LogFAQs > #912767471

kind9 posted...

In this hypothetical situation you presumably don't even know the building is about to collapse so it's not fair to equate saving the dog with killing the baby.

Yes you would and, therefore, yes it is.

Of course you know the building is about to collapse - it's listed right there in the question. It's what informed the answer of everyone answering this poll. If the question was "Your apartment is burning, which would you save first: baby or dog?" - that would imply a possibility of going back and saving the other, while still allowing for the risk that you might not have enough time to do both. In that case, going for the dog first is at least slightly more defensible.

That wasn't the question asked though - the question asked was, in essence, "Choose which one dies: baby or dog". And a disturbingly high number of people care more about their own feelings than another human life.

kind9 posted...

I don't care that the baby is human, humans are animals too. There is no inherent sanctity in a human life that should make a rando baby more precious to you than your loyal companion.

That's a really sad opinion, bro.

Question for you, though - if there's no inherent sanctity in human life, would you be OK with killing people - say, maybe poor people or condemned criminals - and using their meat as a food source? I mean, we do that with cows and pigs and chickens and fish, and you've already said that humans are animals too, so that argument seems to allow for this exact situation, unless there's some nuance you've left out of your description.

kind9 posted...

I guarantee you people would be more likely to save the baby due to social pressures rather than their own feelings.

Sure - and by the exact same logic the people going for their dog instead are basically saying that their own comfort takes precedence over the grief and anguish of a parent losing their child. Which is all kinds of fucked up.

If we're comparing someone who is caving to social pressure versus someone who is literally willing to put their own selfishness over one of the most helpless forms of human life there is, I'd say the first one is far, far more morally defensible.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!