# would you prefer killing a stranger or your pet?



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

Chara said:


> When the fact is humans are less benevolent/virtue than pets like say dogs in capacity for virtue?
> 
> The value of the lives of evil or less benevolent humans are less than that of kind, loving and compassionate animals.
> 
> Infact I would even choose the option to sacrifice millions of humans personally if it had to be done or came to it to save the pet in this scenario being mentioned.


Let's put this in perspective.

If you are a teacher and have a well-behaved child and a very disruptive child, which do you give the most needed attention to?

By your reasoning, of choosing animals who are innocent of committing crimes against humans who are capable of all devilry and inhumanity, I'd say you'd be the kind to disregard a disruptive child and coo over the well-behaved one, yeah?

This is how human society sees it's lesser members, "lesser" meaning "not fitting the mould" or some other equivalence:

Clean with money > unhygienic and poor = "civilized, worth seeing as equal and respectable"
Graduated from an Ivy League university > community college student = "educated, knowledgeable, well-informed, prepared"
Honor Roll/straight A student > passing grades, not very noticeable = "my kid is smarter than your kid"
Healthy and able > disabled or incapacitated = "normal, similar interests, intelligent"
Squeaky-clean record with good reputation > ex-convict = "trustworthy, incapable of doing harm, law-abiding citizen"

Both of any of these are as equally capable of doing right and wrong as the other. Even so, we place our trust in the former. But perhaps we don't understand the latter. Behind poverty is discouragement, behind a lower education are priorities of a certain type, behind an average student is a system that doesn't meet their needs, behind a disability is a remarkably bright/talented person with their own skills, behind a criminal is a life of trials and people that turned their thinking into one of violence and wrongdoing.

If you can understand, and accommodate your encouragement to suit that understanding, any of those "lesser members" can prove themselves to be trustworthy.

Likewise, if a teacher can set aside a student who doesn't need them at the moment to figure out why the child is misbehaving, the teacher will not only help the student deal with their problems (learning disability, developmental disorder, is being bullied, is a foster care child who seeks attention since he has none with no parents and a ton of other kids at his foster home) the teacher will grow as an educator (pushed from their comfort zone to learn to approach a new situation, now knows how to deal with misbehaving children, can keep their class going, can prevent any further damage to the child's psyche, etc.)

Which is what can happen if you let an animal (who is like that behaved child, understanding that you must sacrifice them for something more important) die instead of a human (that child who has all capability of being a wrongdoer or being righteous, he just has to learn, a task that requires as long a life as he has to gain that wisdom).

Or the teacher can ignore the child, condemn his future as a "bad apple" instead of nurturing the good, and continue to favor the well-behaved students, who will gain little from having the teacher's attentions showered on them. (If anything, the child will learn to disdain others who are considered beneath them, just saying).

So again, you may save a human, considering that they're too extraordinary and have so much potential potential potential to leave them to die, over an animal which may stay relatively the same no matter what, for about 1/8th of a human lifespan.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

mytinyheart said:


> So again, you may save a human, considering that they're too extraordinary and have so much potential potential potential to leave them to die, over an animal which may stay relatively the same no matter what, for about 1/8th of a human lifespan.


Given the choice between an animal who entrusts me with its survival - a responsibility that I shouldered the moment I chose them as a companion - and a human who is arrogant enough to believe him/herself superior to others simply because of how much "stuff" he/she has amassed, or how "highly" they have climbed in the social hierarchy, I will save the animal.


----------



## titanII (Jan 11, 2017)

Glad to see the the "stranger" killers are currently in the lead. It would have to honestly be some extreme circumstances to kill someone and I know we all (hopefully) agree...but I would pity the stranger in my case because if I had to make that choice...well, I love my doggy.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

I think @Catwalk put it out perfectly and plainly, so read her assessment, people.

Also, I was wondering what other uses I could have for my pet after they're gone...make a hat/scarf/mittens from their fur and use their bones to have their skeleton up in my living room. I always was interested in bones and to have my doggie's above the chimney would look rad. :wink:

So in the end they didn't die in vain. :chat02::dog:


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Shiver said:


> Given the choice between an animal who entrusts me with its survival - a responsibility that I shouldered the moment I chose them as a companion - and a human who is arrogant enough to believe him/herself superior to others simply because of how much "stuff" he/she has amassed, or how "highly" they have climbed in the social hierarchy, I will save the animal.


I see you're quite the (irrational) rebel.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

pwowq said:


> I would choose to kill my pet.


In a dire situation I can eat my pet(s). I can't eat a human. There's also the benefit in knowing the animal had a really good life while it lasted. I take really good care of all little and big animals I've been responsible for. 

A human has actual potential to be more useful in bringing humanity forward than any pets.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

Don't you think some people may not be getting the question, quite?

Your SO makes you choose between them and your pet; who do you choose?

You are more than welcome to say your pet. Because the consequences are minimal.

But let's pretend there's a zombie apocalypse.

In the case of a person's life, in the case of YOUR survival, in the case of what will serve YOU longer in the event where you can't afford to make emotional, irrational decisions. Which would you choose?

You sacrifice a man/woman capable of working together with you, solving problems (maybe even bringing about human progress or raising humanity's chances at survival), an adult who can reproduce and bring little bebehs into the world. Or a child who can grow and learn and be something, who can fall in love still, and have bebehs of their own, and likewise also bring about progression and survival. You'd sacrifice that for a pet (less than 20 years at most, may not be able to protect themselves or find their own food, while a human can adapt to doing that plus supporting you).

Remember also, that pets can't talk. They can't tell you anything. And believe it or not, at some point that gets bloody LONELY. Especially since they'll most likely DIE not too long after you saved them, since their whole purpose is to serve you.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Anyway, why we should kill someone or something? 


My answer would be pet, but I don't see why we should be killing.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> Any, why we should kill someone or something?
> 
> 
> My answer would be pet, but I don't see why we should be killing.


Because it makes hypothetical situations all the more challenging. In such a situation, we may be talking about anything from having to save one or the other from drowning, to living in the wild n' dangerous jungle on a deserted island...

Just saying "choosing people or pets, which do you prefer in your company" doesn't cut it.

Yay for hypothetical situations!


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

lolalalah said:


> I see you're quite the (irrational) rebel.


And if the removal of such a person is eliminating negative effect or potentiality? The part I quoted of the post earlier assumes the human's potentiality is positive. This is not necessarily true. The same goes for the zombie example: Your stranger human companion is just as likely to betray you to save their own skin. At least I could reasonably predict what a pet dog would do.

The response I gave compares a person I find to have a negative impact on the world to an animal with a positive affect. "Irrational" in this case seems a largely subjective judgement, much like any judgement a person could be expected to give. If it was your goal to belittle me with such a comment, you'll have to do better than that. Especially considering that the majority currently favors saving the pets...who am I rebelling against?


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Shiver said:


> And if the removal of such a person is eliminating negative effect or potentiality? The part I quoted of your post assumes the human's potentiality is positive. This is not necessarily true. The same goes for the zombie example: Your stranger human companion is just as likely to betray you to save their own skin. At least I could reasonably predict what a pet dog would do.
> 
> The response I gave compares a person I find to have a negative impact on the world to an animal with a positive affect. "Irrational" in this case seems a largely subjective judgement, much like any judgement a person could be expected to give. If it was your goal to belittle me with such a comment, you'll have to do better than that.


You didn't get it. What was implied is that you would rebel against the idea of saving any human because you assume they are arrogant and think of themselves as superior to an animal. It's very possible they are not arrogant, it's very possible you would kill a very insecure person who loves animals. Your post appeared hateful because of that jugmental approach, hence the irrationality.

P.s.: I am _not_ here to belittle you. I'd appreciate if you understood that.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

lolalalah said:


> You didn't get it. What was implied is that you would rebel against the idea of saving any human because you assume they are arrogant and think of themselves as superior to an animal. It's very possible they are not arrogant, it's very possible you would kill a very insecure person who loves animals. Your post appeared hateful because of that jugmental approach, hence the irrationality.


That's a lot to "imply" from such a clearly short post. I'd recommend putting a little more into your posts or you might find that a lot of people "don't get" them. At any rate I specifically stated the _kind_ of human I'd trade; I did not say _any_ human.



> P.s.: I am _not_ here to belittle you. I'd appreciate if you understood that.


Much like the "didn't get it" remark, using a quip to call someone "irrational" is usually not received well. :|


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Shiver said:


> That's a lot to "imply" from such a clearly short post. I'd recommend putting a little more into your posts or you might find that a lot of people "don't get" them. At any rate I specifically stated the _kind_ of human I'd trade; I did not say _any_ human.
> 
> 
> Much like the "didn't get it" remark, using a quip to call someone "irrational" is usually not received well. :|


How do you get to decide what kind of human is a stranger?

I did not call you 'stupid' as I don't think you are that, I said you were irrational to say something like what you said.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Also, if I may, another position to consider:

Suppose the "pet" is an animal companion who aids with one's health, be it a seeing eye dog, an animal trained to seek help in case of a critical health event as seen with some diabetics, etc. Or suppose the pet is a trusted one who has protected your home from an act of burglary or hostile intrusion. Pets also have positive potentiality. In these cases, might I not reasonably expect more pragmatic "value" from my pet than a stranger, who may well be such a person to break into my home to begin with?


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

I was helping you assess your statement objectively...


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Also, what about a person who objectively is likely not to contribute to society in what many would consider a "gainful" or "positive" way? Suppose a person is born very low functioning with any number of disabilities and doesn't even have the capacity for moral reasoning. In this case, are they equated with the animal? _Hmm..._


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Shiver said:


> Also, what about a person who objectively is likely not to contribute to society in what many would consider a "gainful" or "positive" way? Suppose a person is born very low functioning with any number of disabilities and doesn't even have the capacity for moral reasoning. In this case, are they equated with the animal? _Hmm..._


Well, you are constructing a complex case. What's it worth for? The hypothesis doesn't give details so you will have to do with a general statement. 

* *





In any particular case, your pet could also not have legs and wouldn't have any possibility of being useful to you, besides being there (for what you were saying above). Maybe you're choosing between a sick pet and a retard human. What an awful situation.




Pets can certainly be useful and possess skills. It's just they don't generally possess any a healthy human lacks and needs.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

lolalalah said:


> How do you get to decide what kind of human is a stranger?


I think we could probably figure out "stranger, although I'd rather just defer to the OP's intended meaning with the question.



> I did not call you 'stupid' as I don't think you are that, I said you were irrational to say something like what you said.


Or what was interpreted, at least. I might be expecting the "most likely scenario", given my interpretation of "stranger". That seems rational.



lolalalah said:


> (for what you wereaybe you're choosing between a sick pet and a retard human. What an awful situation.


But what is your proposed moral solution?


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Shiver said:


> I think we could probably figure out "stranger, although I'd rather just defer to the OP's intended meaning with the question.
> 
> 
> 
> Or what was interpreted, at least. I might be expecting the "most likely scenario", given my interpretation of "stranger". That seems rational.


The 'most likely'. Whatever this 'most likely' is, I think the point has been discussed. Do you hear people are capable of change? 

This is the main difference between the people who choose either side here in the poll. Some are angry enough at a world that disappoints them they think the quickest solution to resolve their issue is to kill the world. Unfortunately, the world keeps on birthing bad people, and killing some of them never gives any real chance of hope.

Don't call it moral, because we make up what is moral. I don't know if I'd kill the human... I don't know.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

lolalalah said:


> The 'most likely'. Whatever this 'most likely' is, I think the point has been discussed. Do you hear people are capable of change?


I've not experienced this to be a quality of "most likely". But then I also would never describe myself as an optimist.

At any rate, the additional scenarios I posted serve to illustrate loopholes and unconsidered angles that exist in many "moral" questions.


----------



## zerouva (Mar 25, 2017)

Pretty easy answer for me, stranger. Might not even feel anything for that person, tbh.


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Gossip Goat said:


> That person would feel as I would if my pet died.


I beg to differ: the person would feel as you would if your _mother_ died, not your bird, cat, rabbit, rat, fish etc.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

lolalalah said:


> I beg to differ: the person would feel as you would if your _mother_ died, not your bird, cat, rabbit, rat, fish etc.


No, this supposes I don't love my pets as much as my family. To suppose this would be to assume I don't value or love my pets equally as I do my family, and that I would not feel as bad for their death. Or that I consider my family / humans are more worthy of life and would grieve the loss of their life more.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Gossip Goat said:


> It's the same thing. My family members have relational value to me, so I would prioritize their life. I compared my pets to my family members, they are my family so the same would apply to them.


So a life's value is contingent of whether or not they know you?



Gossip Goat said:


> Yes I consider them equal outside of any value anyone would give them (relational in my case). When I say I would kill the stranger to save my pet, I am not saying I value the life of animals more than humans. Given the relational aspect of animals or humans to me, and the significance that has, I would prioritize their life because it has value to me, but that does not mean I think they are worth more.


Ok, what about choosing between your pet and a human family member? Which would you choose then?



Gossip Goat said:


> Would the animals that live longer than humans have more value regarding their life? Or would a person whose life is short, be of less value in comparison to other humans? If they will not enjoy their life for a long time, could this person be sacrificed for the sake of donating their organs to strangers who need it?


Good point. A human with a very short life span can do more good than a human who lives for many years.



Gossip Goat said:


> Like I said earlier, the species of the animal doesn't matter as long as they mean something to me. Just as gender, race or nationality would be irrelevant in determining the value of a life.


Thank you for answering my questions.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Ronney said:


> Pretty sure i can stomach a cat more than a 40 year old man


What do you mean by this?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

zerouva said:


> Pretty easy answer for me, stranger. Might not even feel anything for that person, tbh.


You find this an easy question? Was it a quick decision?


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> So a life's value is contingent of whether or not they know you?


I have an obligation and a desire to protect those under my care and those I love, in this case it would be my pets. Humans can protect themselves against other humans, animals have a clear disadvantage. Since I have an obligation to protect those I love, I have would want to save their life. 




> Ok, what about choosing between your pet and a human family member? Which would you choose then?


It's as difficult of a question if someone were to ask you to choose between your mother and your father. You are still assuming I value the life of my pet less than I would a person's by asking these questions. 




> Good point. A human with a very short life span can do more good than a human who lives for many years.


That does not answer the question I asked you, does that mean their life is worth less? You answered that animals were worth less because of their short life, so are humans' whose life is close to death, worth less? 



> Thank you for answering my questions.


You're welcome.


----------



## zerouva (Mar 25, 2017)

He's a Superhero! said:


> You find this an easy question? Was it a quick decision?


It actually was. I thought about killing people a lot. Of course I can't be sure if I would actually kill a stranger until I'm in that situation. Maybe I wouldn't, who knows. Put me in that situation and we'll see.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Gossip Goat said:


> I have an obligation and a desire to protect those under my care and those I love, in this case it would be my pets. Humans can protect themselves against other humans, animals have a clear disadvantage. Since I have an obligation to protect those I love, I have would want to save their life.


It is natural to want to protect the ones we love. This is a very specific scenario however, which would have significant consequences either way...and most likely the worst consequences in a general sense would be if the stranger was killed, while the consequences for the pet being killed would be mostly personal. It is a question of which is for the greater good, and it is a question of which is the lessor of the two evils.



Gossip Goat said:


> It's as difficult of a question if someone were to ask you to choose between your mother and your father. You are still assuming I value the life of my pet less than I would a person's by asking these questions.


Fair enough. I'm actually glad to find someone who cares so deeply about their pets, as at least this means you must be a really good owner for them, looking after them well. 



Gossip Goat said:


> That does not answer the question I asked you, does that mean their life is worth less? You answered that animals were worth less because of their short life, so are humans' whose life is close to death, worth less?


What I meant was that some may think that a life is more worthy if it will live for a longer period of time. It's something I remembered, but not my personal belief. I think that a short life can be as meaningful, or even more meaningful, than a long life.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

zerouva said:


> It actually was. I thought about killing people a lot. Of course I can't be sure if I would actually kill a stranger until I'm in that situation. Maybe I wouldn't, who knows. Put me in that situation and we'll see.


When you think about killing people, is it people you know to be bad that want to kill? Or do you even think about killing a stranger?


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> It is natural to want to protect the ones we love. This is a very specific scenario however, which would have significant consequences either way...and most likely the worst consequences in a general sense would be if the stranger was killed, while the consequences for the pet being killed would be mostly personal. It is a question of which is for the greater good, and it is a question of which is the lessor of the two evils.


Why would the consequence of a stranger being killed be worse? Merely because they are human? The reasons you give for animals not being equally worthy of life could be applied to humans facing the same circumstances, yet you seem to give humans the right to live for merely being people. Your reasons would not be very valid, because you exempt people. Your real reasons are merely that someone is human.



> Fair enough. I'm actually glad to find someone who cares so deeply about their pets, as at least this means you must be a really good owner for them, looking after them well.


Thank you, I really do love them and want them to live the best and happiest life I can possibly offer them.



> What I meant was that some may think that a life is more worthy if it will live for a longer period of time. It's something I remembered, but not my personal belief. I think that a short life can be as meaningful, or even more meaningful, than a long life.


You gave me that as a reason for why animals weren't of equal worth.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Gossip Goat said:


> Why would the consequence of a stranger being killed be worse? Merely because they are human? The reasons you give for animals not being equally worthy of life could be applied to humans facing the same circumstances, yet you seem to give humans the right to live for merely being people. Your reasons would not be very valid, because you exempt people. Your real reasons are merely that someone is human.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The consequences for killing a stranger would most likely result in a great deal more suffering. Not to push aside the suffering that you would obviously feel if your pet was killed (especially by your own hands as well), but it would most likely mean a smaller amount of people would suffer than with the stranger. Granted, other people may also care for your pet, but in general people have a deeper affection for other humans, and suffer more when humans (especially humans they know) die. In addition to this, the stranger may have dependents, who need this person to be alive at this point in time ~ children, an elderly or disabled person in care, pets of their own. Killing this stranger would greatly affect the lives of all their dependents. In the case of a doctor or veterinarian, or something else like these, the consequences would be far reaching.

If humans and animals are equal life forms, what about plant life? Would a tree's life be of equal value to a pet? Someone may love that tree very deeply. Also, the tree contributes to the environment in a positive way, and is likely the home of many life forms.
Therefore the next question would have to be this: If you had a plant in your care, would you choose the plant over the stranger? And if you would not save the plant, then at what point did you draw the line? Since a goldfish or stick insect would be saved instead of the stranger.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> The consequences for killing a stranger would most likely result in a great deal more suffering. Not to push aside the suffering that you would obviously feel if your pet was killed (especially by your own hands as well), but it would most likely mean a smaller amount of people would suffer than with the stranger. Granted, other people may also care for your pet, but in general people have a deeper affection for other humans, and suffer more when humans (especially humans they know) die. In addition to this, the stranger may have dependents, who need this person to be alive at this point in time ~ children, an elderly or disabled person in care, pets of their own. Killing this stranger would greatly affect the lives of all their dependents. In the case of a doctor or veterinarian, or something else like these, the consequences would be far reaching.
> 
> If humans and animals are equal life forms, what about plant life? Would a tree's life be of equal value to a pet? Someone may love that tree very deeply. Also, the tree contributes to the environment in a positive way, and is likely the home of many life forms.
> Therefore the next question would have to be this: If you had a plant in your care, would you choose the plant over the stranger? And if you would not save the plant, then at what point did you draw the line? Since a goldfish or stick insect would be saved instead of the stranger.


That assumes that the stranger had people who would suffer, we do not know the identity of the stranger. This also assumes people have to be superior to animals because they are simply people. Therefor, I ask you again, would their life be worth less now that if we were to suppose their death would not cause suffering or would imply consequences or someone? Sure it may not cause suffering, and you said that is good, but would you value their life less since, absolutely no one would suffer. Why or why not?

I could not love a plant the way I love my family or my pets, therefor it's life would not be a priority to me.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Gossip Goat said:


> That assumes that the stranger had people who would suffer, we do not know the identity of the stranger. Therefor, I ask you again, would their life be worth less now that if we were to suppose their death would not cause suffering or would imply consequences or someone? Sure it may not cause suffering, and you said that is good, but would you value their life less since, absolutely no one would suffer. Why or why not?
> 
> I could not love a plant the way I love my family or my pets, therefor it's life would not be a priority to me.


Statistics are in favor of the stranger having relationships with others. How often do we encounter somebody who has no loved ones at all, no friends or family or even pets of their own...not likely at all that nobody else would suffer on account of their death. We may not know the person at all, but in all likelihood there would be relationships, and quite possibly even dependents.

If the person has absolutely no relationships and dependents, we would have no idea of this, and we will still be shooting against the odds without knowing what we are doing if we aim to kill the stranger...In other words, if their life was made valuable mainly because of their relationships, but they had no relationships, we would still not have this information to just kill them.
Back to potential: Potential by itself doesn't have to do with relationships, and so we would still be facing that factor regardless of whether or not they have relationships who would suffer from the person's death. Essentially, if the person had no relationships at all, they would still have potential.
If the person happened to be severely disabled, and therefore didn't have the potential to be say a doctor or veterinarian, then they still would have the potential to love more deeply than an animal can love. They would still have the potential to communicate in some way well beyond any animal communication, which they could use to advocate for something majorly beneficial.
One of the most loving people I have ever met is someone with down syndrome. Having this disability has not limited the love this person has, and eagerly shows towards others ~ to both humans and animals.

A further question about plants: How would you feel about somebody who did care as much for a plant as you do for your pet? And what if they chose to save their plant and you were the stranger? Would they be in the right?


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Statistics are in favor of the stranger having relationships with others. How often do we encounter somebody who has no loved ones at all, no friends or family or even pets of their own...not likely at all that nobody else would suffer on account of their death. We may not know the person at all, but in all likelihood there would be relationships, and quite possibly even dependents.
> 
> If the person has absolutely no relationships and dependents, we would have no idea of this, and we will still be shooting against the odds without knowing what we are doing if we aim to kill the stranger...In other words, if their life was made valuable mainly because of their relationships, but they had no relationships, we would still not have this information to just kill them.


You did not answer whether or not their life would be less valuable, but want me to answer your questions. Why are the relationships people have with other people more meaningful than what they have with animals?



> Back to potential: Potential by itself doesn't have to do with relationships, and so we would still be facing that factor regardless of whether or not they have relationships who would suffer from the person's death. Essentially, if the person had no relationships at all, they would still have potential.


What defines potential?



> If the person happened to be severely disabled, and therefore didn't have the potential to be say a doctor or veterinarian, then they still would have the potential to love more deeply than an animal can love. They would still have the potential to communicate in some way, which they could use to advocate for something majorly beneficial.
> 
> One of the most loving people I have ever met is someone with down syndrome. Having this disability has not limited the love this person has, and eagerly shows towards others ~ to both humans and animals.


Suppose they are profoundly mentally retarded, and have no capacity for verbal or physical communication with others, therefor they cannot be advocates or communicate in any way. They cannot express love, I argue their value to life is due to the love someone else feels for them, the same for animals. 



> A further question about plants: How would you feel about somebody who did care as much for a plant as you do for your pet? And what if they chose to save their plant and you were the stranger? Would they be in the right?


I wouldn't care if anyone cared for their plant as much as I do for my pets. I don't think I would do the same. This would have to do with people having a higher right to live than any other being under the assumption humans have intrinsic worth and dignity, which is just a piece of rhetoric unless given some support. If they loved their plant as they love a family member or a pet, they would be right. It would be wrong to assume some life is more valuable than others and are therefor more easily disposed of.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Gossip Goat said:


> You did not answer whether or not their life would be less valuable, but want me to answer your questions. Why are the relationships people have with other people more meaningful than what they have with animals?


My apologies. I suppose their relationships would add to the value that they already have, at least to the people involved, and would of course also add to the consequences of them being killed. There is a lot more to a human than their relationships however.

I'm speaking in a general sense when pointing to people having more meaningful relationships with other humans than to pets. Every individual is different of course.
The reason why? One obvious one is that humans give birth to other humans, and that certainly creates a bond far deeper than that of the relationship between pet and owner. Humans also simply have greater capacity to love than animals do. They may direct that love towards animals, but very often they also direct that love towards other humans, a love which usually is returned.



Gossip Goat said:


> What defines potential?


 Ability/capacity of the individual to develop/progress or begin doing something significant, that is if they haven't already. Humans have amazing potential, and in so many areas. Even if we explore the full potential in one area, so many other areas of potential may remain unexplored.



Gossip Goat said:


> Suppose they are profoundly mentally retarded, and have no capacity for verbal or physical communication with others, therefor they cannot be advocates or communicate in any way. They cannot express love, I argue their value to life is due to the love someone else feels for them, the same for animals.


Now we are getting into quality of life. It's incredibly unlikely that this stranger would be in such a severe condition, and if they were we would not know. Even if we did know, would it be our right to choose life or death for them? Perhaps they have found quality of life in an unexpected place.



Gossip Goat said:


> I wouldn't care if anyone cared for their plant as much as I do for my pets. I don't think I would do the same. This would have to do with people having a higher right to live than any other being under the assumption humans have intrinsic worth and dignity, which is just a piece of rhetoric unless given some support.


Does a single human life have more value than a single plant life? Why or why not?


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> My apologies. I suppose their relationships would add to the value that they already have, at least to the people involved, and would of course also add to the consequences of them being killed. There is a lot more to a human than their relationships however.


Such as potential, cognitive abilities, usefulness to others, etc. All things that are shared with some animals, which still would not explain why humans would be considered more worthy of life. Since these are shared between these species, they cannot be used as an argument against one of them. What outside of this gives humans more worth?



> I'm speaking in a general sense when pointing to people having more meaningful relationships with other humans than to pets. Every individual is different of course.


 So it would be a matter of majorities? What is mostly done?



> The reason why? One obvious one is that humans give birth to other humans, and that certainly creates a bond far deeper than that of the relationship between pet and owner. Humans also simply have greater capacity to love than animals do. They may direct that love towards animals, but very often they also direct that love towards other humans, a love which usually is returned.


Birthing is irrelevant. This argument quickly discredits parents of adopted children implying that their bond is not deep nor is there love, therefor to kill one of them, as strangers, would be justified because they were not a part of a birthing process which creates a deeper bond. They would not love each other deeply. How do the have a greater capacity? You are assuming they do. 



> Ability/capacity of the individual to develop/progress or begin doing something significant, that is if they haven't already. Humans have amazing potential, and in so many areas. Even if we explore the full potential in one area, so many other areas of potential may remain unexplored.


Not all of them do, some animals have more potential to do and have a greater impact than some humans could ever achieve. Potential would not be unique to humans.



> Now we are getting into quality of life. It's incredibly unlikely that this stranger would be in such a severe condition, and if they were we would not know. Even if we did know, would it be our right to choose life or death for them? Perhaps they have found quality of life in an unexpected place.


Highly unlikely would still not mean it’s not possible. There are individuals in the world that are in such a severe condition, and threaten the argument that all humans have potential or superior cognitive capabilities which would confer inherent value. There are things you are using to support an argument against the value of animal life, if it can apply to humans as well, then you should agree that humans not fitting that criteria would, according to this logic, have a life that is less valuable. Whereas animals that do, would posses a value equal to humans that also fit this criteria.



> Does a single human life have more value than a single plant life? Why or why not?


I am not the one arguing for some lives having more value than others. I do not think like this.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Gossip Goat said:


> Such as potential, cognitive abilities, usefulness to others, etc. All things that are shared with some animals, which still would not explain why humans would be considered more worthy of life. Since these are shared between these species, they cannot be used as an argument against one of them. What outside of this gives humans more worth?


We shouldn't under appreciate each of these things ~ which animals do not compare with. Can animals build a rocket to the moon, for example? Or send a robot to Mars? Granted, we can put animals onto those rockets, and maybe teach them to do some action on it, but that's as close as animals get with being involved in that sort of thing...and is also highly controversial.



Gossip Goat said:


> So it would be a matter of majorities? What is mostly done?


I wouldn't say it's a matter of majorities.



Gossip Goat said:


> Birthing is irrelevant. This argument quickly discredits parents of adopted children implying that their bond is not deep nor is there love, therefor to kill one of them, as strangers, would be justified because they were not a part of a birthing process which creates a deeper bond. They would not love each other deeply. How do the have a greater capacity? You are assuming they do.


It hardly discredits anything, it merely points to one example of real life human bonding. The fact that it is such a strong bond doesn't mean that other human bonds are not also strong bonds. Humans are also very capable of showing love towards a perfect stranger.
Do you think that animals have the exact same capability of love that humans have?



Gossip Goat said:


> Not all of them do, some animals have more potential to do and have a greater impact than some humans could ever achieve. Potential would not be unique to humans.


Potential is not unique to humans, but humans do have an amazing amount of it. Animals just do not compare here. You would have to deliberately seek out rare cases of severely incapable humans and compare them with the best of animals in regards to potential.



Gossip Goat said:


> Highly unlikely would still not mean it’s not possible. There are individuals in the world that are in such a severe condition, and threaten the argument that all humans have potential or superior cognitive capabilities. Things you are using to support an argument against the value of animal life, if it can apply to humans as well, then you should agree that humans not fitting that criteria would, according to this logic, have a life that is less valuable. Whereas animals that do, would posses a value equal to humans that also fit this criteria.


Would you consider it logical for someone to base their choice on the blind assumption that the stranger could be in a severe condition?

I think I was pretty clear about how humans even with severe disabilities still have great potential, and in multiple areas, and to a greater degree than animals. Also humans have greater thinking ability, and communication skills...much much greater.



Gossip Goat said:


> I am not the one arguing for some lives having more value than others. I do not think like this.


Are there no exceptions to this rule in your belief system?


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Potential is not unique to humans, but humans do have an amazing amount of it. Animals just do not compare here. You would have to deliberately seek out rare cases of severely incapable humans and compare them with the best of animals in regards to potential.


Not yet, anyway. I would very much like to see the distant future for certain intelligent species as some seem to have great promise.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> We shouldn't under appreciate each of these things ~ which animals do not compare with. Can animals build a rocket to the moon, for example? Or send a robot to Mars? Granted, we can put animals onto those rockets, and maybe teach them to do some action on it, but that's as close as animals get with being involved in that sort of thing...and is also highly controversial.


They do, in fact, compare with those things.

And, so? Can humans thrive in environments of high acidity, radioactivity and salt? Would their inability make them less worthy of life? If an animals inability to achieve going to the moon, or building rockets, mean that they are less worthy, would any normal person's lack of the same ability mean they too are not worthy? If not, you are making an exception that is _not _based on ability alone. In which, in order to support your argument, you would have to explain without the arguments that are only applicable to some humans, because they would imply that others are of less value for not meeting your criteria. 



> It hardly discredits anything, it merely points to one example of real life human bonding. The fact that it is such a strong bond doesn't mean that other human bonds are not also strong bonds. Humans are also very capable of showing love towards a perfect stranger.
> Do you think that animals have the exact same capability of love that humans have?


Whether they love like we do is unknown, but even if they didn't. Why are you taking aspects of humanity and just arbitrarily labeling them as the universal criteria for value? If there existed species who loved deeper than any of us, were intellectually superior, had better lives, had more potential, and lived longer, had a plethora of others who would suffer in larger quantities if they would die, and were saying their life was more worthy. Would you accept them as having a priority of life over us? You most likely wouldn’t because you value your own life. The argument of common humanity is no different than racist who differs about the treatment and value of other races, merely for them being one race, and them another. We then cannot claim that biological commonality entitles us to superior status over those who are not within our species. 



> Potential is not unique to humans, but humans do have an amazing amount of it. Animals just do not compare here. You would have to deliberately seek out rare cases of severely incapable humans and compare them with the best of animals in regards to potential.


Okay, let's say they don't. And? Why does that confer intrinsic value to humans?

Would those rare cases be exceptions where animals have more value than humans?




> Would you consider it logical for someone to base their choice on the blind assumption that the stranger could be in a severe condition?


You mean like, because they are in that severe condition, they are less worthy of life? No, I don't think there are lives that are worth more than others. Or do you mean, would it be logical for someone to kill them? In certain circumstances, yes. 



> I think I was pretty clear about how humans even with severe disabilities still have great potential, and in multiple areas, and to a greater degree than animals. Also humans have greater thinking ability, and communication skills...much much greater.


No, it's not clear at all. Considering some of them are bed bound, cannot communicate, cannot do anything. In no way would they have potential in any area, to any degree. 

Let's agree that they do. So? How does that give them intrinsic value? How would you account for those whose thinking ability and communication skills is subpar in comparison to animals? If you say, humans all have an equal worth in life, which goes above animals because of our superior cognitive abilities but do not account for people whose capabilities are not superior to those of many animals, then your reason for cognitive abilities can’t be used as an argument against animals because some animals exceed humans in cognitive capabilities.



> Are there no exceptions to this rule in your belief system?


There could be, if given enough support to exceptions. Now, I do not think that any species has more right to live than another. As this would be no different than arguments for sexism, racism, genocide etc.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

zerouva said:


> I realize it's not normal and kinda freaky.
> 
> My mind just wonders everywhere.


That's more than just a wondering mind. Do you dwell on these thoughts much?



Lakigigar said:


> I'm serious.* I gain nothing with saving 1000 lifes* (and if i ever met one of them, they will bully/insult me anyway if they had the chance). A pet is a guaranteed friend.


Why do you have to gain something in order to do something good, or to not do something bad?



Lakigigar said:


> *Don't pretend you would save me instead of your pet* and if you did that, you probably did the stupidest thing i can imagine.


You judge me unfairly.

You might kill me without a second thought, but I would still not kill you. Nice to know where I stand with you regardless.


----------



## lilprimrose (Mar 22, 2017)

felina said:


> @lilprimrose Is your avatar IU? I love her!!! :laughing:


Haha yes!! She's amazing, I especially love her acting x


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Lakigigar said:


> I'm serious. I gain nothing with saving 1000 lifes (and if i ever met one of them, they will bully/insult me anyway if they had the chance). A pet is a guaranteed friend. People are just too principial. Don't pretend you would save me instead of your pet and if you did that, you probably did the stupidest thing i can imagine.


I would _not_ bully you! Maybe you have been bullied by some people, but people are diverse, *like animals are*. I loathe goons.


----------



## zerouva (Mar 25, 2017)

He's a Superhero! said:


> That's more than just a wondering mind. Do you dwell on these thoughts much?


I don't, I just thought about these things through out my life.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

He's a Superhero! said:


> That's more than just a wondering mind. Do you dwell on these thoughts much?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because that's who we are and that's our nature and in nature of humanity. There is no reason to be silly on a subject like this. I would maybe consider to keep the young women to be alive and they are awesome. Men are a threat.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

pwowq said:


> Having grown up with family pets I've learned pets are emotionally replaceable. Having grown up with family people I've learned people are emotionally irreplaceable.
> 
> There were a lot of cats, dogs, horses, fishes and rodents around when I grew up. Even thou the bond with a particular pet could grow incredibly strong it never reached the same value as a human. I think it has to do with pets not surviving their 20th birthday, usually.


I have no emotional attachment with strangers and even less with my family members (although bad example). I've no emotional attachment to anyone.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Lakigigar said:


> Because that's who we are and that's our nature and in nature of humanity. There is no reason to be silly on a subject like this.


I see you are being serious. I am as well.



Lakigigar said:


> I would maybe consider to keep the young women to be alive and they are awesome.* Men are a threat.*


It's not logical to base such a decision on bias or prejudice.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Pet - murder is much too intimate to perform on a stranger. :blushed:


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Ok, care to elaborate on that?





Peter Singer said:


> Let us consider a few examples of the capacities and cognitive abilities of nonhuman beings, with regard to IQ and language comprehension. I specifically want to consider research done on great apes, border collies, and grey parrots. Great apes: Francine Patterson of the Gorilla Foundation claims that the gorilla Koko scored between 70 and 95 on human IQ tests and understands about a thousand signs. Though this finding is controversial, there is a substantial amount of uncontroversial research suggesting that many of the great apes, including gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans, can use human sign language and can develop a fair range of comprehension.2 At least, it is clear that they understand a number of signs, and they use a kind of structured syntax. The question of whether or not we should call this ‘‘language’’ is not my concern here. What is relevant for this discussion is comparisons with humans with cognitive disabilities; the point being that if we raise the standard for language to exclude the signs used by Koko, Kanzi, Washoe, Chantek, or some of the other signing apes, then we would have to say that some humans at profound and severe levels of cognitive disability don’t have language either. We must keep a level playing field for comparisons between species—in this case between some humans with cognitive disabilities and great apes.
> 
> Dogs: There’s been some interesting recent work on dogs’ abilities to recognize human spoken language. Border collies, when presented with a collection of hundreds of different toys with different names, are able to respond and fetch a particular named object. Tests have demonstrated that they can comprehend two hundred to three hundred human words.
> 
> ...





> Building rockets to the moon is just an example of an incredible thing humans are capable of doing. This is not the same as simply being able to survive in the environment.


If you take human actions and treat them as the standard to hold every other species, then of course every other species will not meet this standard because they do not build cities. But you do not hold humans to standards in which they do not meet, we cannot change from sexual to asexual reproduction depending on how favorable environmental conditions. This is something we lack, we are entirely dependent on another person to pass our offspring to. If we take this and elevate it to a standard in which we’d hold all species to, to see which are more advanced (if you were also to label this as more advanced) then we would not be. But you ignore this and keep saying humans are more capable, due to meeting their own standards and ignore that we could not meet standards of the actions other species take.

You are treating the human species as equally capable, they are not. You are taking what humans do and elevating it to a standard in which all other species cannot reach because they are not human, ignoring they can surpass some humans in any of your criteria. You could not survive or thrive in their environment, but you do not consider yourself less worthy of life. You do however when the situation is reversed. You consider humans to be more advanced therefor more worthy of life if it were to come down to a choice, for merely being humans.



> Who said any of these life forms are "not worthy"? These are not my words. I greatly value all life...Ask anybody who knows me.


The whole point of this conversation has been that you do not value all life equal. Not that you don't. 



> Are you implying something with your statement about racists?


This mentality is no different than the elitist mentality of Jared Taylor that thinks people of a certain race are less capable, have less potential, their life values less, for merely being a different race. They consider their race to be more advanced and more capable just as the mentality that considered humans more capable or advanced (ignoring that animals are adapted to their environment therefor to say they cannot compare to us would mean you consider us to be the standard or the pinnacle of evolution conferring to use more value. It is as if anyone in any other situation took themselves as the example of perfection and then in comparison to the rest, everyone else is not because they are not them.



> This potential could benefit countless animals and/or humans far more than a pet's potential.


By grouping humans, you are assuming they are all capable of doing the same things and ignoring those that can't. Who could not benefit anyone or have any potential.



> What example would you give of an animal having more value than a human?


I believe this is the fourth or fifth time in which a question supposing I value one over the other keeps being asked, when I've said I am not the one making a case for some species having inherent value for being a part of said species.



> I disagree. I've seen people without any limbs do great things.


They are not who I'm referring to. I'm referring to the most severely disabled who cannot and would not fit your own criteria for why humans are worth more. 



> No animal exceeds humans in cognitive capabilities. Maybe you are referring to a specific case that is unique.


By thinking of the humans as group you are ignoring exceptions in which animals would. You are also taking the abilities we have and placing them as the highest standard for intelligence. Not because there are not others that don't compare but because we are humans. Of course animals could never hold a candle if you keep arbitrarily treating them as the pinnacle of evolution.



> Now that we are talking about entire species, we have to consider the poll question in the same way...
> Would you kill all pets of a single species, or all humans?
> 
> An extreme question, I know, but that is where this discussion has gone.


We are not talking about the entire species. 5-6th question that supposes one of these has more worth for merely being a part of their group and would then be more worthy of life for that reason alone.





He's a Superhero! said:


> @Gossip Goat, please correct me if I'm wrong: You claim to view all life as equal. You would choose to save a pet that is in your care, including a pet goldfish or pet stick insect, but ironically you would not save a plant that is in your care. Where are you drawing the line here? Unless in reality you view the plant as not of equal importance to a pet afterall.


The answer is the same as to why I'd save my family and not a stranger. Your argument would then claim that by choosing my family's life and not the strangers I would also not consider human life of equal value and that is erroneous. If the situation was between my pets and someone elses', then I would choose my pet, again. I am not favoring animals over humans, just those close to me. Not because perceive their life as having intrinsically more worth, but because they are close and important to me.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Emotions are the core to ethical thought. Put the stranger behind the dog, a disgraceful choice. One may or may not be a savage, but the other always is.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Gossip Goat said:


> If you take human actions and treat them as the standard to hold every other species, then of course every other species will not meet this standard because they do not build cities. But you do not hold humans to standards in which they do not meet, we cannot change from sexual to asexual reproduction depending on how favorable environmental conditions. This is something we lack, we are entirely dependent on another person to pass our offspring to. If we take this and elevate it to a standard in which we’d hold all species to, to see which are more advanced (if you were also to label this as more advanced) then we would not be. But you ignore this and keep saying humans are more capable, due to meeting their own standards and ignore that we could not meet standards of the actions other species take.


Humankind as a whole, or a single standard healthy human, in both cases humans have the superior brains ~ which includes a deeper ability of love and connection, far greater intelligence, and unmatchable potential.

Ability to reproduce (and how reproduction occurs) is another issue. I don't think it's necessary to consider that factor when valuing an individual life.



Gossip Goat said:


> You are treating the human species as equally capable, they are not. You are taking what humans do and elevating it to a standard in which all other species cannot reach because they are not human, ignoring they can surpass some humans in any of your criteria. You could not survive or thrive in their environment, but you do not consider yourself less worthy of life. You do however when the situation is reversed. You consider humans to be more advanced therefor more worthy of life if it were to come down to a choice, for merely being humans.


To clarify: I do recognize that all humans are unique individuals.

Regarding thriving in an environment, no animal has the level of mental capability, adaptability and resourcefulness as the average human does.



Gossip Goat said:


> The whole point of this conversation has been that you do not value all life equal. Not that you don't.


Do you truly value _all_ life as equal however if you would sacrifice a plant that you are responsible for but you would not sacrifice a pet? Plant life is still life afterall.



Gossip Goat said:


> This mentality is no different than the elitist mentality of Jared Taylor that thinks people of a certain race are less capable, have less potential, their life values less, for merely being a different race. They consider their race to be more advanced and more capable just as the mentality that considered humans more capable or advanced (ignoring that animals are adapted to their environment therefor to say they cannot compare to us would mean you consider us to be the standard or the pinnacle of evolution conferring to use more value. It is as if anyone in any other situation took themselves as the example of perfection and then in comparison to the rest, everyone else is not because they are not them.


Would you consider it a kind of racism if I chose to kill my pet (if I had a pet) in order to spare the life of the stranger?



Gossip Goat said:


> By grouping humans, you are assuming they are all capable of doing the same things and ignoring those that can't. Who could not benefit anyone or have any potential.


I'm not assuming that they are all capable of the same things. That being said, one could argue that capability of love and communication is far greater than capability to build a rocket, and altho most of us (myself included here) could not build a rocket, that doesn't mean we are not capable of equally awesome, or even more awesome things...such as deep love.



Gossip Goat said:


> I believe this is the fourth or fifth time in which a question supposing I value one over the other keeps being asked, when I've said I am not the one making a case for some species having inherent value for being a part of said species.


Ok, but plants do count as species, and yet they are being treated differently in this scenario. What assumption would you have me reach on this? And if animal life is equal to human life, why would plant life be inferior?
We can expand on this further as well...fungi, parasites, and bacteria are also all life forms. Is a single bacterium equal to a single human?



Gossip Goat said:


> They are not who I'm referring to. I'm referring to the most severely disabled who cannot and would not fit your own criteria for why humans are worth more.


I was merely discussing specific angles to this. There's obviously going to be more to the value of life than potential and relationships. To me, life by itself is sacred. We cannot bring something back to life once it has died, nor can we create new life outside of what we already have naturally (i.e. reproduction). Even the most intelligent and equipt team of humans could not make new life from non-living matter. Even at our advanced level of technology and knowledge of our time we still need life to exist in the first place order to expand on that life...And it doesn't look like that will change for a very very long time, if we ever do gain this capability.



Gossip Goat said:


> By thinking of the humans as group you are ignoring exceptions in which animals would. You are also taking the abilities we have and placing them as the highest standard for intelligence. Not because there are not others that don't compare but because we are humans. Of course animals could never hold a candle if you keep arbitrarily treating them as the pinnacle of evolution.


I don't think we should undervalue what science has shown as regarding humans in comparison to animals.



Gossip Goat said:


> We are not talking about the entire species. 5-6th question that supposes one of these has more worth for merely being a part of their group and would then be more worthy of life for that reason alone.


But would it make a difference if we were to phrase the same question for entire species?



Gossip Goat said:


> The answer is the same as to why I'd save my family and not a stranger. Your argument would then claim that by choosing my family's life and not the strangers I would also not consider human life of equal value and that is erroneous. If the situation was between my pets and someone elses', then I would choose my pet, again. I am not favoring animals over humans, just those close to me. Not because perceive their life as having intrinsically more worth, but because they are close and important to me.


At this point I hope I wouldn't choose either if the choice involved me actually _killing a human_. My personal emotions would want me to benefit from the situation of course, but I don't believe it would be right of me to kill a human even in such a situation as this poll's scenario. Besides, why should I consider my emotions as superior to somebody else's?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

@Gossip Goat, regarding animal and human life being viewed as equal, what are your thoughts on how most humans eat animals? And about how animals are bred and raised to be slaughter specifically to be food?


----------



## platorepublic (Dec 27, 2012)

Depends how attractive that stranger is.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Humankind as a whole, or a single standard healthy human, in both cases humans have the superior brains ~ which includes a deeper ability of love and connection, far greater intelligence, and unmatchable potential.
> 
> Regarding thriving in an environment, no animal has the level of mental capability, adaptability and resourcefulness as the average human does.
> 
> Ability to reproduce (and how reproduction occurs) is another issue. I don't think it's necessary to consider that factor when valuing an individual life.


If you standardize the human race as the pinnacle of evolution, even after I’ve given you empirical data in which it is clearly shown that not all humans are capable of doing what you claim all humans can do and that some animals exceed these humans (who disprove your argument that humans have intrinsic worth over animals and ability), then at this point you’ve chosen to ignore the evidence and are just being stubborn in order to support your bias.

Ability to reproduce is irrelevant in regards to value, it was just an example at how we tend to hold other species to our standard of action and lifestyle but we do not do so for ourselves because we consider ourselves exempt for being merely capable of dominating other species. It was to criticize this mentality, that is truly hypocritical.



> Do you truly value _all_ life as equal however if you would sacrifice a plant that you are responsible for but you would not sacrifice a pet? Plant life is still life afterall.
> 
> Ok, but plants do count as species, and yet they are being treated differently in this scenario. What assumption would you have me reach on this? And if animal life is equal to human life, why would plant life be inferior?
> We can expand on this further as well...fungi, parasites, and bacteria are also all life forms. Is a single bacterium equal to a single human?


Not sure what is so confusing about the non-relation that exists between choosing to save something /someone and thinking that they are inferior / superior in life. Also, yes, there is absolutely no form of life that is superior or inferior. No matter how simple. The argument for it being simple doesn’t explain why it has more value. It’s irrelevant. 



> Would you consider it a kind of racism if I chose to kill my pet (if I had a pet) in order to spare the life of the stranger?


If this is a serious question, look up the definition of racism. Animal & human relationships have nothing to do with human races. 



> I'm not assuming that they are all capable of the same things. That being said, one could argue that capability of love and communication is far greater than capability to build a rocket, and altho most of us (myself included here) could not build a rocket, that doesn't mean we are not capable of equally awesome, or even more awesome things...such as deep love.





Hes a Superhero said:


> Humankind as a whole, or a single standard healthy human, in both cases humans have the superior brains


_Sure_.

Not all humans have the capability to love. And it is precisely the individual, not the species, that we have to look at here. Collectives are irrelevant in the argument, because the individuals are the ones that do not hold up to the collective standard, by which they would not have value according to this criteria.



> I don't think we should undervalue what science has shown as regarding humans in comparison to animals.


But apparently we should overlook and undervalue what science has shown regarding animals in comparison to the humas I referred to here:


* *






> Great apes: Francine Patterson of the Gorilla Foundation claims that the gorilla Koko scored between 70 and 95 on human IQ tests and understands about a thousand signs. Though this finding is controversial, there is a substantial amount of uncontroversial research suggesting that many of the great apes, including gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans, can use human sign language and can develop a fair range of comprehension.2 At least, it is clear that they understand a number of signs, and they use a kind of structured syntax. The question of whether or not we should call this ‘‘language’’ is not my concern here. What is relevant for this discussion is comparisons with humans with cognitive disabilities; the point being that if we raise the standard for language to exclude the signs used by Koko, Kanzi, Washoe, Chantek, or some of the other signing apes, then we would have to say that some humans at profound and severe levels of cognitive disability don’t have language either. We must keep a level playing field for comparisons between species—in this case between some humans with cognitive disabilities and great apes.
> 
> Dogs: There’s been some interesting recent work on dogs’ abilities to recognize human spoken language. Border collies, when presented with a collection of hundreds of different toys with different names, are able to respond and fetch a particular named object. Tests have demonstrated that they can comprehend two hundred to three hundred human words.
> 
> ...








> But would it make a difference if we were to phrase the same question for entire species?


If we generalize, and ignore the exceptions that do not fit into the standard that we are generalizing, then we are purposefully ignoring the holes in the argument that do not support it.





> Besides, why should I consider my emotions as superior to somebody else's?


They aren’t, but that doesn’t mean you are to give anything up to consider someone else’s emotions. That would be altruism but it’s not an obligation of any sort. Interesting how you realize and bring this up, but not in regards to other non-human life.


----------



## SimplyRivers (Sep 5, 2015)

I think mostly my pet. I feel I would be emotionally distraught by both cases. However, as someone said before, I'm human the stranger is also human, it would be in my best interest to save the human to continue my species. 

I think that's how most species think.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I can't vote. Too squeamish. I become really attached to the pets. They are family. Killing a stranger? No. Just the thought of it horrifies me.


----------



## Nekomata (May 26, 2012)

A stranger. Animals are adorable and I don't like people enough to save one above a beloved pet.


----------



## MindBlaze (Mar 17, 2017)

Assuming the stranger is human, definitely the stranger. All other species > humans any day!


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

@Gossip Goat, thank you for taking the time to expand on your point of view with this. I may not agree, but it's nice to have meaningful discussions with others, and these discussions can be quite interesting when two polar ideas meet.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

UrbanHymns98 said:


> Assuming the stranger is human, definitely the stranger. All other species > humans any day!


I see here is another view point again: The belief that not all life is equal, but that humans specifically are the lowest form of life.

What's your reasoning on this?


----------



## Shroud Shifter (Sep 9, 2015)

Double post.


----------



## Shroud Shifter (Sep 9, 2015)

The pet, unless I knew the stranger to be a very nasty individual indeed - like a serial killer, rapist or child molester.


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

Even though I love my dog more than most of the people I know, I still value the life of a human being over that of an animal and would likely kill him over that random stranger, though it is certainly a tough call.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

He's a Superhero! said:


> I see here is another view point again: The belief that not all life is equal, but that humans specifically are the lowest form of life.
> 
> What's your reasoning on this?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

ArmchairCommie said:


> Even though I love my dog more than most of the people I know, I still value the life of a human being over that of an animal and would likely kill him over that random stranger, though it is certainly a tough call.


Yeah, it certainly would be a horrible choice to have to make.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Shiver said:


>


Heh heh, lol! Definite misanthrope in that clip!


----------



## UraniaIsis (Nov 26, 2014)

With a heavy heart, I would have to say my pets. I can communicate, collaborate, and/or breed with the stranger. Should things become sour between the stranger and myself, the stranger will be without an emotional leverage to use against me--my pets. Think _Z for Zacharia_, the book. The last thing I need is for a stranger is to get a hold of my beloved Einy, say _'Where's momma'_, set him loose while trailing behind him and have me be up chit creek without a paddle. That sweet pooch WILL find me...yeah...


----------



## Personality Profiles (Apr 2, 2017)

This is some fucked up question.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

@Personality Profiles, what do you think of the different answers people are giving?


----------



## MindBlaze (Mar 17, 2017)

He's a Superhero! said:


> I see here is another view point again: The belief that not all life is equal, but that humans specifically are the lowest form of life.
> 
> What's your reasoning on this?


I guess humans just have a destructive nature about them that other species don't have. We severely damage the planet, start wars, kill other species needlessly... we just kinda suck in a way that animals don't :/


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

UrbanHymns98 said:


> I guess humans just have a destructive nature about them that other species don't have. We severely damage the planet, start wars, kill other species needlessly... we just kinda suck in a way that animals don't :/


But not all humans do those things. In fact, there are plenty of humans that live very much the opposite: What about humans who risk their lives to save endangered species, for example? Or those who refuse to be involved with wars, even if it means going to prison? What about humanitarians, environmentalists, animal rights activists, philanthropists, peace advocates, etc.?
It wouldn't be fair to say those things about all humans. From the sound of it, you care a great deal about our planet also.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

@warxzawa may I ask, which would you choose?


----------



## warxzawa (Aug 19, 2016)

He's a Superhero! said:


> @warxzawa may I ask, which would you choose?


well, i have four pets, and i know that for one of them i would kill the stranger, for the other three i don't know.


----------



## sometimes (Dec 26, 2013)

A stranger. Plus if I knew I wouldn't get caught and I got to choose which stranger to kill then I'd just kill them anyway regardless of if I was saving my pet.


----------



## MindBlaze (Mar 17, 2017)

He's a Superhero! said:


> But not all humans do those things. In fact, there are plenty of humans that live very much the opposite: What about humans who risk their lives to save endangered species, for example? Or those who refuse to be involved with wars, even if it means going to prison? What about humanitarians, environmentalists, animal rights activists, philanthropists, peace advocates, etc.?
> It wouldn't be fair to say those things about all humans. From the sound of it, you care a great deal about our planet also.


True... there are some awesome humans. I totally agree with that. But if it's a random stranger, I wouldn't know what they were like, and in any case it's safer to kill the human because you can have absolute certainty the animal is innocent.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

felina said:


> Everyone in this post is kidding themselves.
> 
> I love my cat, but of course I would kill an animal before I would kill a human being. As would anyone else, if they were being honest. Unless they are a psychopath.


Disagree. You have a responsibility to your pet which is greater than any responsibility you have to a random person.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

UrbanHymns98 said:


> True... there are some awesome humans. I totally agree with that. But if it's a random stranger, I wouldn't know what they were like, and in any case it's safer to kill the human because you can have absolute certainty the animal is innocent.


That is true, however what if the person you killed turned out to be one of the awesome humans we were talking about?


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

Stranger for sure, and I don't even get very attached to pets.


----------



## dukaalmaar (Dec 27, 2016)

I don't feel like I could kill anything, but if it was a life-or-death situation I'd kill the stranger. I like my cats better than people and I don't care if that's weird


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

Why can't I vote both!

:sad:


----------

