Dave Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 But conversely, by killing the chicken, you are also sealing its fate and also you are loweing yourself to lower standards. It's a no win situation, unless you say "yeah, I'll kill the chicken" and then kill the person asking the question - which is probably even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 yeah, as an ethical thing, it`s quite a toughy that arg or something similar is actualy used in some debate classes (so I hear). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 I don't believe there actually is a solution to it; hence it's a pretty useless thing really, but it does at least make you think about the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 at face value it`s unsolvable, it really boils down to choosing the "lesser of 2 evils" and what you base that choice on. personaly I`de kill the chicken and be done with, just make sure it got eaten and not wasted, sort of "Damage limitation". that`s about the best I`ve ever come up with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 personaly I`de kill the chicken and be done with, just make sure it got eaten and not wasted, sort of "Damage limitation". that`s about the best I`ve ever come up with I would agree. If the dog is killed it would probably not be eaten or used in any way. How would killing a chicken lower you? Are you a vegetarian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 Lance yeah, it goes back to post #21, it`s kinda lost the intial setup from there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 How can you guarantee that the mysterious ethics tester doesn't just put the chicken in a blender and use it for building the next millennium dome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 that WOULD be a waste! dave, you`re sick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 I'd kill the chicken. Then I'd have a good meal and my dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 at face value it`s unsolvable, it really boils down to choosing the "lesser of 2 evils" and what you base that choice on. personaly I`de kill the chicken and be done with, just make sure it got eaten and not wasted, sort of "Damage limitation". that`s about the best I`ve ever come up with At face value Dave's solution is the only viable one. If someone wants to shoot a dog or have a chicken killed that is up to them. The decision has been made prior to the cavet being applied to yourself. It's got nothing to do with you either way, your not responsible for the actions of others. I get attention seekers on the phone who use the line 'if you don't do X or Y I'll kill myself'. You can't force that decision on someone else unless they are willing to accept it, if you refuse from the off (like Dave said) you never entered the position where you would be forced to be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 but as stated in post #21, you`re an animal rights activist, doesn`t that then make you moraly obliged to prevent such a thing occuring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 that WOULD be a waste! dave, you`re sick! I dunno, it might have some use as part of a giant wok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 LOL, I`de love to be the one to pull out all the tent pegs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 but as stated in post #21, you`re an animal rights activist, doesn`t that then make you moraly obliged to prevent such a thing occuring? No. It's not your decision, it's someone elses. If you refuse to be in the situation the situation does not concern you. It's the egotistical aspect that draws you into that type of problem, you feel it's up to you to do something. The reality is somethings are nothing to do with you, and your involvment will only make things worse. The real question in the dilema is can you help or not, and the answer is that you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 well I wouldn`t call animal rights activists "Arrogant", misguided in some situation perhaps, but not arrogant what would your stance be then if BOTH were to die as a result of your inactivity? (I don`t rem how the original arg went, but I rem it seemed pretty airtight, perhaps someone that`s done debate class will rem it, it`s a fairly common discussion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 Ego is not the same as arrogance, and even if it did he wasn't talking about the collective ego of animal rights activists. [edit] I can't leave you people alone for 5 minutes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 my mistake! I didn`t read it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 well I wouldn`t call animal rights activists "Arrogant"' date=' misguided in some situation perhaps, but not arrogant what would your stance be then if BOTH were to die as a result of your inactivity? [/quote'] That the person had killed two animals. That's the decicion of someone else, not my decision though inaction. Ego, as sayo said, not arrogance. Although I wasn't referring to animal activists so much as every living person. Show me a man without ego and I'll show you a corpse. It's ego that leads people to think they can solve a situation, and ego that keeps them there past the untenable stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 as I explained before, I don`t rem exacty how the original arg went, or was stated for use in debate, all I do rem was that it was pretty near airtight, and that it went SOMETHING along the line of the above attemt to present it as another ethical dilema as requested by Matter I`m fairly sure just walking away wasn`t an option though? I could be wrong, but it was argued for hours and that option never surfaced. WHO KNOWS.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 I think atm is right. If killing is against your priciples and you are put in a situation where you are given the choice "Kill the chicken or we kill the dog", it is ego that makes you think that the death of the dog would be your fault. If you take a life to save a life, you have compromised yourself by becoming involved in an obvious no-win situation. If you choose not to become involved and they kill the dog, then the responsibility for the death lies with those who killed the dog, not you, and the net result is the same, one dead, one alive. This is obviously an absolutist argument though, and is based upon your considering all life equal. Things get more tricky if you take a more relativistic view on the value of life. But ultimately, the agument that you are responsible for a death somebody else caused is spurious. The ultimate choice and responsibility will always lie with those who do the killing, your involvement is almost irrelevant, i.e. if it wasn't you put in that situation, it would probably have been somebody else, and something would still have died. In such a situation, the choice of whether something lives or dies is not yours. Your choice is only whether or not you choose to play their game and become like them in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 I think a slightly more interesting argument would be to replace the dog with a pet of your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 I was actualy going to say that in post #23, but I couldn`t even bring myself to type "or the dog dies". yeah I know, I`m a sucker for animals too, I`de kill to eat, not for fun, at least not anymore anyway. but yeah, if it were your own pet??? that gets TOUGH!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 It's tough, but I'd probably stick with my original decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 what, kill the dweeb that presented the arg in the 1`st place, I know if it was one of my cats, I`de be sorely tempted and the chicken, the cat and Myself would walk free with a big smile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Well, if I had that option, then maybe. Although I doubt someone would be dumb enough to try and test me on an ethical issue by kidnapping my pet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now