Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: floo on May 17, 2017, 11:57:19 AM
-
deleted
-
My pets were important but my children more so, an example (didn't happen to me),if i had a child who was allergic to pet fur I would find the pet another home, not find my child another home! When people don't have children or children have left, their pets are just as important as kids & often treated like their kids but most people would for example put saving the life of a human being before that of a child.
Our animals are very important though, if we take on the responsibility of caring for them we must care for them & set a good example to our children if we do so conscientiously. Wouldn't pay too much attention to what people say on forums,maybe the person has never had a situation where she had to choose between animals and children.
-
It happens floo,unfortunately allergies pop up at any time.
Your daughter and then you were right to find a new home for the cat.
I wonder if the person on the forum will tell you what her choice would be? Whatever she may say i feel certain she'd put her child first and do the best she could for pet.
-
She hasn't bothered to answer the question, so I can only assume she wouldn't be able to make up her mind, which if that is the case, is very worrying indeed. :o
Maybe she has fallen down a well and her dog is frantically barking at her dumb uncomprehending children that she is trapped.
Assuming the motivation for non answers is pointless.
-
She is posting on other threads but avoiding my question. However, another poster stated my question was making it just as difficult for her to decide, as if I had asked if she had to choose which one of her children to save! I think that is a gobsmackingly horrible thing to say. :o
To be honest, what happens on other forums should stay there. I appreciate that the question in the OP is an interesting one (indeed so interesting that I had posted a related OP. http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13887.0)
but what posters who either post here post elsewhere, or who do not post here post elsewhere isn't the business of the forum
-
OK, this is a scenario I put to another poster on the BBC message boards. If you had the choice of saving your dog or another human who you had never met before, which would it be. The other poster chose her dog to save.
-
OK, this is a scenario I put to another poster on the BBC message boards. If you had the choice of saving your dog or another human who you had never met before, which would it be. The other poster chose her dog to save.
I would choose a human every time.
-
So would I but I believe most would if push came to shove,what people say when not faced with such a scenario is often inaccurate.
-
I agree. We think we know what we'd do but in reality we have no clue.
-
I would choose a human every time.
Even if it was Ian Brady?
-
If dogs could speak we would not understand what they said. Their senses provide them with a perception of the world which is totally different from ours - for instance vision is third in importance to them behind smell and hearing.
It may be considered a privilege to be able to share our lives with a member of another species, but a dog - or a cat - can never take the place of another human being.
-
But for some people they do, HH. There are many reasons why this may be - my aunt and uncle are like this with their cats and it may be because of their childlessness, who knows. Some people have experiences that mean they can never trust humans. Some children with disorders such as autism can bond with animals but not people. And so on.
I am always very aware that my animals view the world differently from me. For a start, I'm not plotting anyone's imminent demise, unlike my cat.
-
I believe the needs of the human animal must come first before that of any other species.
-
I believe the needs of the human animal must come first before that of any other species.
Why?
-
Why?
#
Because we are human the top dogs in others words. Animals shouldn't be deliberately mistreated, if it can be helped, but they are there for human use like food, for instance.
-
#
Because we are human the top dogs in others words. Animals shouldn't be deliberately mistreated, if it can be helped, but they are there for human use like food, for instance.
So if I was superior in some way to another human I can eat them
-
#
Because we are human the top dogs in others words. Animals shouldn't be deliberately mistreated, if it can be helped, but they are there for human use like food, for instance.
And what makes us 'top dogs'?
-
And what makes us 'top dogs'?
Why do you think?
-
Why do you think?
I didn't say that we are 'top dogs' so that is for you to answer, not me.
-
#
...
but they are there for human use like food, for instance.
Really? And what are humans for?
-
Really? And what are humans for?
This, perhaps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zone)
-
Dogs have emotional development that is similar to that of a two year old child. Just saying.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201303/which-emotions-do-dogs-actually-experience
-
Would you do it to your dog?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201307/are-pigs-smart-dogs-and-does-it-really-matter
-
No doubt I would eat a dog if I was hungry enough, they eat dogs in China, I believe. In my home island they ate cats just before the end of WW2 as food supplies weren't getting through.
-
And no doubt a dog would eat you if it were hungry enough and the opportunity arose.
So in what way are we 'top dogs'? And who or what makes it definitive that animals exist in order to be used as food source for humans?
-
And no doubt a dog would eat you if it were hungry enough and the opportunity arose.
So in what way are we 'top dogs'? And who or what makes it definitive that animals exist in order to be used as food source for humans?
Can animals of other species do all the things humans can do? Until they can humans are the top dog.
-
Well producing weapons of mass destruction and causing major extinction makes us top arseholes.
That aside, how does our ability lead to animals existing for us to exploit, or us having the right to do that?
-
Well producing weapons of mass destruction and causing major extinction makes us top arseholes.
That aside, how does our ability lead to animals existing for us to exploit, or us having the right to do that?
Humans can do a lot more than that as you well know. I take it you don't eat animal products, wear clothes originating from animals or use meds tested on animals?
-
Humans can do a lot more than that as you well know. I take it you don't eat animal products, wear clothes originating from animals or use meds tested on animals?
Now, Floo, for the benefit of the class, tell them what fallacy you are using in the above post.
-
Rhiannon and NS surely you have worked out the error of your ways. Floo is following the Bible's dictat:
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Strange that she is usually so vehement about the contents of that book, but it is quite happy for humankind to exploit animals for fun and pleasure and sadism.
-
Now, Floo, for the benefit of the class, tell them what fallacy you are using in the above post.
Is it a non flooquiter, an arguement from floocredulity, a straw floo, arguement from floothority, floocams razor or my favourite a floopery slope?
Yes I am aware of what I just did.
I'll get my coat...... :-[
-
Rhiannon and NS surely you have worked out the error of your ways. Floo is following the Bible's dictat:
Strange that she is usually so vehement about the contents of that book, but it is quite happy for humankind to exploit animals for fun and pleasure and sadism.
Animals should be put to good use, but not for fun or sadism.
-
Animals should be put to good use, but not for fun or sadism.
Why do you support fox hunting then?
And don't give us bull about it being the best way to control the fox population - because that is just little spherical objects. Fox hunting is done because the men on horses take pleasure from it. FOR NO OTHER REASON.
-
Why do you support fox hunting then?
And don't give us bull about it being the best way to control the fox population - because that is just little spherical objects. Fox hunting is done because the men on horses take pleasure from it. FOR NO OTHER REASON.
Foxes need to be kept down and I think it is a better way of doing it than shooting them, which is dangerous.
-
Foxes need to be kept down and I think it is a better way of doing it than shooting them, which is dangerous.
Really. I mean REALLY??????
So a load of horses trampling across the countryside with a pack of hounds preceding them is the best way to keep the fox population down.
Shooting them is dangerous though I'll give you that. They usually die instantly. ::) ::) ::)
-
Really. I mean REALLY??????
So a load of horses trampling across the countryside with a pack of hounds preceding them is the best way to keep the fox population down.
Shooting them is dangerous though I'll give you that. They usually die instantly. ::) ::) ::)
We will have to agree to differ on this topic.
-
No we don't. You are willfully supporting cruelty to animals.
Perhaps you could read this:
http://www.animalethics.org.uk/foxhunting.html
For a view that might change your mind.
-
Floo, there is a difference between saying that animals exist for us to exploit and saying that animals exist and we exploit them. Do you see?
-
Foxes need to be kept down and I think it is a better way of doing it than shooting them, which is dangerous.
The point of shooting them is that it is dangerous! An expert marksman would generally pose no danger to anyone or anything else in his sight unless something wennt seriously wrong which is a remote possibility.
People on horseback galloping fast through countryside pose all sorts of danger not least to themselves!I remember reading about casualties from the Old Surrey & Kent hunt(think it's called that). At the end of which they may corner and kill one terrified fox.
Point to point is good fun, a healthy alternative to fox hunting - doesn't satisfy blood lust.
-
What really pisses me off about the hunting ban is that to doesn't include lamping, one of the most disgusting 'sports' to sully this land.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/lampers-are-the-thugs-of-the-countryside-550739.html
-
That is horrible. I'd heard of people shootng rabbits at night, didn't know they 'lamped' foxes too.
-
Even if it was Ian Brady?
Ian Brady is already dead. No need to save him.
-
Why?
Imagine your husband/partner/chlld/parent was on a ship that sank. You rush down to the docks only to find somebody stepping off the rescue boat with their dog that they had saved in preference to your husband/partner/chlld/parent. Think how you would feel.
That's why you save the person.
-
Ian Brady is already dead. No need to save him.
It's a hypothetical question, assuming that he was alive at the time. ::)
However we could substitute Brady for say, Sutcliffe if you want?
-
Imagine your husband/partner/chlld/parent was on a ship that sank. You rush down to the docks only to find somebody stepping off the rescue boat with their dog that they had saved in preference to your husband/partner/chlld/parent. Think how you would feel.
That's why you save the person.
That wasn't the scenario that made me ask 'why' though. Floo said that the needs of the human animal must come above those of others. Not the lives. Different thing.
-
That wasn't the scenario that made me ask 'why' though. Floo said that the needs of the human animal must come above those of others. Not the lives. Different thing.
Don't they need to live?
-
Don't they need to live?
Not really. Nothing needs to live.
I *think* my instinct would be to save a human rather than my dog because that's how I feel I am programmed. Please god I never have to find out. However, to talk of the needs of humans over other species raises the question of what are the things that we need, and what are the things that we want. Do we need to destroy rainforests and mangroves in order to produce palm oil?
-
Not really. Nothing needs to live.
I do!
-
That wasn't the scenario that made me ask 'why' though. Floo said that the needs of the human animal must come above those of others. Not the lives. Different thing.
I am telling you why the need of the person to be saved outweighs the need of the dog.
-
I am telling you why the need of the person to be saved outweighs the need of the dog.
In which case I disagree.
Supposing in your scenario there is no person around to save either human or dog. The people left behind will grieve, they will face trauma, but they do not rely on the lost person for their survival - even children will have someone else step in. They do not need that other person - humans can survive horrendous loss.
The reason why saving the human is the right thing to do is because of our complex emotions and social structures; there is more devastation to others caused by the death of a person than the death of a dog. In choosing to save the dog first I would be inflicting harm on others, and that is why it is wrong.
-
You've put that well & i agree.
(I'd save a person first & then try to save the dog.)
-
This thread is hilarious..
Can we pin it, please?
-
In which case I disagree.
Supposing in your scenario there is no person around to save either human or dog. The people left behind will grieve, they will face trauma, but they do not rely on the lost person for their survival - even children will have someone else step in. They do not need that other person - humans can survive horrendous loss.
The reason why saving the human is the right thing to do is because of our complex emotions and social structures; there is more devastation to others caused by the death of a person than the death of a dog. In choosing to save the dog first I would be inflicting harm on others, and that is why it is wrong.
I am not a lawyer and would welcome clarification from someone better informed than I, but I seem to recall reading that deliberately refraining from assisting a person who then dies as a result of that lack of assistance could result in being charged with manslaughter. Deliberately choosing to save a dog rather than a person may well fall into that category.
-
Imagine your husband/partner/chlld/parent was on a ship that sank. You rush down to the docks only to find somebody stepping off the rescue boat with their dog that they had saved in preference to your husband/partner/chlld/parent. Think how you would feel.
That's why you save the person.
Yes, I agree.
I might not feel I wanted to let the dog drown, but I wouldn't consider saving the dog, especially if the human was a child.
I feel it would be a duty to save the child or another person first.
That's the thing, I think I would prioritise the person and then try and come back to the dog after.
Deep down I think some is peer pressure to do " the right thing" and also on some level I don't feel my dog is an equal to a human being.
I love him ( the dog) , because he is part of my personal family but in a life and death situation he doesn't come first.
The only time I might not, is if I completely loathed someone at that precise moment in time. Say if Ian Brady had murdered and tortured one of my children. In that instant I might well save the dog.
On the whole though I think it would be wrong to choose the dog over a human being.
The human being would have to have done something pretty awful for me to choose my dog.
-
Harrowby:-
"I am not a lawyer and would welcome clarification from someone better informed than I, but I seem to recall reading that deliberately refraining from assisting a person who then dies as a result of that lack of assistance could result in being charged with manslaughter."
Not in this country Harrowby.
(I don't know about choosing to save a dog over a human.)
Rose I too would save a human being first & then try to save the dog, think most would do that.
-
Not in this country Harrowby.
Really, Robinson?
Look in Wikipedia at "Duty to Rescue". Remember that England is a Common Law country.
-
Thanks HH. I had read it before but seems people are generally not prosecuted. I know they do it in the USA.
From wiki -A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.
It might be difficult anyway to prove that someone was deliberately negligent.
(My personal view is that morally we should all do what we can to rescue someone.)
-
I think that in a situation where both were capable of rescue, anyone who chose to rescue a dog in preference to a person would not escape without sanction ...
-
I think proof is the issue. It would be very hard to prove that in a panicked situation someone deliberately ignored the person in favour of the dog. Something like filming the incident on a smartphone instead of attempting a rescue seems far more clear cut.
-
Really, Robinson?
Look in Wikipedia at "Duty to Rescue". Remember that England is a Common Law country.
I don't think it's really straightforward.
People might not rescue because they are putting their own lives in danger.
I suppose you could have a situation where the human was perceived as being more " of a risk" to rescue whereas a dog might be easier.
For example a burning building where you only had to open a door to rescue the dog but had to enter the room to rescue a person. One situation might be seen to be more life threatening.
Self preservation might kick in.
To someone outside looking in on the situations, it might appear you put the dog first.
There are areas of grey, situations and human failings.
What one sees as equivalent, another might not.