Thread: Would you run over a human to dodge a cat?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

What's there not to follow?

I don't think it's that hard to understand. Everything, is just one big interconnected meaningless web without us there to impose our subjective meanings on things. We are the key that opens and closes all the doors...without us...the universe is just one big energy and chemical vat randomly exchanging, duplicating and morphing parts of itself ad-infinitum.

Whether the meanings we impose actually have substance backing them, or are as hollow as the belief in this reality as real is for another topic, though.

Hmm, I think without us the universe will be just a little less full of itself

Personally I'd hit the cat, not because I'd be weighing the pros and cons in my head at 80 mph, but because I think my gut-reflex would jerk the steering wheel away from the biggest obstacle. Plus, I don’t know if it’s the same for everyone, but for me the bigger the animal, the worse it seems to kill it...

Anyway, naturally this was designed to examine how people think humans stack-up in comparison to other animals. Keep in mind I love animals, and I don’t see them as mindless empty drones. I truly love them. I care for their feelings and even comfort them with extra attention when I sense they are feeling low (sounds weird but its true). I basically treat them like a family member.

I’ve taken many philosophy classes in my time: Intro of course, Moral Debates, Law and Morality, Science and Religion, Logic, etc. and as you can see my concentration is more or less morality. I’ve even developed my own moral theory that, unlike most, doesn’t depend on “higher powers” or that people hold an intrinsic value. It’s a special blend of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory, The Golden Rule, Natural Law Theory, and trace elements of many other theories. It would take far too long for me to make a write up sufficient in explanation, but basically morality, rights, and responsibility all come down to autonomy according to this theory. Our rights, and thus our responsibilities, are proportional to our level of autonomy. Seeing as animals do have autonomy, though of a lesser degree than your average person, according to this theory they do have some core rights that ought to be respected.

But, even still, I don’t see why they would have more than people. If anything, people have more moral gravity than cats. But even if they were equal in moral standing, there would be non-moral reasons to choose hitting the cat over the person anyway. But, if your one of those pseudo-philosophers who prefer to choose the less intuitive choice…to seem deep, then there are a few things you could do you may want to consider:

Drive in the center, risking hitting or saving them both…giving equal chance of survival/damnation

Spare them both all together by launching your car over the side of the bridge

The truth is morality is so complicated that debating something this ambiguous is on par with masturbation, serves no purpose but self-satisfaction and is bound to leave mess as a result. Any number of contrasting answers could be just as well justified as others, if you know your moral philosophy well enough. Then you get into rhetoric wars….bleh.

Originally Posted by ethen

then there are a few things you could do you may want to consider:

Drive in the center, risking hitting or saving them both…giving equal chance of survival/damnation

Spare them both all together by launching your car over the side of the bridge

The truth is morality is so complicated that debating something this ambiguous is on par with masturbation, serves no purpose but self-satisfaction and is bound to leave mess as a result. Any number of contrasting answers could be just as well justified as others, if you know your moral philosophy well enough. Then you get into rhetoric wars….bleh.

It's not ambiguous. I said the hypothetical involves only two choices-- killing the cat or killing the human.

Perhaps Im looking at this too formally.

I meant ambigous in the sense that, unless you declare specifically which moral theory you want this scenario to be applied to, answering this question is no doubt going to come down the debate "which moral philosophy is better", whether people realize it or not.

To avoid the enevitable stillmate that will result from trying to analyze this one specific situation via different moral philosophies, you need some sort of standard to apply this scenario to. For example, "assuming (insert moral theory), which would choose to hit and why". If you don't do this, people on the other side of the argument will be most likely be looking at the situation from an unreconsiliable point of view, in which case you'd just be waisting your time.

That is unless the deeper meaning of this question comes down which moral theory is "better", and thats not a debate meant for informal philosophers. It requires years of in depth study, per moral theory, to establish a foundation of knowledge sufficient enough to do something more than talk out of your arse, frankly. Wikipedia summaries are not nearly good enough lol. Keep in mind i'm not referring to you or anyone specifically in this thread, its just that I have found most people who participate in internet debates usually have little-to-no substantial and/or formal education about the subject...and it doesnt matter how smart you are, that initself causes critical problems in the whole debate thing.

I'd kill the cat. I dont really want to go to jail. And a human weighs too much and would screw up my car. Then i would have to take time out of my day to attend the dude's funeral and deal with his pissed off relatives. Or, i could just flatten the cat, get a quick laugh, and keep driving.

Plus, I fucking hate cats. They're stuck-up, solitary, masicistic freaks. They bite and scratch for no reason. I have seen my neighbor's cat catch a chipmunk, paralize it, and play with it on the ground as it squealed and helplessly rolled around. What the hell, man? At least my dog protects my house. He is a little racist, though. I dont know why, but he hates black people.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I'd kill the cat. I dont really want to go to jail. And a human weighs too much and would screw up my car. Then i would have to take time out of my day to attend the dude's funeral and deal with his pissed off relatives. Or, i could just flatten the cat, get a quick laugh, and keep driving.

Have you watched the news lately?
You may end up doing more time harming a cat than a person.

Originally Posted by Howie

Have you watched the news lately?
You may end up doing more time harming a cat than a person.

Damn liberals

Originally Posted by ethen

Perhaps Im looking at this too formally.

I meant ambigous in the sense that, unless you declare specifically which moral theory you want this scenario to be applied to, answering this question is no doubt going to come down the debate "which moral philosophy is better", whether people realize it or not.

To avoid the enevitable stillmate that will result from trying to analyze this one specific situation via different moral philosophies, you need some sort of standard to apply this scenario to. For example, "assuming (insert moral theory), which would choose to hit and why". If you don't do this, people on the other side of the argument will be most likely be looking at the situation from an unreconsiliable point of view, in which case you'd just be waisting your time.

That is unless the deeper meaning of this question comes down which moral theory is "better", and thats not a debate meant for informal philosophers. It requires years of in depth study, per moral theory, to establish a foundation of knowledge sufficient enough to do something more than talk out of your arse, frankly. Wikipedia summaries are not nearly good enough lol. Keep in mind i'm not referring to you or anyone specifically in this thread, its just that I have found most people who participate in internet debates usually have little-to-no substantial and/or formal education about the subject...and it doesnt matter how smart you are, that initself causes critical problems in the whole debate thing.

I was a philosophy minor, and I was never too impressed with any of the structured philosophies of morals/ethics. Kant and Socrates especially had me rolling my eyes. Trying to turn morality into an objective science just creates a big clusterfuck. Like I said, I have morals because my biology directs me to having them, but I don't think there is a solid way to objectively say that anything is immoral. We are just mold growing on a spec of dirt in infinite space, so nothing really matters. Things seem to matter to our perceptions, but things don't objectively matter. So I was really just asking an opinion question and seeing what kind of responses I would get.

I would hit the cat because I am human.

But objectively, if I was a being that transcended our universe/dimensions/understanding, I really wouldn't give a crap either way.

Cats are only inferior in Our terms. But at the end of the day, all animals are just some atoms floating around, with no value expect intrinsic value.

-

edit:

Now I read it, kind of what UV said above me. : )

Originally Posted by Howie

Have you watched the news lately?
You may end up doing more time harming a cat than a person.

Really? When I was studying for my driving test (written), it was made fairly clear that you have to hit the small animal in these cases, and depending on circumstances, swerving to hit the human can mean breaking the law.

Really? When I was studying for my driving test (written), it was made fairly clear that you have to hit the small animal in these cases, and depending on circumstances, swerving to hit the human can mean breaking the law.

I didn't know that they covered that in driving lessons

It was in the book, as a side-note. It wasn't like a driving commandment or anything.

Originally Posted by Replicon

It was in the book, as a side-note. It wasn't like a driving commandment or anything.

Yaaa, I know when I drive on the side walks I always aim for the children. They are a lot easier to run over and less damage. :p

I just find that you will see a 50 second story on a murder and a 15 minute eye witness news story about abused animals. That is because the public soaks it up.

I would probably freak out at what was about to happen, screech on the breaks to try to stop the car, skid sideways and end up killing them both. I guess depending on the reaction time. I tend to freeze and brake.

Sorry
Vee

Originally Posted by Howie

Yaaa, I know when I drive on the side walks I always aim for the children. They are a lot easier to run over and less damage. :p

I just find that you will see a 50 second story on a murder and a 15 minute eye witness news story about abused animals. That is because the public soaks it up.

Yup, and if there's a story about Paris Hilton abusing animals, they'll have a 2 hour live special on it.

I would run over the cat with no questions asked. I dont go to jail for hitting a cat.

I would hit the human, then turn around so I can hit the cat.

Spoiler for LOL:

Well, depends on what breed the cat is and who is the person I am running over. Does the person own the cat also is the person strong, is the cat fat. Can the cat drive a car? I guess you would have to go on gut reaction, which would proberly steer me towards a person I hate.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Yup, and if there's a story about Paris Hilton abusing animals, they'll have a 2 hour live special on it.

and a 3 hour if it's about animals abusing Paris Hilton!

Originally Posted by dodobird

and a 3 hour if it's about animals abusing Paris Hilton!

... and a multi-million dollar video if it is an animal banging Paris Hilton.

Because cats have less understanding of life and death, and of pretty much everything else for that matter, I'd definately hit the cat. A human appreciates his/her life far more than any animal and has more awareness and understanding. Therefore I think that it's only right to hit the cat. The cat wants to stay alive because of it's instinct for survival. A human will have his/her own personal reasons for staying alive. A human doesn't take his/her life for granted. Maybe family, friends and even all those things in the "the little things you enjoy" thread. They're the things humans live for. A cat however wants to be alive because that's how they're made. It's programmed into their brains to try to stay alive.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

... and a multi-million dollar video if it is an animal banging Paris Hilton.

there'd be a free version on youtube, but the price you pay is being exposed to the youtube comments. Doesn't matter if you don't read them, just showing up at the bottom of your screen is enough to take away some of your IQ and plenty of HP.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Cats can't drive a car.

Thanks Wendy I'm sure he didn't know that.

I would proably freak out and hit the breaks, skid to the side, and end up killing all 3 of us...

Why would i swerve? I would slam the damn brakes. lol. Therefore NOT killing either of them.