you as your personal moral barometer. However, to just say promises are not revocable is wrong.

The answer seems to be obvious- torture the dogs. Wait...wait...Now if you asked me to torture 3 humans to save a dogs life I would say: Easy- torture the humans. Wouldnt you agree that momentary suffering (it is hours after all and not longer) is worth SO much less than life? There are very deep implications in the question. The fact that 3 dogs were chosen is a huge facet all in itself (are humans not animals after all?) Chew....