Sorry For Yet Another Dog Post

[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.