Sorry For Yet Another Dog Post

David Sklansky · #1 09-01-2005, 01:07 AM

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 · #2 09-01-2005, 01:18 AM

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.

#3 09-01-2005, 01:25 AM

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 · #4 09-01-2005, 01:29 AM

Sloth,

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

-PN

#5 09-01-2005, 03:20 AM

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

David Sklansky · #6 09-01-2005, 01:33 AM

"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.

PokerNeophyte · #7 09-01-2005, 01:41 AM

Apologies for being so presumptuous. What is your point?

coheedandcambria · #8 09-01-2005, 05:49 PM

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 · #9 09-01-2005, 05:53 PM

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 · #10 09-01-2005, 05:53 PM

[ 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