a moral question
- Thread starter pjdude1219
- Start date
Ha! I knew it!!! Frigging cannibal and animal murderer!@#@%$%^@%#^@#^%U@^#U&I@&#
personal attacks are not tolerated here. James R., will see to this.
Since when?
I have been brutalized since I got here. I even get attacked by mods. The comments sat there for days. And many are still there.
This is one of the stupidest threads I've seen here and there have been some real doozies in the past few days.
Since when?
I have been brutalized since I got here. The comments sat there for days. And many are still there.
This is one of the stupidest threads I've seen here and there have been some real doozies in the past few days.
life is tough. Accept this reality. Face the consequences of the totalitarian regime. May there be peace within you.
Geez don't you have even the semblance of a sense of humor?:bawl:
btw, how would you resolve this moral crisis of the baby vs the wolf cub?
Just you wait, Mr #%@%#$%$# Just you wait.
Nice try, Sam, but surely you don't expect people to believe that your tirade was just all in good humor, do you? Really?
Well, I'd feed wolf cub, of course. There's billions and billions of fuckin' humans in the world, but only a very few wolves. I'd feel that it was my duty to the natural world to save the wolf cub to help prevent extinction of such a marvelous specie. Humans? They're a dime a dozen ...if that!
Baron Max
A couple of people have said that this thread is stupid now.
Well: maybe you're the stupid ones?
This thread is in the subforum: Ethics, Morality & Justice.
So let me restate the question for you: can any of you provide a rational ethical basis for the assumption that human life has an inherently higher value than that of other animals? Do our answers to this inevitably invoke an emotional response, based on simple pack loyalty? Are we just rationalising an unavoidable bias here?
Imagine you've just arrived from a distant star system, with altruistic instincts, but knowing nothing of Earth's biological hierarchy. Now which one would you feed?
Well: maybe you're the stupid ones?
This thread is in the subforum: Ethics, Morality & Justice.
So let me restate the question for you: can any of you provide a rational ethical basis for the assumption that human life has an inherently higher value than that of other animals? Do our answers to this inevitably invoke an emotional response, based on simple pack loyalty? Are we just rationalising an unavoidable bias here?
Imagine you've just arrived from a distant star system, with altruistic instincts, but knowing nothing of Earth's biological hierarchy. Now which one would you feed?
Brilliant! Marry me damn-it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We're all taught from a early age human life is more valuable because we're the highest life form on the planet. We're also more inclined so save our own species. It's rational in the sense that we're supposed to ensure the survival of our species first, though this doesn't take into account any varying circumstances.
I imagine you wouldn't, or you'd take a guess. Without the information to make a decision there is no alternative.
Personally if it wasn't for the fact that the law probably encompasses not feeding the human baby with inadvertantly allowing it to die and being prosecutable then I'd refrain from feeding both without further information, especially as they are both likely to die anyway.
Soon there shall be a wolfuman, it will live and breathe, think, and build. We are nearing the end...
This is the silliest, most innane question I've seen in some time! I'd divide the food between them and then get more for both.:bugeye:
Actually friend I don't recall ever being specifically told "human life has the most value" or anything like it. All I remember is being in school, then having teachers or other people tell me we're valuable because we're children of GOD, or we're more important because we can reason... never at any time was I told we're more important because we are the highest lifeforms on the planet.
Why's it inane? Assume that there is only enough food for one (it's just a thought exercise - play along). Now justify your choice of feeding one or the other on an ethical basis.
If you'd feed the human: why?
If you'd feed the wolf: why?
We could rephrase the question :
Do you want to support WWF or give your money to starving children in [insert name of poor 3.rd world country] ....
Do you want to have a pet or use the money to help starving babies .....
I like animals - some wolfs are almost extinct - the Simien Wolf..only 500 left in the world ........
Do you want to support WWF or give your money to starving children in [insert name of poor 3.rd world country] ....
Do you want to have a pet or use the money to help starving babies .....
I like animals - some wolfs are almost extinct - the Simien Wolf..only 500 left in the world ........
i would choose the wolf because i feel it has a much better chance at becoming a decent worthwhile being. I also feel that someone's answer to a question like this can tell you a lot about them. One of the fundemental ways of viewing a person is not how the treat the percieved equals but how they treat those percived to be less than or below themselves for it there where a persons' true veiws be gleaned