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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So... (again) Do you see mosquitoes as inferior to humans? If not, why not? If so, then how about cats?

If the choice is solely between inferior and superior, then yes to both questions. If saying "I don't see how very different animals can be either inferior or superior" counts as an answer, then no. I would actually be far more willing to say that I saw a disabled person as inferior to an able bodied person (assuming as in your scenario I can know nothing else about them), where there is some actual basis for comparison.

Can you answer my question please? Maybe I was being too rhetorical before, so here's a more concrete query: How would you feel if I described you, or one of your friends, as inferior? Would you be able to accept that, agree with my argument, and admit that you or a friend were indeed inferior? Or would you feel I was being deliberately offensive and refuse to accept that my description was valid, however valid and logical my argument was?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

First, I pointed out your misconception that I allowed only one right answer. I simply asked a question and provided TWO possible answers.

A question can have two possible answers, but only one right one. But you've dropped the speech marks I put around "right" to indicate I wasn't take the word completely seriously. Which was shorthand for: strictly speaking this is a question of judgement with no right answer, however no sane human in the modern cultures* I know of would choose to kill the human. Anyone who seriously posted that they preferred killing the human would face intense opposition from everyone else, so it would be "the wrong answer" to give.
[*] think ancient Egyptian cat-worship; in that culture either answer might be justifiable.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then I asked you how I set up only one right answer, and you didn't answer it until many posts later when you said that the majority would hit the cat. How in the Hell does that answer my question?

I assume "until many posts later" would be my post #27. You're right to say I replied rather late, but I don't spend *all* my time on DV and its not as if I made other posts which ignored the question and only answered later on.

I can't see where you asked for an explanation of why there was only one "right" answer (or I misread it as asking for something different). I don't think I answered that question in #27 either, and certainly not with reference to "the majority". Can you point these out to me?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I also explained to you that I think morality is subjective, not "objective" as you mischaracterized me as suggesting, and I told you that cats are inferior on my value scale.

Sorry, I didn't write that very well at all. Take that simply as an agreement with the original argument. I'm struggling to put this any better so I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In the scenario I described, everything comes down to whether a person values a cat more than a human or not (At least that was the idea.). In other words, it answers where cats stand on people's value scales. The point of this thread was to show that seeing cats as inferior is understandable.

OK, it's understandable. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it though :-). The reason I and others dislike your argument is that we think you're saying we *must* agree with you, unless we would choose to kill the hypothetical human to save kitty (which we don't like either).

Some people will accept the lesser of two evils, others will question the dilemma. Terrorist attacks or police state? With us or against us? (George Bush). Better to believe in God and be wrong than to suffer eternal torment as punishment for disbelief? (Pascals wager). Understanding these arguments doesn't compel my agreement; it leaves me better equipped to resist them.

Cats can't drive a car.

LOL I meant IF the cat was driving. Hypothetically speaking.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

If the choice is solely between inferior and superior, then yes to both questions. If saying "I don't see how very different animals can be either inferior or superior" counts as an answer, then no. I would actually be far more willing to say that I saw a disabled person as inferior to an able bodied person (assuming as in your scenario I can know nothing else about them), where there is some actual basis for comparison.

Then, "No," is your answer to the questions about cat and mosquito inferiority. I see mosquitos and cats as inferior to humans, but I see all innocent humans as equal. But remember... I am talking about a life value scale, not comparisons of human ability. I don't value a great athlete more than a guy in a wheelchair in terms of their humanity, but the great athlete would be a superior athlete. They still deserve the same rights. Cats don't, in my opinion. I would kill a cat to save either one of them.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

Can you answer my question please? Maybe I was being too rhetorical before, so here's a more concrete query: How would you feel if I described you, or one of your friends, as inferior? Would you be able to accept that, agree with my argument, and admit that you or a friend were indeed inferior? Or would you feel I was being deliberately offensive and refuse to accept that my description was valid, however valid and logical my argument was?

I would accept that they are inferior in specific areas, like the ability to manage a company or the ability to hit a baseball, but I wouldn't accept that any basically good person is superior in general to another one.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

A question can have two possible answers, but only one right one. But you've dropped the speech marks I put around "right" to indicate I wasn't take the word completely seriously. Which was shorthand for: strictly speaking this is a question of judgement with no right answer, however no sane human in the modern cultures* I know of would choose to kill the human. Anyone who seriously posted that they preferred killing the human would face intense opposition from everyone else, so it would be "the wrong answer" to give.[*] think ancient Egyptian cat-worship; in that culture either answer might be justifiable.

I don't think there is an objectively right answer to my car swerve question, but there is what I strongly believe in. Some people would say that the human should be hit instead of the cat. I would have a disagreement with it, but I wouldn't say that such a person would be objectively wrong. I don't think the universe has morality laws in the way that it has scientific and mathematical laws. We make our own rules of morality based on our perceptions and consciences. I have strong moral convictions, but I don't see morality as a purely objective subject.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

I assume "until many posts later" would be my post #27. You're right to say I replied rather late, but I don't spend *all* my time on DV and its not as if I made other posts which ignored the question and only answered later on.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

I was trying to point out that UM's dilemma - kill the human OR admit cats are inferior - wasn't solid because the word "inferior" is not necessarily appropriate. I'm glad to see someone else come up with the more concrete justification that "inferior" implies an absolute objective value, but the choice to kill the cat may be based on subjective value (survival of *my* species).

Look at #7 and you'll see UM quotes me trying to explain why I might find the word "inferior" extremely distasteful. Then he says that I should accept the statement that a cat's life is generally inferior to a human's, using the word "inferior" several times as he reiterates his argument.

So you apparently accused me of objectifying inferiority in the context of my question and my analyses of it. Again, I am just asking for opinions and illustrating the understandability of seeing cats as inferior to humans. My point there illustrates the subjective nature of the issue.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

OK, it's understandable. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it though :-). The reason I and others dislike your argument is that we think you're saying we *must* agree with you, unless we would choose to kill the hypothetical human to save kitty (which we don't like either).

Thank you. And no, you don't have to agree with it.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

Some people will accept the lesser of two evils, others will question the dilemma. Terrorist attacks or police state? With us or against us? (George Bush). Better to believe in God and be wrong than to suffer eternal torment as punishment for disbelief? (Pascals wager). Understanding these arguments doesn't compel my agreement; it leaves me better equipped to resist them.

Those are all good issues. And none of them have objectively correct answers. They all have majority answers, but I'm not somebody who puts much stock in what the majority believes.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

Pointless to even continue discussing anyway.

You keep saying that. Why are you still here? Bye.