[Aeonstorm]

(Original post by No Man)
Ok, let's look at it from this angle. To me, pretty much everything in nature serves a purpose that is all interlinked except humans.

Trees/plants photosynthesise to produce oxygen so organisms can live

The oceans act as the source for fresh water via evaporation so organisms can live and as carbon storage

Soil acts as a base for food to grow without getting blown away

Wind helps with spreading seed growth and for pollonation

Carnivores exist to keep herbivore populations in check

Herbivores exist to keep plant growth in check

Worms exist to clean soil by eating the bacteria/algae/fungi within it

Bees/butterflies/wasps/moths/hummingbirds help with pollination

Maggots/flies help with the decomposition of dead bodies and faeces

What purpose do humans have?

These are all things that they do, not inherently their purpose. Their only purpose is to exist and to reproduce. What if I told you humanity's purpose was to spread life to Mars within the next century? Would that not be an enviable purpose? After all, all the things you have listed here is how one organism helps another; well humans colonising Mars would give life an entire new planet as a habitat. But what is the inherent goodness or usefulness in this? It can only be 'good' for the diversity of life, or 'useful' for humans trying to find more living space - this depends on subjectivity and thus your stated purposes are subjective. The universe is indifferent as to whether life flourishes or dies; it exists nonetheless.

I'm not saying that I know what humanity's purpose is, but I tend toward the humanist view that apart from existing and reproducing (something we have hopefully transcended at least to some degree), our purpose is self-created.

I'm not sure how this relates to my last post, but wev's, its interesting to discuss anyhow

(Original post by green.tea)
Non of those animals have big enough view to see their own purpose. Perhaps our purpose is to take life to other planets and set the wheel of evolution moving and to a mind with a view of the universe as our view of nature that would be clear. You can't possibly write a species with the future potential to do that off as having no purpose just because we don't fit into the natural systems that we fully understand.

Edit: Haha, I used the same example of taking life to other planets without having read your post.

[Singularity]

The stranger! My suffering at losing my pet will be much less than that of the family whose mother/ father/ child/ or whoever I let die. I seriously don't get how some people can be so selfish.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Aeonstorm)

Edit: Haha, I used the same example of taking life to other planets without having read your post.

Makes more sense the more you think about it. Most intelligent animals have curiosity because clearly theres an evolutionary advantage. Same with the desire to understand and intelligence itself. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the same traits would be advantageous on other worlds. It seems quite probable that evolution would always eventually produce a species that looks to the final frontier and in doing so evolve a means to propagate itself on new worlds.

[Aeonstorm]

I was looking at someone's post on the first page who said he would save a 'family member' such as a dog, cat, horse or something. What if the pet was a prized race-horse worth a ton of money, and the stranger was an old, decrepit man. People have talked about the idea that decisive action makes saving the pet essentially equivalent to murder/manslaughter of the stranger, whereas passivity in relation to charity is ok. Well, does that mean that you have to allow the horse to die? How would that be different from a stranger randomly knocking on your door and begging for $50,000 because they are dying of cancer and need money for surgery? Your horse (ignoring the emotional aspect) may be worth something to that effect (k, i admit i actually have no idea of how much horses are worth, but i'm sure they could be worth way more if they win a lot), but if they just knocked on your door and asked for cash, you would actively deny them, even if you knew they were going to die, and would tell them to go plead somewhere else, maybe the government if your country has welfare. Even if you think that you would give them the money, this would create a reputation of generosity that would encourage others to come begging for money, and the end result would be that you would either have to be willing to give up all your money or actively condemn a stranger to death. Thus isn't the distinction between active and passive decision somewhat flawed? What instead is the determining factor is the size of the cost in the active decision - some people here view the emotional cost of losing a pet as being great enough to choose the pet, whereas some view it as paltry and are therefore willing to save the stranger. So in essence the question of who to change, going by this argument, is commodified and becomes merely a cost/benefit analysis.

[Profesh]

My (now late) father almost perished in a household fire when, having been refused egress to the adjacent loft by his elderly, cat-hoarding neighbour for fear that one of her wretched felines might also succumb to the blaze, he inhaled enough smoke to occasion a week-long stay in hospital and (probably) trigger the cancer which ultimately killed him.

So in summation, if you've answered 'beloved pet': go to hell.

[No Man]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
What did you think of my previous question to you by the way?

I would be upset, but the likelihood of it happening would be very slim, seeing as it would be 1 person out of 7 billion.

I would still save my pet, as I am indifferent to humans I don't know and likely never to meet, and if that makes me heartless or whatever than so be it.

[dada55]

(Original post by Aeonstorm)
Can you please elaborate as to why you believe animals and humans are inherently equal?

I do belive all living things are equall but I do understand some of your points. To point to anyone who did not read my other posts, I think there is no justice for saving the pet. I cannot belive so many people will save the pet...
In a way, that could seem as if it counter acts my belief that all living things are equall but here is my simplified idea of how I see things:
[Off Topic Alert]
There is a God, He created us and many other creatures, not just on Earth but many other planets and maybe even other universes. There is also a heaven which is all perfect and every "soul" is in the same identity as other souls and has perfect life. However I belive that if you live in 100% goodness, you get bored. Pain is what brings all other emotions in to live. Since these souls get bored in Heaven, every once in a while they want to go back on Earth or any other place as some sort of creature so they can experience true life again where we forget everything to keep it interesting. Living again also gives you the chanse to "learn".
You can become any creature and thus your life will be very different depending on what creature you do become as obviously some animals are meant to be different in emotions and lifestyle.
There is a Hell which in my opinion, is a temporary punishment to people who abused or did not learn anything from their life. E.g if you did something bad and you regret it truly then you have understood a certain lesson which should hopefully you will not repeat on your next visit. But if you did something bad and did not learn your lesson then thats when you go to Hell as punishment for abusing your life. Although you forget everything each time you "revisit" these lessons somehow guide you, they do not decide what happens for you but your instincts will be more towards doing the right thing.

I also belive that eating meat is not a bad thing. Wolfs eat rabbits and so on. It's a life cycle, it's part of keeping life interesting. What is bad, is people abusing animals for no reason. This is also the reason I belive as humans we should save humans first, because it is instinctive to save our own species first.
We are not essentially abusing that animal as we can only save 1, what would be abusing is not to save any of them if you had the oppertunity.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by No Man)
I would be upset, but the likelihood of it happening would be very slim, seeing as it would be 1 person out of 7 billion.

I would still save my pet, as I am indifferent to humans I don't know and likely never to meet, and if that makes me heartless or whatever than so be it.

that is quite depressive, even by my standards... a fitting avatar you have
one of the main problems of the world is lack of sympathy. while you are one person, your actions/ideals can rub off onto others...

rationally speaking, does disregarding human life really take priority to the possibility of not having temporary (chances are the person will live longer than your pet) satisfaction from your beloved pet?

the question i asked before can also be asked of anyone you love, anyone you like, anyone you are happy with, assumming that is a population of people, while each individual is 1 in 7 billion, that is not the chance of them being involved in a hypothetical... there are various ways they could be involved, a fire is but one of them. statistics arent justification for your reasoning. feel free not to answer this next question: has anything happened to you that would make you disgusted of your fellow man?

have you read the link that other user posted?
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990...keysphere.html

it is quite unfortunate for you to have posted at that time given what the post above you says

[original_username]

Shocking how many pet lovers have put the life of an animal above that of a human being.

Shame on all of you.

[No Man]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
that is quite depressive, even by my standards... a fitting avatar you have
one of the main problems of the world is lack of sympathy. while you are one person, your actions/ideals can rub off onto others...

rationally speaking, does disregarding human life really take priority to the possibility of not having temporary (chances are the person will live longer than your pet) satisfaction from your beloved pet?
As I said, if they are someone who I don't know in a heart to heart sense (and I only know about 16 out of 7 billion people in that sense) I would value my pets life over theirs. And I would still accept me or anyone who isn't one of those 13 people to be randomly sacrificed by someone else's decision.

the question i asked before can also be asked of anyone you love, anyone you like, anyone you are happy with, assuming that is a population of people, while each individual is 1 in 7 billion, that is not the chance of them being involved in a hypothetical... there are various ways they could be involved, a fire is but one of them. statistics arent justification for your reasoning. There are people dying of starvation, dying of disease, dying from murder, dying from execution, dying of thirst, dying from medical defects. People are always dying, but does the world mourn at every individuals death? No. So why should I sacrifice something I love for just another number on life's death charts. And as I said, if I was the victim of this death by someone else's wishes, so be it. feel free not to answer this next question: has anything happened to you that would make you disgusted of your fellow man?

have you read the link that other user posted?
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990...keysphere.html

it is quite unfortunate for you to have posted at that time given what the post above you says. He was referring to a person who had direct control over his father's injuries who could have also prevented injuries of her cats and his dad.

Answers in bold.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by No Man)
Answers in bold.

As I said, if they are someone who I don't know in a heart to heart sense (and I only know about 16 out of 7 billion people in that sense) I would value my pets life over theirs. And I would still accept me or anyone who isn't one of those 13 people to be randomly sacrificed by someone else's decision.

technically i was talking about would you like it if i chose my pet over the people you know, but the bold is quite shocking. your bond with your cat is so strong that you would choose it rather than the people you know if you had to make a choice? does that not mean you dont think of those that are close to you as being that different to complete strangers?

There are people dying of starvation, dying of disease, dying from murder, dying from execution, dying of thirst, dying from medical defects. People are always dying, but does the world mourn at every individuals death? No. So why should I sacrifice something I love for just another number on life's death charts. And as I said, if I was the victim of this death by someone else's wishes, so be it

The same reasoning can be said for me killing my next door neighbour...
yes there is a lot of sadness in the world but why does that make it a factor when deciding (unlike the ones you mentioned, in this scenario, you have direct and full control of whether a person lives or not, you effectively choose whether or not he/she will die). this is similar to another user who condoned his actions by implying you cant take the piss if you havent helped a person in the third world...

He was referring to a person who had direct control over his father's injuries who could have also prevented injuries of her cats and his dad.

and this scenario involves a person who has direct control over someones life
where did you get the information that she was able to prevent injuries of both her cats and his dad? this is fabricated... if possible, if i were in her position, i would have helped my neighbour and then see how to save as many cats as possible... too many people get so overly attached that they dont think outside their monkeysphere (perfect example of the link that was posted)

[No Man]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
technically i was talking about would you like it if i chose my pet over the people you know, but the bold is quite shocking. your bond with your cat is so strong that you would choose it rather than the people you know if you had to make a choice? does that not mean you dont think of those that are close to you as being that different to complete strangers?

If I had direct control over them getting killed, no. But if the scenario was 'would I kill my pet in order to stop someone who I don't know in a heart to heart sense from getting stabbed in the street' yes.

The same reasoning can be said for me killing my next door neighbour...
yes there is a lot of sadness in the world but why does that make it a factor when deciding (unlike the ones you mentioned, in this scenario, you have direct and full control of whether a person lives or not, you effectively choose whether or not he/she will die). this is similar to another user who condoned his actions by implying you cant take the piss if you havent helped a person in the third world...

If there was a threat to them that was directly in front of me I would try to help both my pet and them.

and this scenario involves a person who has direct control over someones life
where did you get the information that she was able to prevent injuries of both her cats and his dad? this is fabricated... if possible, if i were in her position, i would have helped my neighbour and then see how to save as many cats as possible..

From what I interpreted, this woman and her cats were perfectly safe, and she turned him away while he was in a fire because she didn't want her cats getting harmed, which would be ridiculous.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by No Man)
If I had direct control over them getting killed, no. But if the scenario was 'would I kill my pet in order to stop someone who I don't know in a heart to heart sense from getting stabbed in the street' yes.


If there was a threat to them directly in front of me I would try to help both of my pet and them.


From what I interpreted, this woman and her cats were perfectly safe, and she turned him away.

while its a grey area, stabbing=/=death so fair enough i guess...i cant comment...

same

that doesnt mean you can assume she knows she could easily accommodate another person and yet refused anyway...
regardless of your interpretation, the post is very relevant to this thread... an application to this hypothetical...

[Mysteriouschic]

That would be difficult. I guess it'd depend on the ages of each as well like say the person was young and that I'd save them and if the pet was older they'd lived most of their life so I'd save the person. An vice versa thats a really tough question.
I personally really love animals and especially if it was my own it'd be difficult not to save them.

[oh_adele]

Not surprising that some use a sense of their pet's intrinsic value to mask that the basis of their reasoning lies in personal gain or lack thereof.

Your pet gives you affection. If they died, you would feel sad. You have no personal connection to the stranger, therefore have nothing to lose if they died.


Classy.

[-steph-]

I think that i would choose the animal as I love animals. It would depend on the type of person, if they are a rapist/ murderer then maybe not.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Pet, no question.

I'd even be more likely to save an animal I had no connection to than a person, and I'm a fur-wearing meat eater.

People should be intelligent enough to look after themselves and if they get into peril on their own, they've only themselves to blame.

you're going to go REAL far in law arent you..

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by cl_steele)
you're going to go REAL far in law arent you..

Lol, I consistently get first-class results. I don't see how my personal beliefs about individual responsibility would have an impact on my career?

[green.tea]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Lol, I consistently get first-class results. I don't see how my personal beliefs about individual responsibility would have an impact on my career?

Because your supposed to be a fine upstanding character. Who's going to want a judge that tells crime victims that its their own fault for not being as intelligent as you?

"you know if you were as intelligent as me you wouldnt have walked down that dark alley in the first place. I sentence you to 50 hours of community service for wasting police time with your stupidity now piss off thicko"

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Lol, I consistently get first-class results. I don't see how my personal beliefs about individual responsibility would have an impact on my career?

exactly what green tea said..