Question of Morality

[Narz]

Its great to hear everyone's opinion. This poll is very tight. 20 to 19 right now.

I'm convinced Darwin was off his rocker if 50% of the human race would prefer to save another species at the expense of his/her own.

Darwin? What does he have to do with it? Darwin never said anything about protecting random humans. If anything people who chose the random human to die are helping their evolutionary chances because its a given that no one in their line will be the one who goes.

Here's another way to look at this dilema : More than half the world is impovrished, according to Western standards. Perhaps we are doing them a favor by granting their weary soul's rest. What is the random human was a terminaly ill patient that was not allowed euthenasia because our government believes all forms of suicide are wrong. Their family might be happy to see them finally be able to rest.

On the other hand, my cats leave healthy lives, hopefully with 15 years each left under their belts. They don't hurt anyone, they don't consume much and they give happiness to me and the little kids next door.

I know there are a lot of losers out there whose pets are some sort of surrogate for a real human relationship, but please!

Well, there always comes a point, sadly, when someone with a strong view is going to result to personal attacks ("losers") rather than logical arguement. Fortunatly I am the secure type. I love my cats, I loves my friends and girlfriend and family, obviously if I had to choose between them I would choose my pets but that is not the question.

- Narz

 

[Trajan12]

The pet is closer to me, thus more harm to lose it. I'm not even going to pretend to be all moral and nice like a lot of people. Screw the random guy.

Edit: I thought I was voting for who to save, so my vote in the poll should be for the other option.

 

[Harbringer]

In this situation the human is above the pet, kill the pet.

 

[nc-1701]

Wow... Mega-bump!

Don't we have a zillion weird morality thrread that aren't quite as dead?

Anyway... While I'm posting, whack the animal. Humans are more imporant.

 

[Stylesjl]

The Homo Sapien must die. Random Human, because frankly I don't care about someone I don't actually know

 

[Quintillus]

If I kill my pet then i'll be sad and miss it.

If I kill a random human then thats one less person in front of me at the supermarket checkout lane

What an easy choice

Mega-long-time quote! Pretty similar for me. When I was younger - 7th grade or so - I was of the mind for awhile that all the tragedies in the world while lots of people died weren't all that bad because it helped avoid the problem of overpopulation. I've since become more compassionate, but I still choose the random human option. I'd forever feel guilty if I chose my kitty-cat, but I'd probably forget about the random human fairly quickly.

 

[silver 2039]

The human can die. Random humans die all the time without me caring, how will one more dead random human make a difference to me? Death to the human.

But if my pet died I'd be sad...

 

[Fifty]

my dog has died, so I'll assume this is before he died. I'd take him EASILY over almost any human, even many humans that I know and like.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I don't have a pet now and I've never had one, but given the choice, the random human must go.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I may like dogs a lot, but I am always conscious of the fact that I own my animal and can therefore do whatever I please with it, while I still have to maintain at least some form of basic obligation towards my fellow man's life. So I would let my dog go, no matter how much I happen to like that dog. Unless, of course, the human being in question deserves to die, if such a thing actually exists.

Although honestly? If the devil did come and offer his proposition to me, I would first stand baffled and wonder if he's presence is an affirmation of God. .. which I guess then would give me further impetus to choose the human over the dog. You know, in order to prove that I'm not a greedy person who deserves perpetual hell fire for all and all eternity and what not.

 

[Halcyon]

It's actually quite a good hypothetical: making a great personal sacrifice for the sake of a complete stranger. Would you kill for the love of a dog?

Here's a thought. Would anyone have answered differently if they were told that their decision would be made public, along with pictures and details about the dead person/pet? Our top story tonight...

 

[Ansar]

My pet.

I can always get a new one.

 

[MobBoss]

For you 'random human' types....you know it always ends up being your wife, mom, dad, sis or someone along those lines. Random, yes. But that could still mean you end up killing someone you love.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As of July 2007 the world population estimate waas 6,602,224,175.
The death rate is 8.37/1000 or 55,260,614 per year.
That's 151,295/day on average.

What's one more? Especially, if statistically, they will most likely be Chinese or Indian.

Most people are loved by someone and the grief your would feel at the loss of a pet is more than likely to be felt by others at the loss of a person they know and care about. The choice is all about whether or not you are more concerned about your own suffering than the suffering of others. The easy choice is to save the pet.

 

[Ramius75]

Unfortunately, i will choose a Random human to die... -_-"

it was already done. The money i used to feed my cat could go to come charity feeding the hungry but of coz i dont really do that...

The money i spent on myself on 1 luxury meal is about 100USD and that could have fed many ppl too.

What about this time, its 2 humans 3 humans, 5 humans, 10,20, 100, 1000...?? -_-"

 

[The Yankee]

For you 'random human' types....you know it always ends up being your wife, mom, dad, sis or someone along those lines. Random, yes. But that could still mean you end up killing someone you love.

"I will either kill your pet (cat, dog, rabbit, goldfish) or I will kill some random person somewhere on Earth, this person will not be anyone who you are acquianted with in any way."

You could argue that you unwittingly killed off a person you have not yet met that would become your life-long love or close friend....but taken the way it is, it wouldn't be anyone such as your spouse or parent, etc.

And I'd have a hard time deciding that. I might lean towards the pet, but I don't know if I could take having such power over any living being.

 

[brainpan]

The choice is obvious, the pet must go. I have an intense fear and distrust of those who would answer differently. They are the sort of people who would shoot my mother to save a cat. Fortunately, the law is on my side in this relatively rare instance.

 

[Stylesjl]

For you 'random human' types....you know it always ends up being your wife, mom, dad, sis or someone along those lines. Random, yes. But that could still mean you end up killing someone you love.

The original scenario specifically ruled out the posibility of such an event occuring

this person will not be anyone who you are acquianted with in any way." -Narz

 

[Halcyon]

So, pet-keepers - what if they gave you an axe and had you do the killing yourself? Do you only have empathy for people you can see?

Yeah, people die all the time. That doesn't mean they should, and it doesn't mean that individuals don't matter, and it definately doesn't mean it's okay for you to kill one. Would you kill yourself to save your pet? No, right?

Hey, would you rather let a random human die than give up $100? Give up TV and games for a fortnight? Miss a night's sleep? Skip a nice meal? At what point is your comfort worth less than a sentient life?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And Halcyon, this is why these threads are bonkers

I would refuse to answer the devil, tell him to go stuff himself. I'd tell him that if he's real, than God is real as well, and he just made me a devout christian believer and I'd pray to Jesus to forgive my sins. One less soul for you Mr. little red-assed goblined-breathed horned-hed motherhumper.