Ethical dilemma

Sponsored Links
only had time enough to save a dog in one room and a human being in another

Should that read OR, otherwise you can save them both according to what you have written.
 
? ? ?
You said you could save a dog in one room and a human in another room, so what is there to read slowly? ? ?
 
Sponsored Links
If its my own dog over a stranger then definately the dog.
The stranger can roast. There's no way I'd let my dog burn alive.
 
I have conflicting thoughts about the burning house dilemma. On one hand, it is a helpful device to clarify ethical values. Species membership may be relevant to moral dilemmas, but not in an a priori way that always favors human animals over nonhuman animals. Other factors are more decisive to moral choices, such as existential proximity and personhood.

On the other hand, I think the burning house scenario is an empty, sterile, and hypothetical question that is completely useless and raised disingenuously by vapid fools who do nothing to help the planet, but carp on those who do. Its academic nature distracts from the all-too-real and concrete issues every person faces concerning how to live a life that does not cause harm to animals and the earth.

The real issues people have to face are not what will they do when they find themselves in a burning house with choices to make and lives to save, but what type of clothing do they put on their back, what kind of food do they put on their plate, what type of products do they use, and what kind of transportation do they choose.

When asked the burning house question again in the future, I think I will simply reply, “When I am in a burning house and have to choose between an animal and a human, I will let you know what I do. In the meantime, I have some serious ethical choices to make every day.”


:?: Balls in your court peaps
 
Trouble is Peaps, people such as yourself, place so little value on human life and so much on animals. The ALF etc were and I suppose today are, prepared to intimidate, maim and kill fellow human beings.
Let's rephrase that question you ask.

"If you were caught in a burning house, were running out the door to save your life, and only had time enough to save a dog in one room or your son in another, which would you choose?"

Perhaps a fairer question.
 
Saying it's your dog or your relative clouds the issue - the question is whether a dog and a human are equally valuable or have an equal right to life.

So it's save a dog that isn't yours, or save a human that you don't know. The answer is easy. Humans are worth more than animals for several reasons. Human every day of the week.
 
Well I wont have that dilemma.

My dog are where they should be chained up outside. :!:
 
Saying it's your dog or your relative clouds the issue - the question is whether a dog and a human are equally valuable or have an equal right to life.
.

It didn't say your dog though....
 
Saying it's your dog or your relative clouds the issue - the question is whether a dog and a human are equally valuable or have an equal right to life.
.

It didn't say your dog though....

Posters on the thread did. The question you linked to does not make that distinction, it being a question of whether an animal rights person would discriminate against an animal just because it's an animal in a 'real' situation.

Am I wrong? please correct me if so.
 
What if the human was Ian Huntley or some other serial killer?
 
Saying it's your dog or your relative clouds the issue - the question is whether a dog and a human are equally valuable or have an equal right to life.
.

It didn't say your dog though....

Posters on the thread did. The question you linked to does not make that distinction, it being a question of whether an animal rights person would discriminate against an animal just because it's an animal in a 'real' situation.

Am I wrong? please correct me if so.

I think it went a little further than that but no you spun it to fit your own agenda. People such as yourself think animal rights activists have no empathy towards humans. Animal rights activists afford animals "equal consideration" for humans and none human animals. If a person affords equal consideration to none human animals then it would be to see who they would discriminate against and why.....
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top