What about survival situations ?

[Poppy]

Hopefully I could grab the child and convince the puppy to follow or manage to scoot it out with my feet. The cat wouldn't stick around. All the rest of the healthy adults (6, I think) are on their own. I wish them luck and expect that they would work together to get the quadriplegic, the second disabled person and the dying friend out.

 

[Brian W]

I'm not quite sure all animals would do that. Not sure a dog would do that. Some animals kill their youngs...
I would say that you'd choose the child because in a survival situation the child symbolises hope.

I'm not sure an animal would do that unless there was a pressing reason to do so - I might be wrong. You are wrong about my motives. It is natural for humans to care more about a child than an animal.

Would you conclude that a child has more moral value than a blind quadriplegic?

Although there is nothing objectively right or wrong in this situation,

I thought I was clear that there is no objective difference in value

6) Who would you save if you had to choose one, a healthy rapist or a dying friend?

That is difficult. As long as the rapist will go directly to prison, I wouldn't be against saving him but my feelings for my friend might bias me. I really don't know the answer. If the rapist wasn't going to prison, I would choose to save a lot of women a lot of suffering and let him die.

 

[Gaspard]

I thought I was clear that there is no objective difference in value

We are of the same opinion. So as a result we would also agree, I suppose, that we can generalise: hypothetical survival situations cannot establish the relative value of life.
We often hear people say “if I had to choose either quadriplegic or a puppy, I would save the quadriplegic. So humans are superior to animals”. Do you agree that this statement is wrong?

That is difficult. As long as the rapist will go directly to prison, I wouldn't be against saving him but my feelings for my friend might bias me. I really don't know the answer. If the rapist wasn't going to prison, I would choose to save a lot of women a lot of suffering and let him die.

Yes. Here we start to see that this whole "save one" question is problematic on several levels. And when you read the examples I gave at the begining of this thread, I'm quite sure you suspected I would write about discrimination.
What about this one: you can only save one. Who do you choose, a blind quadriplegic or a healthy person?
Thanks for your answers, I really appreciate (that's the last question I ask you as we are starting to realise these speculations might be slightly perverse, aren't we?)

 

[Gaspard]

Hopefully I could grab the child and convince the puppy to follow or manage to scoot it out with my feet. The cat wouldn't stick around. All the rest of the healthy adults (6, I think) are on their own. I wish them luck and expect that they would work together to get the quadriplegic, the second disabled person and the dying friend out.

Thank you for your answer. There's some hope in it.
What about this situation : You can only save one. Who do you choose, a blind quadriplegic or a healthy person?

 

[Brian W]

We often hear people say “if I had to choose either quadriplegic or a puppy, I would save the quadriplegic. So humans are superior to animals”. Do you agree that this statement is wrong?

Yes, it's clearly wrong.

What about this one: you can only save one. Who do you choose, a blind quadriplegic or a healthy person?

My emotions feel for the blind quadriplegic but my cold reasoning would want to save the healthy person. I don't have an answer for this one.

 

[Gaspard]

My emotions feel for the blind quadriplegic but my cold reasoning would want to save the healthy person. I don't have an answer for this one.

Yes, there is no possible choice because the question is ableist.
My point is that this question may be really perverse after all. And it's quite sad because many people answer they would choose the healthy person. Would they say that to a quadriplegic's face?
The mere fact that we think about such improbable situation might be sadistic.

 

[Poppy]

Thank you for your answer. There's some hope in it.
What about this situation : You can only save one. Who do you choose, a blind quadriplegic or a healthy person?

The blind quadriplegic person. The healthy one can save him/herself.

 

[Tom L.]

We didn't start the fire. It's been burning since the world's been turning.

We didn't start the fire- but though we didn't light it, still we try to fight it

 

[Gaspard]

The blind quadriplegic person. The healthy one can save him/herself.

You're not ableist then. Good on you. Many people say they would save the healthy person because the quadriplegic has less potential for well being... Well, I disagree with them (their positivist philosophical position is unethical): I think it is disastrous to speculate about improbable survival situations and draw biased conclusions. It’s very harmful.

 

[beancounter]

The blind quadriplegic person. The healthy one can save him/herself.

Good point!

 

[Danielle]

I don't think a healthy person could always save him/herself. What if they were stuck somehow? Couldn't move? If they needed saving, then I would think that it's clear that they're unable to save themselves. Who wants to be told in an emergency situation "you're healthy, you can save yourself" if they can't and need help.

 

[Max Caulfield]

Yes and no. You're extremely unlikely in modern days in developed countries end in a situation where going vegan would jeopardize your chances of survival but survival still major, if not one or the most important values for vast majority of people. If you were forced for an example between dying and consuming animal product or regular consumption of animal products I doubt most vegans would chose to die. I mean after all we still harm animals by many of our actions while knowing those actions bring harm but are necessary to our survival or advanced highly beneficial way of life and vegans don't exactly kill themselves over the fact.

As for questions they are fairly easy to answer to me (except maybe personal ones), as we lack nuance and details concerning scenarios that would make them difficult and we forced to chose between, in those cases I will have to rely on heuristics, knowledge and statistics regarding factors like utility, length of life and violation of morals.

1. Child is obvious choice here, a child is far likely to live longer and have entire life before them and likely has greater potential on information given as all we are given regarding another person that they are impaired in terms of eye-sight and paralyzed in some capacity.

2. I don't personally own a puppy and a cat so it wouldn't be personal decision based on my attachment to it. I would have make decision based on other factors. Cat is less expensive (at I suspect it's at least food wise) and requires less effort to maintain than a dog (unless perhaps you own backyard/front yard but cats are obligatory carnivores while to my knowledge at least some types of dogs are capable to adapt to a vegan diet what would spare me of funding various animal agriculture industries. So, puppy I guess.

3.Hmm statistically speaking black people are more likely to commit crimes, especially more severe ones. However, statistically speaking also men are more likely to commit crimes, at least violent ones than women. I would have to actually check it up how black women do against white men crime wise. However, given criminals make only small fraction (% wise) of society that person is far more likely to not be a criminal (at least not found guilty in court of law) and black people tend to be poorer by large margin meaning likely their contribution to the society is likely lesser going of by typical indication of income representing more important or/and scarce tasks in society than that of a white person. So likelihood of greater utility would favor white men.

4. Same situation as with dog and cat but I can't really answer such question as it lacks relevant factors and data for to make a judgement that would favor one over another. It would really be circumstantial depending on the case. I could pick my lover or my sister depending on nature and quality my relationship with each. Inconclusive.

5.Well, probability of survival of that child is so astronomically tiny that even given all factors that would advantage child over disabled person and fact they have 100 % of survival I would rule in favor of disabled person.

6. Are there even statistics or % of reformed rapists? Let alone rapists that no were not only not caught in some criminal activity but actually not being crappy people. However, one would have to take into consideration that friend is dying (is he just severely injured and without medical assistance he will die or mortally injured and he is finished?) and rapist could reform. If friend has some realistic chance of surviving then friend, in case of ensured death then still leaning toward a friend as I've way too little info on a rapist to know what I'm doing beside helping to survive dangerous and unethical individual over condemning what I assume is innocent friend of mine to die a horrible death in a fire.

 

[Gaspard]

I don't think a healthy person could always save him/herself.

Yes you're right.
The point of this thread is to analyse the way people respond to theses questions. Obviously when they are disturbed they often expand the context so it is possible for them to make a choice.
What about you, who would you save, a healthy person or a quadriplegic?

 

[Gaspard]

As for questions they are fairly easy to answer to me (except maybe personal ones), as we lack nuance and details concerning scenarios that would make them difficult and we forced to chose between, in those cases I will have to rely on heuristics, knowledge and statistics regarding factors like utility, length of life and violation of morals.

First of all, thank you for answering the six questions. You're the first person who did. Actually these questions are difficult to answer for most people. I'll read you, and answer you as soon as possible. I have to go to work now.

 

[Nekodaiden]

In order to absolve myself from all ageism, sexism, racism, speciesism and any other
preferential treatment of one over another that could absolve myself
from any kind of moral dilemma or future accusation of such, I would...

Shoot both choices in the head and save them an
agonizing death.

Or I would put out the fire.

Or, to play the game fairly I can forget all that and just look at it from either a practical or self-interested point of view:



1) A blind quadriplegic or a child - the child, the blind quadriplegic is probably waiting for death anyway on a level the child is not, and the child has a chance at a fuller life with the given they have more faculties than the blind quadriplegic.

2) Your puppy or your cat - My cat because I prefer felines, but the dog if I'm otherwise in a situation where it could be helpful to me in ways a cat isn't.

3) A black women or a white man - that sort of depends on what sort of lifelong gratitude either is willing/able to give to their hero. I like back and foot rubs, I'm heterosexual and single. However, I might be in need of a good insurance policy only the white man can give me. So it sort of depends, lol.

4) Your lover or your sister - All depends on the relationship. Lovers can turn into fierce enemies. Sisters are typically family for life.

5) A child who has 0,0001% chance of survival or a disabled person who has 100% chance to survive - the disabled person is the easy choice here in light of such odds.

6) A healthy rapist or a dying friend - Dying friend, else the rapist if they have truly repented from their act/reformed their ways.

Fun isn’t it? - Yes.

 

[Mostly Random Dude]

This is all far too theoretical. A practical question would relate to money. For example, imagine that you are trying to figure out how to spend $1000 after all of the essentials (food, shelter, clothing) have been covered and you have made all of the retirement contributions. You have a choice of spending them on:

1. a brand new trinket for yourself (new cell phone, a video game console, a pair of Laboutins etc)
2. tickets to Las Vegas with the leftover allocated to hookers, blow and good time
3. a donation to a political campaign to support your favorite cause
4. a donation to benefit a local homeless shelter
5. a donation to benefit a local orphanage
6. a donation to benefit a local dog/cat shelter
7. a donation to benefit an orphanage/school in Africa
8. a donation to save an endangered species of wild cats
9. a donation to save an endangered species of millipeds

The list could be longer, too, and it's a very practical consideration (unlike the whole hypothetical fire situation). Every day you make a real choice - e.g. to spend $5 on a Starbucks latte that you could have instead spent on fighting malaria. Or you decided to spend money on a dinner with a girl while instead you could have donated it to the Trump campaign and made America even greater.

 

[Mischief]

Having been in more than one emergency situation in my life, I know how I react.

I give priority to those I care for over strangers. I give priority to the most helpless. Species does not play a role.

None of that is in any way a reflection on what any individual's intrinsic "value" might be, if such a thing can even be measured objectively, which I doubt.

 

[silva]

I would save whatever/whomever I can without putting my own life in jeopardy.There is no situation where people are wearing labels, and if you know them well enough to know, then that personal decision would not be based on their physical status, but on personal traits.
I have wondered what I would choose if in a situation where it were a human I didn't know or one of my cats.
No, veganism plays no role here, neither does the ableism, racism, or specism

 

[Gaspard]

None of that is in any way a reflection on what any individual's intrinsic "value" might be, if such a thing can even be measured objectively, which I doubt.

I 100% agree with you.

 

[Gaspard]

No, veganism plays no role here, neither does the ableism, racism, or specism

I totally agree with you. So how do you explain that the "you can only save one question" appear so often in ethical veganism? Why are so many vegans asking this question? And why do they conclude that their answer could quantify the relative value of life?