jab
Veteran Member
I wouldn't, as I think the average human would be less likely to bite me in a fire-induced panic.
-
Features
Firefighter Says Saving One Dog Is ‘More Important’ Than A Million Black People
- Thread starter RavenSky
- Start date
I wouldn't, as I think the average human would be less likely to bite me in a fire-induced panic.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,553
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Well, you call the guy a racist so you think he demonstrated a racist attitude. However, that wasn't your point. Your point was that it wasn't a big deal that he was a racist because the right-wing equivalent of 'the solution to pollution is dilution'. IE big nation, of course, there will be racists.
I think your position is a bit misguided as this guy is a rescue worker. For a person who works in that field, to publicly make such a statement provides a lack of confidence in rescue crews. Regardless, the man might be a racist pussy and panic when faced with making a rescue in a fire and saving a black man, because in the moment of panic, he acts like a human being.
WAB
Contributor
1+
I'd save any human before any animal, even if it was my own beloved Bumble, a cat that looks like a giant bumblebee. Bumble would have to go to cat heaven, to chase after infinite juicy mice, if I had to let her go in order to get a human life to safety.
That being said:
If the humans risking death were Josephs Mengele and/or Stalin, I'd save one old cricket with one leg missing before I saved them.
Thing is, one usually doesn't know these things in the heat (pun-intended) of the moment. Therefore, one has to have values. In general, I value human life over other animal life. I guess that makes me a speciesist.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=speci...7A5C8656044F77A388BC2C89247CDD&FORM=QBLH&sp=2
Hold on, crappy definition there. Let me fix it:
spe·cies·ism
[ˈspēSHēˌzizəm, spēsē-]
NOUN
The valuing of innocent human life over that of innocent, less-evolved animals.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Humans are generally smarter than the other animals, but aren't most other extant animal species as evolved as we are?
WAB
Contributor
In short, no. Humans are far more sophisticated, complex, and intelligent. It's just the way it is. Why fight it? it would be silly. When elephants, dolphins, whales, etc, begin to build, invent, form cities, cultures, make art, literature, deal in commerce, complex languages and grammar, do science, etc, then we can say that they are as highly-evolved as humans, but to our knowledge, not much of this occurs. Though, I do find animal communication and language systems studies extremely compelling. Birdsong, whalesong, these are being studied and amazing things are being discovered. It's exciting. For all we know, birds could have a language as complex as humans, and same with whales and other intelligent ocean dwelling creatures. It is tragic that shipping and all the traffic in the open waters has caused a breakdown in communication networks and systems among whales and other creatures.
Someday, given enough research and time (TIME!) - humans may very well be able to communicate with whales, birds, dolphins, elephants, apes, etc. What a great time it will be for all earth's organisms then. But for now, the way things ARE, I cannot value my cat over a human life, no matter how much I love my cat. And I bristle and become indignant when I see people stating on Facebook, with no second thoughts whatsoever, that they value their pets more than they value human life. I think that's an unacceptable, and ultimately selfish, trend. Selfish because it recognizes local emotional attachments, prioritizes those, and blinds itself to the larger world.
More to come...
laughing dog
Contributor
Which is more ultimately selfish - valuing one's species over others or valuing lesser species over more evolved ones?
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 10,655
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
You're confusing "more evolved" with "more intelligent."
What's wrong with local attachments? Do you distribute all your giving time and energy equally among all people on earth?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Chimpanzees may be more evolved than humans because since the time when our two species diverged, chimps have had more genetic changes to their genomes resulting in functional changes.
WAB
Contributor
Define "selfish"
WAB
Contributor
But seriously - and why is this not being discussed? - -
The higher the intelligence, the more sentience, the more the organism is aware of its mortality. The lower animals are not aware of their mortality, as far as we know.
Hence: the more the organism is aware of its mortality, the more value it places on its existence. Hence, the more valuable that organism is, in the grand scheme. If an entity exists, but is not aware of its existence, it cannot assign any value to its existence; contrarily, if an organism recognizes its existence, and has the capacity to think about its existence and to actually cognitively assess its existence as temporal: hence the recognition of mortality (death) - then this organism, by virtue of its own recognition of itself as a temporal entity, is MORE valuable than the entity that has no capacity to recognize itself as an individual or its own mortality.
Simple.
laughing dog
Contributor
You are the one who brought up selfishness into the discussion with "I think that's an unacceptable, and ultimately selfish, trend. Selfish because it recognizes local emotional attachments, prioritizes those, and blinds itself to the larger world. " not me. Are you saying you have no idea what you were posting about?
WAB
Contributor
Nope. You do not pass Go, and you do not collect 200 smackers.
What is your definition of "selfish?"
***
I will give you my definition of "selfish".
There's a negative and a positive connotation to the word "selfish"
When I used the word to describe pet owners and their feelings toward their animals, I was using the word "selfish" in the negative connotation. I thought I explained that, as much as I love my dear cat Bumble, if a situation should arise wherein I were asked to sacrifice Bumble in order to save the life of ANY innocent human being, I would sacrifice Bumble. I am pretty sure that I explained myself in prior posts.
What that means is: I would consider my own, private, subjective, emotional feelings as LESS important than the matter at hand: the life of a human being.
In other words, I would accept the pain of giving up something I cherished, because I have a hierarchy of values. An innocent human life would be MORE valuable than the life of my sweet Bumble. Because, who knows what that human life might accomplish?
That human life (even though I know nothing other than that it's a human life) might become a great artist, a great composer, a great architect, a great statesman, a great whatever. But Bumble? What would Bumble be? (pun intended). A cat. A lovely, beautiful, loving, cat.
Has this helped to advance my general train of thought?
What is your definition of "selfish?"
***
I will give you my definition of "selfish".
There's a negative and a positive connotation to the word "selfish"
When I used the word to describe pet owners and their feelings toward their animals, I was using the word "selfish" in the negative connotation. I thought I explained that, as much as I love my dear cat Bumble, if a situation should arise wherein I were asked to sacrifice Bumble in order to save the life of ANY innocent human being, I would sacrifice Bumble. I am pretty sure that I explained myself in prior posts.
What that means is: I would consider my own, private, subjective, emotional feelings as LESS important than the matter at hand: the life of a human being.
In other words, I would accept the pain of giving up something I cherished, because I have a hierarchy of values. An innocent human life would be MORE valuable than the life of my sweet Bumble. Because, who knows what that human life might accomplish?
That human life (even though I know nothing other than that it's a human life) might become a great artist, a great composer, a great architect, a great statesman, a great whatever. But Bumble? What would Bumble be? (pun intended). A cat. A lovely, beautiful, loving, cat.
Has this helped to advance my general train of thought?
LordKiran
Veteran Member
It's also possible that the person you save could be a mass murdering cannibal that unironically likes the Big Bang Theory. See that's the thing about saving Bumble. You're guaranteed a consistent result.
Now here's a more interesting question:
Would you save that random person if it meant you had to personally torture Bumble with a hot iron for five minutes without stopping and then leave it for dead? See, I'm guessing the first choice is an easy one to make because once Bumble is gone then that's the end of it. But if Bumble survived? And you had to live with knowing that killing it would have probably been far kinder than what you actually did to the poor critter? Hmmmm...
I can tell you right now that I wouldn't be able to do it. I wouldn't be able to torture a defenseless and innocent creature to save another human being. I would rather watch that person burn to death, because at least I wouldn't be directly accountable for that.
Last edited:
laughing dog
Contributor
No. Nor does it answer the question "Which is more ultimately selfish - valuing one's species over others or valuing lesser species over more evolved ones?"
This argument that we should place more importance on those who place more importance on their own existence... Does it not follow from that that we should kill the suicidal, who place negative value on their own existence, or value them less than a being that places no value on their own existence (like a roach)?
I don't accept this argument that we should value beings based on intellect either. Beings can be smart but monstrous or stupid but awesome.
I don't accept this argument that we should value beings based on intellect either. Beings can be smart but monstrous or stupid but awesome.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
I don't think the value of life can be quantified, qualified or otherwise commodotized such that anyone can really say which holds more value. With that said I would definitely choose to save a person over an animal if I was given a situation where both goals were mutually exclusive. But that has more to do with my priorities than it does with anything intrinsic to do with YOUR life. If it wasn't you it'd just be someone else I'd be saving for reasons that aren't unique to any one of you.
- - - Updated - - -
It's not that the suicidal place no value on their lives necessarily. There are loads of reasons people commit suicide and almost none of it having to do with the supposed value of human life.
WAB
Contributor
It's also possible that the person you save could be a mass murdering cannibal that unironically likes the Big Bang Theory. See that's the thing about saving Bumble. You're guaranteed a consistent result.
Now here's a more interesting question:
Would you save that random person if it meant you had **to personally torture Bumble with a hot iron for five minutes without stopping** and then leave it for dead? See, I'm guessing the first choice is an easy one to make because once Bumble is gone then that's the end of it. But if Bumble survived? And you had to live with knowing that killing it would have probably been far kinder than what you actually did to the poor critter? Hmmmm...
I can tell you right now that I wouldn't be able to do it. I wouldn't be able to torture a defenseless and innocent creature to save another human being. I would rather watch that person burn to death, because at least I wouldn't be directly accountable for that.
Oh boy...
LordKiran presents a fascinating quandary for you all to think about:
Let's say you are a lifeguard. There are two people drowning, quite a distance from one another. You can only save one of them. You have no information as to whether they are young, old, male, female, nada. All that you know is that there are two individuals drowning, and you can only save one.
Now, it doesn't matter which one you go to. You have no information, no nothing, to prejudice your decision. So, you go to save drowner X.
What LordKiran wants you to believe, is that due to your decision, you are responsible for the suffering and death of drowner Y. By choosing to save drowner X, you are (according to Lord Kiran's silly argument) guilty of not only allowing drowner Y to die, but are guilty of **causing** their suffering in the first place.
Let's see if LordKiran can connect the bold and the asterisks, and realize the silliness of his argument.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
It's also possible that the person you save could be a mass murdering cannibal that unironically likes the Big Bang Theory. See that's the thing about saving Bumble. You're guaranteed a consistent result.
Now here's a more interesting question:
Would you save that random person if it meant you had **to personally torture Bumble with a hot iron for five minutes without stopping** and then leave it for dead? See, I'm guessing the first choice is an easy one to make because once Bumble is gone then that's the end of it. But if Bumble survived? And you had to live with knowing that killing it would have probably been far kinder than what you actually did to the poor critter? Hmmmm...
I can tell you right now that I wouldn't be able to do it. I wouldn't be able to torture a defenseless and innocent creature to save another human being. I would rather watch that person burn to death, because at least I wouldn't be directly accountable for that.
Oh boy...
LordKiran presents a fascinating quandary for you all to think about:
Let's say you are a lifeguard. There are two people drowning, quite a distance from one another. You can only save one of them. You have no information as to whether they are young, old, male, female, nada. All that you know is that there are two individuals drowning, and you can only save one.
Now, it doesn't matter which one you go to. You have no information, no nothing, to prejudice your decision. So, you go to save drowner X.
What LordKiran wants you to believe, is that due to your decision, you are responsible for the suffering and death of drowner Y. By choosing to save drowner X, you are (according to Lord Kiran's silly argument) guilty of not only allowing drowner Y to die, but are guilty of **causing** their suffering in the first place.
Let's see if LordKiran can connect the bold and the asterisks, and realize the silliness of his argument.
I would yell to them to swim towards each other and then save them both.
Also, I'm Batman. You completely forgot about that in my hypothetical, didn't you?
LordKiran
Veteran Member
It's also possible that the person you save could be a mass murdering cannibal that unironically likes the Big Bang Theory. See that's the thing about saving Bumble. You're guaranteed a consistent result.
Now here's a more interesting question:
Would you save that random person if it meant you had **to personally torture Bumble with a hot iron for five minutes without stopping** and then leave it for dead? See, I'm guessing the first choice is an easy one to make because once Bumble is gone then that's the end of it. But if Bumble survived? And you had to live with knowing that killing it would have probably been far kinder than what you actually did to the poor critter? Hmmmm...
I can tell you right now that I wouldn't be able to do it. I wouldn't be able to torture a defenseless and innocent creature to save another human being. I would rather watch that person burn to death, because at least I wouldn't be directly accountable for that.
Oh boy...
LordKiran presents a fascinating quandary for you all to think about:
Let's say you are a lifeguard. There are two people drowning, quite a distance from one another. You can only save one of them. You have no information as to whether they are young, old, male, female, nada. All that you know is that there are two individuals drowning, and you can only save one.
Now, it doesn't matter which one you go to. You have no information, no nothing, to prejudice your decision. So, you go to save drowner X.
What LordKiran wants you to believe, is that due to your decision, you are responsible for the suffering and death of drowner Y. By choosing to save drowner X, you are (according to Lord Kiran's silly argument) guilty of not only allowing drowner Y to die, but are guilty of **causing** their suffering in the first place.
Let's see if LordKiran can connect the bold and the asterisks, and realize the silliness of his argument.
I think you completely misunderstood what I was getting at. Is it one thing to let someone die through inaction, yet quite another to be personally responsible for it? I think so, while that doesn't necessarily excuse the former.
Perhaps the way I got this point across could have been less clumsy, but that is what I'm getting at.
WAB
Contributor
Well of course. That was the whole point of my rebuttle.
All I said was that I would save an innocent human life before my beloved Bumble. Then you wrote something that made it seem that by saving the human, I was not only allowing Bumble to burn to death, but that I was responsible for her suffering. You wrote something about holding hot irons to her before she died, did you not?
Egro: by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?
Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially, she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.
My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.
You seemed to want me to feel guilty over letting Bumble die in a fire, as if I had started the fire and even went to such lengths as to prod her with hot irons, or somesuch.
Poor argument, is all I'm sayin'.