Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

journals.sagepub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#151

Post by mcny »

serenloss wrote: post #122
mcny wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets not be too hasty on this. There are over seven (over eight?) billion (with a B) humans. There are fewer than a billion dogs. Pretty sure the answer is clear: prefer saving dog lives over human lives. Now, if it was chicken vs humans, of course, save human lives. Now take this to another extreme, would you rather save the life of ONE giant panda or one hundred humans? I think all reasonable people will press the…

While no less arbitrary, your metric for comparison seems shallow. I had already decided the panda should die before you finished that question, not the other way around. The panda won’t be missed by many.

> I had already decided the panda should die before you finished that question, not the other way around.

I appreciate replies on HN as they show the flaw in my assumption.

Speaking of assumptions, indulge me for a moment: I kind of find the trolley problem difficult because all legality aside, I feel like if I pull a lever and one person dies, I am responsible for that one death but if I don't pull the lever and n people die, I wouldn't feel as bad. Is there a name for this?

I mean like the idea that if something happens by my action that is worse than if something happens by my failure to act. I mean who am I to choose those n lives over that one life, right?

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#152

Post by wgjordan »

mcny wrote: post #151
serenloss wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While no less arbitrary, your metric for comparison seems shallow. I had already decided the panda should die before you finished that question, not the other way around. The panda won’t be missed by many.

> I had already decided the panda should die before you finished that question, not the other way around. I appreciate replies on HN as they show the flaw in my assumption. Speaking of assumptions, indulge me for a moment: I kind of find the trolley problem difficult because all legality aside, I feel like if I pull a lever and one person dies, I am responsible for that one death but if I don't pull the lever and n p…

> Is there a name for this?

It seems to go by negative and positive duties (or rights, or obligations) in the literature.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#153

Post by mam2 »

hairofadog wrote: post #93

I haven't heard a great argument explaining why human life is objectively more valuable than animal life. The most common argument I hear, even from otherwise thoughtful people I know, is something along the lines of "because one is a human and the other is an animal , duh!" but I don't consider that to be a persuasive argument. Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"? If that's the case, is the life of a…

You need to realize that hunans don't value tge life of other group of humans that much as well. This is the basis of slavery and many wars...

I think it was a point in history where something like one quarter of or men had already kiiled a guy once.

Get over the killing of meat

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#155

Post by [deleted] »

dylan604 wrote: post #149
BearOso wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I looked it up before posting. And "superficial" would be better a better word than "manufactured." Only like 10% of gold production goes towards industrial purposes. The rest is used for jewelry or as currency backing. edit And gold is actually a rare element that's actually useful, like you described, just not rare enough that most of it can't be siphoned off to sit idly in someone's vault. Diamonds are also…

We can also produce diamonds in a lab, yet the alchemists still can't turn lead into gold.

[deleted]

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#156

Post by notRobot »

aphextron wrote: post #106
notRobot wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fascinated by your opinion here, aphextron. I have a question for you. Say that you chose a stranger over your dog. Then that stranger went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision? How do you choose to save a stranger's life without knowing anything about them and what they're like?

>Say that you chose a stranger over your dog. Then that stranger went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision? No. Because I still would have made the best decision possible at the time given all available information. This is the same argument essentially as the death penalty question. Someone else's violent act can never vindicate your own. That's only valid in the case of immediate self defense.…

Thank you so much for your responses in this thread. While I do not feel the same way about the value of life, I do understand your reasoning for your opinion, and you've given me some stuff to think about.

Thanks again.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#157

Post by notRobot »

bitcharmer wrote: post #107
notRobot wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fascinated by your opinion here, aphextron. I have a question for you. Say that you chose a stranger over your dog. Then that stranger went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision? How do you choose to save a stranger's life without knowing anything about them and what they're like?

Let's 100% reverse your argument and see where this takes us, shall we? Say you choose your dog over a stranger. Then your dog went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision?

Like I've explained above, the reason I'd be willing to choose my dog over a stranger is because I know what my dog is like. I know he's never going to kill anyone. I know nothing about the stranger.

But yes, I would regret it if he went and killed someone after I chose his life over a human's.

I would also deeply regret it if I chose a stranger over my dog and then that person turned out to be a Bad Guy.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#158

Post by ldargin »

Interesting how an adult can still risk his own life to save animals in spite of the tendency towards human life.

"Homeless man runs into burning animal shelter in Atlanta to save dogs and cats" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/homeless-man-runs-burni...

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#159

Post by serenloss »

mcny wrote: post #151
serenloss wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While no less arbitrary, your metric for comparison seems shallow. I had already decided the panda should die before you finished that question, not the other way around. The panda won’t be missed by many.

> I had already decided the panda should die before you finished that question, not the other way around. I appreciate replies on HN as they show the flaw in my assumption. Speaking of assumptions, indulge me for a moment: I kind of find the trolley problem difficult because all legality aside, I feel like if I pull a lever and one person dies, I am responsible for that one death but if I don't pull the lever and n p…

Choosing not to act is choosing nonetheless. You are responsible in both situations. You didn’t set the events into motion, no — but you had full awareness of the inevitable consequences that would result from acting or not. You must make the choice, therefore, that you can live with. This is the nature of the human experience.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#160

Post by mike00632 »

giantg2 wrote: post #129
mike00632 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you mentally deranged? Is that why you kill animals?

Are you mentally deranged? Questions like this are ad hominem attacks and pointless for the sake of discussion. The main reason I, and many others, kill animals is to eat them.

Right, but you're trying to justify your actions by bringing up the actions of the mentally deranged, as if that somehow absolves you of responsibility.
Post reply on HN