[Messiah]

Originally Posted by Btmangan

Let's assume for sake of argument... you must eat one of them to survive... but you will be saved so you won't need any additional food, so the dogs ability to assist in survival becomes irrelevant.

If you know you're going to be saved you eat neither and take your chances that you'll survive, because honestly you won't know the exact day and hour you will die from starvation and if that day will come before your rescuers arrive.

If, on the other hand, you're saying we have to operate under the assumption that we aren't aware that the rescue is coming, but that it WILL come sometime after we eat one or the other, then the abilities of the dog in aiding your survival are relevant.

Basically, the situation you set up sucks for your purposes. You should just ask "is a dog's life more valuable than the life of a severely retarded person?" Of course, you would have to very clearly define 'severely retarded.' But if you just want to ask, given all other things are equal, is human life more valuable than any other life, then my answer to you would be yes. Are there exceptions? Again, yes. What are they? I couldn't give you a list; it's a judgment call that has to be made on a case by case basis.

Originally Posted by Yas

I find it easier to kill a human than kill an animal

That's just disturbing.

But let me ask you, have you ever slapped an annoying mosquito feasting on your arm? If so, you're a hypocrite. Don't think so? You're in denial. On the off chance that you have never intentionally killed anything in your life, then I object simply on the principle that human life is more valuable than any other life because we have the gift of reason, or if you prefer, we have more developed brains and the more developed an organism's brain is the more it can think and feel, and the greater it's ability to live, so to speak, thus the greater their right to live.

Originally Posted by anieden

almost but they don't meant the same thing lol xD

"dealing with morals or the principles of morality" means doing things following the morality defined by the society
which in this case eating either one will be going against that morality

"being in accordance with the rules or standards for right practice" means doing things following the most correct/appropriate practice for a certain task.
which in this case the task is survival and the most appropriate choice will be to eat the retard adult as it is more beneficial

You're just arguing semantics. They are the same thing. You only want to create a difference in your mind because you can't seem to reconcile your urge for self preservation with your ethical aversion to killing. What you don't realize is that self same urge for self preservation factors into all ethical equations.

[Btmangan]

I don't want anyone to fear being "judged" for cannibalism by the rescue pilots. This isn't about avoiding being shamed... it's only about the intrinsic act of eating a human versus eating a dog.

@ Messiah Great post... really excellent post. Just one question. If you knew rescue was coming would you allow yourself to die of starvation before eating one of the two?

As for myself... I am still considering it... it's a difficult question.

If I knew rescue was coming... if anything, I would eat the dog. If I didn't know rescue was coming I would eat the human.

[justinhhp87]

Originally Posted by Btmangan

I don't want anyone to fear being "judged" for cannibalism by the rescue pilots. This isn't about avoiding being shamed... it's only about the intrinsic act of eating a human versus eating a dog.

@ Messiah Great post... really excellent post. Just one question. If you knew rescue was coming would you allow yourself to die of starvation before eating one of the two?

As for myself... I am still considering it... it's a difficult question.

If I knew rescue was coming... if anything, I would eat the dog. If I didn't know rescue was coming I would eat the human.

that sort of takes the ethics out of the question if u know rescue is coming

[Messiah]

if I knew rescue was coming...

Originally Posted by Messiah

If you know you're going to be saved you eat neither and take your chances that you'll survive, because honestly you won't know the exact day and hour you will die from starvation and if that day will come before your rescuers arrive.

I would try to survive until they arrived. And even if I change my mind because I realize I'm about to die, by that point I'd probably be too weak to kill either one anyway. But of course I wouldn't bet on dying, I would bet on surviving long enough. I would also not just sit there, I would look around for plants or anything edible.

[justinhhp87]

thats the thing, if you know resuce would be there

everyeone would say, oh i would eat the dog since they wouldnt want to be cannibals, its a very fake question then

how about this then, say the dog killed the retard or the retard killed the dog, would you eat the corpse?

[Messiah]

everyeone would say, oh i would eat the dog since they wouldnt want to be cannibals, its a very fake question then

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Oh, wait, no it wasn't.

how about this then, say the dog killed the retard or the retard killed the dog, would you eat the corpse?

I agree with you that letting people know the rescue is coming lessens the difficulty of the situation, but your scenario eliminates any dilemma altogether. Once either one is already dead you don't have to make the choice of who to kill, which is what this thread is about. If one is dead of course you eat the dead person/dog if you're starving. It's not even a question; the answer is self-evident.

[justinhhp87]

no sense in beating a dog to death for this thread, new ethical topic!

you are a lieutanant of an army and you get news that ur village is under attack from an unknown force, since you cant convince the commanders to send help what do you do

do you A. go rescue your village and weaken teh main force whihc would doom the villages near the army
or b. let your village be destroyed and ur family be victims of all sorts of slavery and atrocity

[Messiah]

The army's primary obligation is to protect the citizens (of both sides, but that's irrelevant in your scenario), so they should go to protect the village. That is, if they don't know when, where, or how they will be attacked next by this unknown enemy, they are better off going to where there is something already going on rather than sitting on their hands.

However, if they know for a fact that the enemy is going to attack before they can get back if they go to help, and that if the enemy attacks the surrounding villages WILL get wiped out, and the population of all those villages is greater than the one village currently under attack, and they can prevent that, then they have to stay.

[justinhhp87]

so come up with a better one o legendary one

[anieden]

Originally Posted by Btmangan

Let's assume for sake of argument... you must eat one of them to survive... but you will be saved so you won't need any additional food, so the dogs ability to assist in survival becomes irrelevant.

It's simply a special status question. Do humans have special status over animals... something more than just intellect??

If thats the case(for survival), then I will just eat the human since I have no idea when the help is going to arrive

Originally Posted by Messiah

You're just arguing semantics. They are the same thing. You only want to create a difference in your mind because you can't seem to reconcile your urge for self preservation with your ethical aversion to killing. What you don't realize is that self same urge for self preservation factors into all ethical equations.

FYI, thats the definition from the dictionary. If it means 100% the same thing, the dictionary will only display 1 definition for the word and not multiple definitions >..>