1. Hi there Guest! You should join our Minecraft server @ meepcraft.com
  2. We also have a Discord server that you can join @ https://discord.gg/h33wMwy
  3. Purchase a rank upgrade and get it instantly in-game! Upgrade Now

Should human lives be valued more than other animals?

Discussion in 'Debates' started by nhjed, Jun 1, 2018.

?

who you saving (read bolded text)

  1. the dog

    18 vote(s)
    56.3%
  2. roomate

    14 vote(s)
    43.8%
  1. nhjed

    nhjed Celebrity Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,749
    Likes Received:
    3,914
    that's selfish if you ask me, that's essentially saying "I'm not doing (this) for you because you didn't do (this) for me. if I saved my dog instead of you, in the circumstances of which you cannot save yourself and I'm the only source of help, and now you're a burn survivor (messed up skin) please tell me truthfully, how you would feel about me.
     
    Enron likes this.
  2. Blue_Marlin

    Blue_Marlin Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    463
    I would feel sad for you but Atleast I have my dog.
     
    Erebus45 likes this.
  3. Enron

    Enron Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    So just because you don't know them personally means they don't have a life that's more worth living than a dog?
    Maybe I'm too empathetic but if I could save a human life by risking mine I'd do it every time, regardless of whether I knew them or who they are.
     
  4. nhjed

    nhjed Celebrity Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,749
    Likes Received:
    3,914
    Did you make an attempt to try and interpret what I said? or are you too hard-headed to listen to me

    I said if I saved MY dog, and I let you, Blue_Marlin, roast and become a burn survivor, in the circumstances in which you couldn't save yourself, and I was the only way of you getting out, being fully aware of the entire situation & me not helping you afterwards

    how would you feel about me
    --- Double Post Merged, Jun 12, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 12, 2018 ---
    you're saying children should be checked up on monthly? whos going to fund that, and who says that someone can't pull a trojan horse? that seems very illogical.

    not all human beings are the same
     
    Enron likes this.
  5. Blue_Marlin

    Blue_Marlin Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    463
    Thanks for calling me hard headed for misunderstanding your question. If you didn’t save me I wouldn’t become a burn survivior, I’d be dead.

    Anyway, I would save my dog. Not sure why we’re still going on about this.
     
  6. Enron

    Enron Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    So they can only eat what you say they're allowed to?
    In India they don't eat cows as they have religious importance, should we have an international law against beef?
    And Muslims don't eat pigs, should we all have to give up pigs too?
    Dogs and cats aren't special, if cows and pigs can be food despite some people thinking they shouldn't be then people can eat dogs and cats regardless of your opinion on them.
    Geez that's pretty dystopian. First of all it'd be extremely easy to hide the abuse, tons of abused kids go to school every day and no teachers notice. Second, it'd take a huge amount of police/government employees to even do this, it's just not feasible. Third, it's a huge violation of privacy.
    So you're saying the solution to people breaking rules is to make even harsher and more extreme rules instead of, I don't know, fixing the actual problems in society that cause the problems?

    Also, learn to spell.
     
    Blue_Marlin likes this.
  7. CasualMow

    CasualMow Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    285
    We have eaten cows and pigs since the begianing of time I think, Eating cats and dogs is fairly recent to what I know. Cows and pigs have brains the size of a small rock I think. Cats and dogs are very VERY inteligent for their size expecialy dogs so yes THEY ARE LIVING BEINGS!
     
  8. Enron

    Enron Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    At the beginning of time, we ate mammoths and berries. Cattle were domesticated about 10,500 years ago, and pigs 9,000 years ago. Wild dogs were eaten at that time as well, this article is about primitive humans eating dogs up to 9,200 years ago, and I'm sure they ate wild ocelots and cougars (precursors to domestic cats) at that time too. Interestingly enough, the dog mentioned in the article were from North America, not Asia at all.
    Cow brains are about the size of a baseball, and pigs are about the same. Dogs and cats both have smaller brains than that. However, brain size has no correlation to intelligence. Blue whales have MUCH larger brains than a human, but humans are definitely more intelligent. Mice have extremely small brains but they're still smarter than a rhinoceros with a large one. Basing what you do and don't eat off of brain size would be completely arbitrary.
    First of all, them being "intelligent for their size" has nothing to do with them being living beings. All animals are living beings, as are plants and microorganisms. Second, pigs are actually fairly intelligent compared to most animals, and both pigs and cows can feel pain just as much as dogs and cats. Who should be allowed to determine what animals are worthy of living and what can be eaten? Personally I believe than any animal you want to eat you can eat, as humans are the most intelligent, evolved, and dominant species on the planet. If you believe that some animals shouldn't be eaten, then don't eat those animals. You can't force your personal beliefs onto other cultures and people though.

    Overall your lack of facts backing you up and your terrible spelling and grammar make you seem very ignorant.
     
  9. CasualMow

    CasualMow Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    285
    IT WAS my opionion.
     
  10. Enron

    Enron Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Lmao so not only do you not respond to ANY part of my argument, the one unrelated thing you say has a misspelling in a fairly simple word.

    You’re an idiot.
     
    nhjed likes this.
  11. SpongeyStar

    SpongeyStar Professor in Wumbology

    Offline
    Messages:
    4,114
    Likes Received:
    18,147
    i would save that lil piece of macaroni i dropped on the floor while i was tipping the macaroni into the sauce
     
    Marthacuddles likes this.
  12. Blendyz

    Blendyz Hipster for Life ♥

    Offline
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    328
    I believe we have a moral obligation to save the roommate. I am going to base my reason not on intelligence, but rather on ethics.

    If you choose to save the dog, you have consciously decided to kill your roommate. If you choose to save the roommate, you have consciously decided to kill the dog. If you decide to save neither, you're an idiot, however, you are not morally responsible for either death.

    If you choose to save your roommate, you will be pretty upset about the death of your dog. However, you will also know that you did the right thing. Imagine the emotional burden of knowing you were responsible for the death of a fellow human being.

    Another thing people don't really seem to get is how dogs are much more replaceable than a human life. Dogs can't tell stories, dogs can't help you with people problems, and they certainly cannot call you out when you're acting foolish.

    Another issue that people bring up is how long dogs live versus humans. I believe there is a fallacy in that. If it was your 3 year old dog versus a terminally ill cancer patient who has 2 months to live, who would you save? I'd still pick the human. It hasn't got anything to do with age or intelligence, it's about it being another human. No human can objectively say whether dog lives or human lives are more important. But from the human frame of reference, other humans should be more important. The survival of the human race should become instinctual in a moment of moral crisis.

    Just ask yourself honestly -- "If I were really in this situation, who would I actually save?"
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    nhjed and Enron like this.
  13. Marthacuddles

    Marthacuddles Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    489
    it depends how nice the roommate is. if they were incredibly mean to me and other people around me.. then sorry roommate im picking my dog.
    --- Double Post Merged, Jun 14, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 14, 2018 ---
    pigs are incredibly smart fix your facts
     
  14. MeepLord27

    MeepLord27 Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    987
    Likes Received:
    871
    Pigs are smarter than dogs.
    IQ tests reveal pigs can outsmart dogs and chimpanzees | Daily Mail Online
     
    Enron likes this.
  15. FamousZAmos

    FamousZAmos Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    that's terrible ethics

    hey, I like this guy!

    I think another thing people are missing is relationships.

    Nobody but you is going to care your dog died. Maybe your mom. If your roommate dies you're going to have to live with their incredibly sad family, friends, and coworkers. Even you're going to be sad about them, or at least that you didn't get to know them. Humans have incredibly complex lives that are tangled with everyone else's, and when someone is removed, there's a gap that really can't be replaced, regardless of whether they're a "nice person" or not.

    Also, financially, letting the dog die is removing a liability. A grateful roommate is an asset, maybe they'll buy you lunch!
     
    cooey and Enron like this.
  16. MeepLord27

    MeepLord27 Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    987
    Likes Received:
    871
    You haven't substantiated the methodological premise that we can be compelled to do things on the basis of ethics. Why are we obligated to take positive action based on ethics?
    We can distinguish between action and inaction: if I save my dog I haven't taken action to change the condition of my roomate, so I haven't taken any action that could make me responsible for the death of my roomate.
    This isn't an ethical argument because you haven't explained why any of the qualities you listed correlate with moral value.
    Why should someone adopt a "human frame of reference"?
    This question has nothing to do with ethics. I can disingenously argue for my position without undermining the truth of my position.
     
  17. Blendyz

    Blendyz Hipster for Life ♥

    Offline
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    328
    You don't "adopt" the human frame of reference, you're born with it.
     
    Enron likes this.
  18. MeepLord27

    MeepLord27 Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    987
    Likes Received:
    871
    Why am I born with it? You haven't fleshed out your ethical methodology at all so I have to infer a great deal about your argument.
     
  19. WhoNeedsJimbo

    WhoNeedsJimbo Popular Meeper

    Offline
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    876
    there are reasons I hate looking at the news.
     

Share This Page