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

Non_Comformist · #5 09-01-2005, 01:30 AM

seems like alot of effort to go through just to give someone 6 more hours. plus I am a huge dog lover. I would need some sort financial incentive in order to do it.

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.

hurlyburly · #7 09-01-2005, 01:37 AM

The reward just isn't there imo. He's got 3 hours as it is, has everything all accounted for, and 6 hours only extends the suffering of the family.

If I could give him back 6 hours from his life of his choosing, his favorite six hours, I'd do it. But the crappy six hours at the end, when most of his dignity is gone and he's already made peace, no gain here.

This is less about the dogs, more about what is being provided to the person in exchange.

PokerNeophyte · #8 09-01-2005, 01:41 AM

Apologies for being so presumptuous. What is your point?

DougShrapnel · #9 09-01-2005, 01:42 AM

When you say you are going to do something you should do it. Be a man of your word, and torture the dogs. Don't make verbal contracts you can't keep.

RJT · #10 09-01-2005, 02:06 AM

The key here is that they have already said their goodbyes. This is very important to the living. It does make a difference in the grieving process. I know, I have been through the death of loved ones with and without goodbyes. What are the families wishes given the scenario?

As far as being religious - and death. A true believer understands death as not a bad thing. I would want more time assuming my loved one was not going through pain in these last six hours. But, that is strictly selfish reasons. I am not saying it is the right thing.

I don’t really understand all of your examples relative to humans and animals. I do have two dogs whom I love (not really sure that is the right word). But still , I can’t fathom any real comparison of animal life to human life.