How About THIS Morals -Ethics Question?

[tolbiny]

Why is it that you place a higher value on a random human life?

[tolbiny]

This is an easy one for me- my emotional answer would be to save my dog.

If you want me to rationalize it i could come up with some garbage about evolution and how true altruism doesn't exist (or at least doesn't exist for long), and saving the elderly person would likely have no positive impact on my life, while having my dog will.
That would be the intellectual excuse, but emotionally i am selfish and want to be happy.

More difficult would be if others would know about the choice i made and i would have to live with their disapproval.

[JoshuaD]

If it was a Golden Retriever I'd choose the dog, but a Collie? C'mon. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[gamblore99]

[ 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 ]

I think the collie is much more of a person in this situation than the man. You love the collie, it is a living being with emotions and feelings. Ya the man is human, but you don't know the first thing about him nor do you have any feelings for him. They are both living creatures and one means a lot more to you. Makes sense to pick the collie

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a cheap way out from trying to make a tough decision. This is the worst morality of all. You have been given the option of saving someones life, but you don't have the balls to pick who, so you decide to kill everyone.

[Lestat]

A collie cannot be "more" of a person. It's a dog.

I agree you can come to love a dog, but you would be acting in your own self interest. I pray a stranger never finds him or herself old and trapped in a burning building with you and your dog.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a cheap way out from trying to make a tough decision. This is the worst morality of all. You have been given the option of saving someones life, but you don't have the balls to pick who, so you decide to kill everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense, its not a way out at all. I believe the world would be a much better place if people refused to cooperate with bad people. I assume we agree that the gunman is a bad person whatever we mean by bad.

By simplefying the problem so much DS misses out on all the ramifications of the decision that make it moral e.g.

Will cooperation make it more likely he will do it again?
Will it be even worse next time?
Would he have even committed this act if he didn't expect cooperation?
etc.

I don't believe either choice DS wants to leave us with tends to make the world a better place than the other, and hence its not a moral choice for me. BTW I didn't say I wouldn't chose, just that the choice wouldn't be to do with morality - thats assuming the scenario prevents not cooperating as an option.

chez

[Lestat]

If he stuck to useful topics which do need to be debated like abortion, capital punishment, torture or death choices as they relate to war, etc. it would be reasonable. If he even put this question in the form of: You are in a buring building and must decide whether to save a 90 year old stranger or your border collie.... It might be a useful excerise to contemplate because you might actually one day find yourself in such a situation. Or maybe it's helpful for you to get your values straight, etc.

But the sense I get from the way he forms some of these questions is that they are a product of a deranged (albeit genuis) mind and that he is basically wrestling with these morbid questions himself internally.

[Lestat]

So basically we are talking about terrorism. Why not form the question as such instead of some silly implausible scenario of a gunman holding an old man and your collie hostage? These are real life questions we might need to face one day.

[BillC]

How about this then: Your choice is between 100 people being killed and having to tear the skin off of a 1 year old baby with a pair of plyers. This is from a freshman philosophy course...