Oneatatime
Huh?
I don't suppose running them both over is an option? It at least avoids the moral problem of choosing which one will likely die.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Save the human or other animal?
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Lol, do we have enough time to do that?
Sure - hit one, back up, hit the other.
Oneatatime
Huh?
Assuming they were standing close enough which then raises the question of what a human and an animal were doing alone in the middle of a road.
Interesting point. The human would know to be more grateful and maybe share some wealth where the wolf would likely have me for lunch.
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
True. I would like to think that what if the human you saved was a physician or nurse? If I saved the wolf, most likely it would run away.
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
Nonsense what if you're on a roadway with no street lights and the human who just happened to be there is running from a ravenous wolf. There are many scenarios as to why a human was on the road.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
My first instinct would be to avoid hitting the human, because I'd more likely end up in jail or getting sued if I hit a person with my car. However, this doesn't mean that I would consciously choose to save a human over an animal in all cases. For instance, if it came down to saving my dog or a human stranger, I'm pretty sure I'd choose to save my dog in nearly all cases.
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
So in a building fire if I am inside and your dog is inside and you have one person to save you'd save your dog?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yep. He's a member of my family that I'm responsible for and love. You're not.
Proper-Gander
Member
If my first thought wasn't immediately "omg LAWSUIT", I would likely hit the animal - unless it was a very very short adult. I say short adult instead of small person because I would not want to seriously maim or kill a child because of the emotional duress it would likely cause the parents. I say small adult instead of the animal because I would immediately be trying to cause minimal damage to myself and my vehicle (because I'm selfish like that).
However if a ditch seemed like the safest option for all parties (especially myself), I would brake and swerve in that direction.
However if a ditch seemed like the safest option for all parties (especially myself), I would brake and swerve in that direction.
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
Interesting I see where your humane values lie sir
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yep, my values and morality lie with those I take responsibility for, and those who count on me.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yeah, I don't count on strangers, and my dog counts on me absolutely - a responsibility I expressly took on.
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
Heh-Ok good for you sir
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
I agree that people seem to be skirting the main issue. Is a human life fundamentally more important than an animal life?
Furthermore I want to know that if human's are more important, is it because we're thinking beings? Would a machine intelligence be as important?...A super intelligent alien?
To those who think this topic is irrelevant, I would say that I think people who experiment on animals rely on a sort of "humans are fundamentally more important" mindset. Suppose I have to kill a wolf to cure polio or cancer...is that justified? Suppose I have to kill a thousand wolves. Suppose I have to kill the last wolf...still justified?