How About THIS Morals -Ethics Question?

[tolbiny]

"The old man must be saved if your value system are rational and based on humanistic principles."

You make a lot of assumptions.

[Lestat]

We're missing each other. Feelings have nothing to do with it. The question pertains to the "chooser's" feelings, not the old man, not the dog, and not the fact that a watch doesn't have feelings.

Btw- What does QED mean?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A collie is a possession. Granted, its a possession you can grow to love, but still a possession. Choosing to save your collie is on the same moral plane as choosing to save your Rolex.




[/ QUOTE ]
This is just completely incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[Macedon]

[ QUOTE ]
"The old man must be saved if your value system are rational and based on humanistic principles."

You make a lot of assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes. The whole question is based on assumptions; that is, that we would know, or be capable of knowing what to do.

Since it is obvious that mankind is working with limited intelligence, if placed in a situation like this a person would be best to approach the problem with the most reasonable point of view he can muster. Since an objective value system has not been bequethed to us from above, a humanistic approach, IMO, provides the most rational (least biased) way of assessing the value of one decision over another.

Pure logic is obviously not applicable here since this is not a mathematical question. Until a logical formula is given for assigning value to non-mathematical things, we will have to make-do with a humanistic* approach.


*Without thought to god, religion, ideologies, etc.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
You are brought at gunpoint into a laboratory where you will be forced to choose which of two rooms will have those in it killed painlessly. If you refuse they all will be, so let's not even contemplate that option.

In one room is a very elderly person you have never met. In the other is your devoted three year old collie. Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies? What about any respected religions?


[/ QUOTE ]

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the philosophy of one protecting what one values the most.

Personally, I value my dog's life over a suprisingly large percent of human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

[David Sklansky]

"If you think chosing the dog or the man has more than nodding aquaintance with a moral decision then I think you misunderstand the nature of morality."

I neither know nor care if the decision is is a moral one an ethical one or has some other name. All I care about are the reasons, if any behind it, and whether it logically contradicts other decisions that same person makes.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you think chosing the dog or the man has more than nodding aquaintance with a moral decision then I think you misunderstand the nature of morality."

I neither know nor care if the decision is is a moral one an ethical one or has some other name. All I care about are the reasons, if any behind it, and whether it logically contradicts other decisions that same person makes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay sorry about that. I think your title confused me.

chez

[tolbiny]

Why can't you take a selfish approach- take the course that would allow you to live your life as comfortably as possible?

[bholdr]

screw the dog. really, it's a dog. i like my dog a whole lot more than almost any person, but, she's just a dog.

...but, what if, instead of a dog, there was a young, healthy gorilla, capable of communicating via sign language, etc, behind door number 2?