Mr. Cheese
Full House
Humanity better hope my dog and the fate of most humans aren't in a burning building and I'm the only one deciding who to save... Lol.
Just look at those ears!
Just look at those ears!
How many dog lives are worth one human life? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jbutler
- Start date
That's a very good question. I had to think about a response, which is no guarantee that it's a good one.
First, I couldn't begin to calculate the negative consequences of all dogs die. Because I don't know if I'm saving a homicidal maniac or the person who cures cancer; once I choose to save a random human over a random dog, haven't I chosen to save all humans over all dogs? I'm not completely comfortable with that choice (there are a lot of homicidal maniacs and we've yet to find the person who cures cancer) I'm willing to live with it.
The whole "extinction of dogs" concept is just silly to begin with... this is reality, not sci-fy (however unlikely the "reality" scenarios may be).
One on one? Save the human, no question.
Kennel, pet store, animal shelter, etc... either all animals in the building die or whoever happens to be working the counter at that moment? Save the human, no question.
Someone who REALLY has it out for me fills an abandoned warehouse with 5000 dogs, has a gun to a random child's head and says he pulls the trigger unless I press the button that will blow up the warehouse in the next 30 seconds? I'm pressing the button with 29 seconds to spare.
The thread has turned in to 50% who would make the obvious choice and 50% swinging their dicks over how much they love dogs and/or hate people. But if any one of those who claim they would save the dog were standing between two sets of train tracks with two trains coming, a baby on one set of tracks, a dog on the other and only time to save one... I guarantee each and every one of them would grab the baby. Quite obviously.
One on one? Save the human, no question.
Kennel, pet store, animal shelter, etc... either all animals in the building die or whoever happens to be working the counter at that moment? Save the human, no question.
Someone who REALLY has it out for me fills an abandoned warehouse with 5000 dogs, has a gun to a random child's head and says he pulls the trigger unless I press the button that will blow up the warehouse in the next 30 seconds? I'm pressing the button with 29 seconds to spare.
The thread has turned in to 50% who would make the obvious choice and 50% swinging their dicks over how much they love dogs and/or hate people. But if any one of those who claim they would save the dog were standing between two sets of train tracks with two trains coming, a baby on one set of tracks, a dog on the other and only time to save one... I guarantee each and every one of them would grab the baby. Quite obviously.
i really disagree. i didn't put a ton of thought into the question beyond BSing at the poker table beyond starting this thread, but i thought i was pretty firmly in the 1:1 camp. thinking for literally 5 seconds about guinness' obvious statement that the death of a human is very, very likely to cause indirect harm in the form of its impact on the familiy/friends of the human which is well beyond the indirect harm likely to result from the dog's death caused me to reconsider. i'm probably in the 25-50ish range at this point, but it's difficult to quantify the indirect impact. i couldn't disagree too much with someone who said as little as 20 or as much as 100.
it's easy to say you'd save a single baby over a single dog. you're taking literally the most sympathetic case (baby) in the most extreme example (1:1, human:dog). but what is the rational basis for being willing to kill, for example, 5000 dogs to save one human? why is one human life worth that much more?
bergs
Royal Flush
It's an impossible question to answer (for some people anyway). I'm honestly not sure I could physically watch multiple (20? 30? I dunno) dogs die versus watching one other random living being of any species die.
There is a legitimate chance that watching my dog pass away will be harder than watching a family member pass away - because I consider Truman to be part of my immediate family (disclaimer - I don't have kids, never wanted them, can't have them).
There is a legitimate chance that watching my dog pass away will be harder than watching a family member pass away - because I consider Truman to be part of my immediate family (disclaimer - I don't have kids, never wanted them, can't have them).
That was for the trolls claiming they would choose to save one dog over one person. Aren't you the one who said they were more expendable?
To me, and I acknowledge this is simply my opinion, human life is sacred. How about we replace dogs with another "intelligent" species? Dolphins? Bees? Ants? Many studies suggest rats are more intelligent than dogs, let's go with them. Is it alright to kill 5000 sewer rats to save a human? If not, why?jbutler said:
How much is your life worth? How many dogs would have to be threatened before you would agree to take your own life to save them?jbutler said:
bergs
Royal Flush
Why is human life so sacred? Wars are fought on this planet every day since the dawn of man. Criminals kill people and then are in turn put to death by their government. There are more places in the world where human life is considered cheap than where it's cherished.
I'm not saying I believe that, but to make a blanket statement that human life is universally sacred just isn't accurate.
I'm not saying I believe that, but to make a blanket statement that human life is universally sacred just isn't accurate.
bergs
Royal Flush
I don't consider rats, dolphins or ants family members. I do consider my dog a family member. The argument of animals versus humans is largely invalid because it's entirely predicated on individual perspective.
i was at 1:1 with a preference for dog at first, but i've moved on that as noted above. i'm now at 20ish:1 dogs:human.
i understand it's your opinion, but why do you hold that opinion?
agreed - all those mentioned should at minimum have rights equal to dogs. i used dogs for the thread because they're the most widely loved animal.
as above where the example was my own life versus the life of a dog on a desert island, it's complicated by the fact that i can estimate the value of my own life and so would need to know more about the dogs and their families. not really possible to answer in the abstract.
If depends. Which one is the human I am pitting against the dog?
i would pit the dog against the human who takes pleasure in ridiculing a random woman's personal appearance on the internet with a lazy joke. and i would choose the dog.
I'm not a dog person. I only like one dog, my fishing buddy's white boxer called "Whiskey". That's the only dog who is allowed to come into my car's back compartment. Even if the car smells after that like .... and even I have to vacuum the hair away for 15 minutes after he's been in the car.
Still, I value life too much and I'm unable to do the selection.
Oh. And yes. Truman rocks though
Still, I value life too much and I'm unable to do the selection.
Oh. And yes. Truman rocks though
Chippy McChiperson
Straight Flush
So human life > dog life > gnu life?
tommythecat
Flush
New poll...how many pedophiles would you kill to save one dog?
atomiktoaster
Full House
Butler, I'm under the impression that the "average dog" in a global sense isn't anything close to a family pet. 20 dogs living in a feral pack scavenging a third world land fill don't measure up to a Chinese factory worker to me. I'd guess if you grabbed 20 globally random dogs and put them in a responsible shelter, 19 would be euthanized due to ill health or lack of socialization. It kinda sucks to be a dog.
Chippy McChiperson
Straight Flush
All of them
yeah it would take a lot of "random" dogs to end up with a reasonably large indirect impact as discussed above. as well, however, there are more humans living whose deaths would have little to no indirect impact than most would think. so it might take more "random" humans to end up with as huge an indirect impact than one might think on first glance.
if those are your first two scratch offs, quit now so you can be one of the .000001% of scratch off players who are ahead lifetime
Ben
Full House
Well that's a bit extreme, but yeah, Gnu - it takes a herculean effort of callousness to actually offend me (case in point: I don't think you've ever actually done it before) but the line was WAAAAY back behind you on that one.
OK - trolling the troll thread: how many dogs would you kill to save one viable fetus???
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
Just for perspective. . . . ASPCA estimates 1,200,000 dogs are put down in shelters each year or 3,300 a day (in America only). We could choose to pay to keep them alive, but don't. No kill shelters save perhaps 10,000,000 dogs each year, saving most dogs but not all.
How many Americans starve to death each year? Roughly 100, almost all children, due to parental neglect.
We vote as a society about this question all the time with our money. We almost never let a human starve in America, we can see the same can't be said for dogs.
There are eleven countries/places around the globe that still eat dog meat. They are: China, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Polynesia, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Arctic and Antarctic and two cantons in Switzerland.
There is almost no place on earth were people are consumed for food.
This question is a "first world" question, perhaps mainly an American question. Most places on Earth aren't wealthy enough to seriously consider this question.
I can afford to spend a thousand+ per year feeding my dogs and giving them medical care (and they are tiny dogs). The median income world wide is ~$1,200 / yr.
I'll still stick with 1 person > 5,000 dogs and I can be sure the vast majority of the world will agree with me in practice even if not in principle. And if you aren't sending big bucks supporting the local no kill shelters then in practice you agree as well.''
DrStrange
How many Americans starve to death each year? Roughly 100, almost all children, due to parental neglect.
We vote as a society about this question all the time with our money. We almost never let a human starve in America, we can see the same can't be said for dogs.
There are eleven countries/places around the globe that still eat dog meat. They are: China, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Polynesia, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Arctic and Antarctic and two cantons in Switzerland.
There is almost no place on earth were people are consumed for food.
This question is a "first world" question, perhaps mainly an American question. Most places on Earth aren't wealthy enough to seriously consider this question.
I can afford to spend a thousand+ per year feeding my dogs and giving them medical care (and they are tiny dogs). The median income world wide is ~$1,200 / yr.
I'll still stick with 1 person > 5,000 dogs and I can be sure the vast majority of the world will agree with me in practice even if not in principle. And if you aren't sending big bucks supporting the local no kill shelters then in practice you agree as well.''
DrStrange
If your point is that people who hold a principled position and recognize that their actions don't comport with their beliefs should ask themselves whether they are truly devoted to the principle, then I agree, but getting them to articulate their principles is often the first step toward aligning thought and action.
Those who have greater power to act - whether by virtue of wealth or other means - have the greater moral and ethical obligation to put their principles into practice. So, naturally, the "first world" has most often been where you'd find changes which would seem outlandishly progressive to the rest of the world.
Pinball
Full House
I really like dogs but I would always save the human even it means to kill all dogs in the world.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but if it depends on my life or the dog's life I hope people would kill the dog not me.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but if it depends on my life or the dog's life I hope people would kill the dog not me.
Bloody Marvelous
3 of a Kind
This is categorically untrue. I don't think all women would suck nuts, while 50% dogs would... (though mostly their own).
So you all feel that it's acceptable to let the person who is saddled with a mental illness that they didn't choose (via birth or circumstances that occurred within their life) die?
tommythecat
Flush
Like everything ITT, it depends on the circumstances. If the person in question is actively trying to treat his mental illness and keep themselves away from kids, they get a pass. If not...fuck 'em.
guinness
Flush
I can't even come to terms with an answer. Really, I can't.
This thread reminds me of my friend Erik who loves playing "which would you rather" with terrifying themes.
Would you rather:
Watch your parents have sex once OR Never have sex again?
Eat a cup of someone elses vomit OR Lose all your taste buds forever?
Be rich, gorgeous and perceived as the worlds best person for the next 15 years then die OR live regular until natural death?
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.