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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

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.