Would you run over a human to dodge a cat?

[Universal Mind]

Dodobird said in another forum that the stupidest thing he has EVER heard a person say is that cats are inferior to humans, and he said somebody here said it. Someone on the forum said that cats are inferior to humans. I think he might have been talking about me. I didn't want to argue about it in that forum, so I decided to get into it here. So I have a question for Dodobird and anybody else who wants to chime in. If you are driving on a two lane bridge, a person (a total stranger you've never seen or heard of) is walking in the other lane, and a cat you've never seen or heard of jumps into your lane and right in front of you, what do you do? Let's say that you are going too fast to put on the brakes and save both of them. Let's also say that the road is so narrow that it is impossible to swerve and avoid both of them. You have to hit either the person or the cat. Which one would you hit? Why? I'm going to run over the cat because people mean a lot more to me than cats and I think people most likely have more appreciation for life than cats. Also, the grieving people would go through over the person's death would most likely be much more widespread and extreme than what would happen in response to the cat's death. Please don't argue with my reason until you have answered the question. Thanks.

[Lunalight]

Cat, because There is a slight chance that it could pass right under my car, and I would probably go to prison for hitting the person.

[Universal Mind]

Cat, because There is a slight chance that it could pass right under my car, and I would probably go to prison for hitting the person. I'm talking about a situation where you have to hit one of them. I tried to avoid possibilities where they might both be avoided, so I should have said something about a low grill. I will just stress again that in this hypothetical situation, you have to hit one of them. Let's also say that there is no prison factor. I am trying to get people to address only one thing-- which organism they value more.

[sourcejedi]

You've set up a scenario such that the "right" answer is "kill the cat", fine. It's possible to accept the right answer *and think that calling a cat "inferior" is the stupidest thing you've ever heard*. Because you can be extremely suspicious of using the word "inferior" to compare the values of lives. "inferior" is a fine word for disparaging poor quality goods. "inferior" car, "inferior" operating system, "inferior" apples. But if I say that your ability to debate is inferior to dodobird's? Or your life? Even if I have good reason? There may be context here that outweighs the connotations of the word "inferior", but you haven't provided it here (I'm too lazy to wrestle with BB search this time of nite).

[sloth]

This is a TERRIBLE situation.

[sourcejedi]

This is a TERRIBLE situation. That's life. Moral choices help us navigate them. 's why they're interesting.

[Universal Mind]

You've set up a scenario such that the "right" answer is "kill the cat", fine. It's possible to accept the right answer *and think that calling a cat "inferior" is the stupidest thing you've ever heard*. Because you can be extremely suspicious of using the word "inferior" to compare the values of lives. "inferior" is a fine word for disparaging poor quality goods. "inferior" car, "inferior" operating system, "inferior" apples. But if I say that your ability to debate is inferior to dodobird's? Or your life? Even if I have good reason? There may be context here that outweighs the connotations of the word "inferior", but you haven't provided it here (I'm too lazy to wrestle with BB search this time of nite). Oh, so you say that killing the cat is the right answer? Why? Is it because you value a person's life over a cat's life? If so, then you see the value of a cat's life as inferior to a human's life. For you personally, I will ask you this... Do you see mosquitoes as inferior to humans? To my personal value system, they are. I think morality is not an objective science. But there are objective facts regarding what people's values are. The scenario I illustrated shows the understandability of having a value system that regards cats as inferior to humans in terms of their general value. In my value system, people generally have more value than cats, and that is understandable.

[Adrenaline Junkie]

I don't think i would run over a human, its a bit of a silly question anyways, i mean why even talk about something so cruel? I know its not as dramatic as the example i'm about to give but its similar. Its like being asked "Who would you like to die first, your mum or dad?" Just don't ask silly questions like this.

[Universal Mind]

In terms of silly things not to do, I think it's topped by quoting someone then completely ignoring what they said. Like quoting someone who expresses extreme suspicion of the particular word inferior applied to the value of life, then demanding that they agree with the statement that a cats life is inferior to a humans. Apparently you ignored what I wrote in response, or else you just couldn't understand it. You said this... You've set up a scenario such that the "right" answer is "kill the cat", fine. It's possible to accept the right answer *and think that calling a cat "inferior" is the stupidest thing you've ever heard*. Because you can be extremely suspicious of using the word "inferior" to compare the values of lives. "inferior" is a fine word for disparaging poor quality goods. "inferior" car, "inferior" operating system, "inferior" apples. But if I say that your ability to debate is inferior to dodobird's? Or your life? Even if I have good reason? There may be context here that outweighs the connotations of the word "inferior", but you haven't provided it here (I'm too lazy to wrestle with BB search this time of nite). And I gave a very on-point response by saying this... Oh, so you say that killing the cat is the right answer? Why? Is it because you value a person's life over a cat's life? If so, then you see the value of a cat's life as inferior to a human's life. For you personally, I will ask you this... Do you see mosquitoes as inferior to humans? To my personal value system, they are. I think morality is not an objective science. But there are objective facts regarding what people's values are. The scenario I illustrated shows the understandability of having a value system that regards cats as inferior to humans in terms of their general value. In my value system, people generally have more value than cats, and that is understandable. First, I pointed out your misconception that I allowed only one right answer. I simply asked a question and provided TWO possible answers. 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 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. 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. Did you just not see my response or something? So... (again) Do you see mosquitoes as inferior to humans? If not, why not? If so, then how about cats? Hey Universal, no I don't think it was you. It was in that thread about the cat who was given LSD. I got into an argument there which brought out some negative emotions from me and from the people I argued with, so I will not go into another argument about it - it's not good for me. But I will answer your question: I will run over the cat, but not because I think the cat is inferior, but because: A) Like you said, the life of so many people will be ruined if I run over the human. More than the cat, who probably only have a few relatives and friends, that will forget about her pretty quickly. Cats have shorter memory so they forget, and also they are smarter so they don't get so attached to others as humans do. Thanks for answering. I should have removed the grieving variable also. I was trying to get this to all come down completely to a person's value scale. I definitely value humans (innocent at least) worlds over cats. You see some understandability in that, I hope. I thought you were probably talking about me in that other thread because in the cat LSD thread I did make the point that cats are inferior to humans (which is a subjective matter, as I have explained). Humans mean a lot more to me than cats could ever hope to.

[dodobird]

Hey Universal, no I don't think it was you. It was in that thread about the cat who was given LSD. I got into an argument there which brought out some negative emotions from me and from the people I argued with, so I will not go into another argument about it - it's not good for me. But I will answer your question: I will run over the cat, but not because I think the cat is inferior, but because: A) Like you said, the life of so many people will be ruined if I run over the human. More than the cat, who probably only have a few relatives and friends, that will forget about her pretty quickly. Cats have shorter memory so they forget, and also they are smarter so they don't get so attached to others as humans do. EDIT: The next 2 points aren't relevant according to Universal's second post in this thread, so you can disregard them B) I will get into loads trouble if I run over the human: fines, lawsuits etc. C) Cats are small and fast, so there's a bigger chance that I would miraculously miss the cat.

[wendylove]

I agree! All the odds are against the cat. Of course no one would hit the human (unless they were psycho) because it's their "own kind." I'm sure if a cat was driving, he would swerve and hit the human. It has nothing to do with inferiorority (pardon my spelling). Cats can't drive a car.

[Cyclic13]

I think I was the one who said they were inferior, if not, I was at least thinking it... because let's face it... in practical terms, they are. I mean, c'mon now. It only takes a minute to make a quick mental list of all the things a cat can do that a human can't and vice versa and see who wins, and there you go. Case closed...ya treehugging hippies.

[sourcejedi]

I think I was the one who said they were inferior, if not, I was at least thinking it... because let's face it... in practical terms, they are. I mean, c'mon now. It only takes a minute to make a quick mental list of all the things a cat can do that a human can't and vice versa and see who wins, and there you go. Case closed...ya treehugging hippies. Touch their nose to their bottom? Balance atop fences? Sleep their way through adult life and rely on someone else to feed them? And of course there's their terminal velocity, which isn't. Terminal, that is. They're about borderline; they don't land very well because their back legs spay and theres a real danger of breaking the chin. But a cat can fall from an arbitrary height and survive with only broken bones; skydivers don't have that luxury if the parachute fails. Maybe they wouldn't do so badly.

[dodobird]

I think I was the one who said they were inferior, if not, I was at least thinking it... because let's face it... in practical terms, they are. I mean, c'mon now. It only takes a minute to make a quick mental list of all the things a cat can do that a human can't and vice versa and see who wins, and there you go. Case closed...ya treehugging hippies. Well physically cats are a million times superior to humans, except for the fact that they live a short life, which is a bit of a minus for them, but probably makes sense in terms of survival of the specie. mentally humans win, they can do a lot of things cat can't or won't do: Watch awful TV shows Make awful TV shows Kill other of their own kind in industrialized proportions Believe in stupid religions ingest poisonous food knowingly ingest poisonous drugs wear closes wear jewelry makeup plastic surgery pollute the earth until it starts to rot exterminate whole species And yes, humans do a lot of useful and wonderful things too, but if you take all that into consideration, well I don't which one is the idiot specie... BTW, I don't hug trees, because they are all sticky from that what you call it thing that spills out of them :p

[bro]

Ok, I respect your opinion Dodo, of course, however I'm going to voice it as I see it. You can put it any way you like, Ok, if you don't own your cats legally (I hope you do) then you are responsible for them. Yeah, you can say you take care of them and they you, but to what extent? They can't think about your well being like you can them. Yeah, they will use their few instincts to take care of one in the "clan" and nestle next to you, but this is not concious thought. You THINK about taking care of your cats. No matter how you want to put it, you know you are on a much higher level of intelligence than the animals you keep in your house "taking care of you" Concious thought is what makes us human. Sure, you can say "But that doesn't make us superior, or cats inferior" but, in our society, unfortunately it does, again, however politely you'd like to put it. You have intellect and intelligence, the cat has instincts, and yes, basic emotions, not the FULL SPECTRUM OF EMOTIONS as you stated. What you say is caring and kind about a cat, and interpret it that way is instinct, welcoming another cat into the mix in your home. You say "A few more neurons", that is a gross oversimplification. We have "a few more neurons" than a chimpansee, or some primates, can you see the difference between them and a cat? I know people love their cats, as I love my dog, however, her level of "thought" is on a very basic level, their own behavior shows this, by their repetition , and science has proven this. Now if you begin to argue that science couldn't possibly begin to know what a cat "thinks", then why accept any science? do you accept the convenient ones that bring you comfort in your life? As I say, denial. What you put as problem solving is again learned conditioning, your cats learned that they could open the door, just as my dog learned to sit, so now they push on it, ok, this, again is instinct. Your cats learned to do what gets them what they want. Kind of like (if my memory serves me right) the cats hovering around the tables on Ben Yehuda Street, (and some places here for that matter), they know, that is where they get the good stuff, it is NOT concious thought. This is completely different from concious thought, it is almost a reflex...So I know you don't like the word inferior, but pick any one you like, they are not equal, you and I know it ourselves. Even your response that you would run the cat down but conveniently not because it is inferior shows right there, that it is! You know there would be more emotional pain for the humans you said, (or something along those lines). What, a cat will remember a death all of a week? Right there you showed it yourself! No concious thought, for hardly any emotional pain like there would be with humans. You say they were smarter not to get attached. Look how you define emotions when they are clearly reflexes. A cat is an animal that once (and some still do) lived in the wild. Their nature is to move on, because if they hover over the dead one they will be dead too. This is not SMARTER than humans, in fact it is less smart as they don't have the capacity to long for their loved ones, they move on, as you said yourself. So, now that that's cleared up, I hope I didn't come off to harsh here, and no hard feelings Dodo, it's just my opinion, explaining, why, with no other option, without even a second thought I would turn that unfortunate cat into a pancake. see who wins, and there you go. Case closed...ya treehugging hippies. I agree with this objective man.

[dodobird]

Ok, I respect your opinion Dodo, of course, however I'm going to voice it as I see it. You can put it any way you like, Ok, if you don't own your cats legally (I hope you do) then you are responsible for them. Yeah, you can say you take care of them and they you, but to what extent? They can't think about your well being like you can them. Yeah, they will use their few instincts to take care of one in the "clan" and nestle next to you, but this is not concious thought. You THINK about taking care of your cats. No matter how you want to put it, you know you are on a much higher level of intelligence than the animals you keep in your house "taking care of you" Concious thought is what makes us human. Sure, you can say "But that doesn't make us superior, or cats inferior" but, in our society, unfortunately it does, again, however politely you'd like to put it. You have intellect and intelligence, the cat has instincts, and yes, basic emotions, not the FULL SPECTRUM OF EMOTIONS as you stated. What you say is caring and kind about a cat, and interpret it that way is instinct, welcoming another cat into the mix in your home. You say "A few more neurons", that is a gross oversimplification. We have "a few more neurons" than a chimpansee, or some primates, can you see the difference between them and a cat? I know people love their cats, as I love my dog, however, her level of "thought" is on a very basic level, their own behavior shows this, by their repetition , and science has proven this. Now if you begin to argue that science couldn't possibly begin to know what a cat "thinks", then why accept any science? do you accept the convenient ones that bring you comfort in your life? As I say, denial. What you put as problem solving is again learned conditioning, your cats learned that they could open the door, just as my dog learned to sit, so now they push on it, ok, this, again is instinct. Your cats learned to do what gets them what they want. Kind of like (if my memory serves me right) the cats hovering around the tables on Ben Yehuda Street, (and some places here for that matter), they know, that is where they get the good stuff, it is NOT concious thought. This is completely different from concious thought, it is almost a reflex...So I know you don't like the word inferior, but pick any one you like, they are not equal, you and I know it ourselves. Even your response that you would run the cat down but conveniently not because it is inferior shows right there, that it is! You know there would be more emotional pain for the humans you said, (or something along those lines). What, a cat will remember a death all of a week? Right there you showed it yourself! No concious thought, for hardly any emotional pain like there would be with humans. You say they were smarter not to get attached. Look how you define emotions when they are clearly reflexes. A cat is an animal that once (and some still do) lived in the wild. Their nature is to move on, because if they hover over the dead one they will be dead too. This is not SMARTER than humans, in fact it is less smart as they don't have the capacity to long for their loved ones, they move on, as you said yourself. So, now that that's cleared up, I hope I didn't come off to harsh here, and no hard feelings Dodo, it's just my opinion, explaining, why, with no other option, without even a second thought I would turn that unfortunate cat into a pancake. I agree with this objective man. bro my bro, your post is too long... I'm am to lazy now to read, and will answare tommorow if I don't forget.

[Infraredkelp]

Kill the human. Wtf is doing in the middle of the road?! Damn J-walker...

[sourcejedi]

Kill the human. Wtf is doing in the middle of the road?! Damn J-walker... Nononono. Don't try to run the human over. Humans are much heavier and larger than cats, so they're more likely to leave a nasty dent in your bonnet and icky mess all over the front of your car. You could even be thrown off course and crash! Far safer to kill the cat.

[Adrenaline Junkie]

No prob sourcejedi, i must have misread your response, i agree with what your saying though, its like saying would you rather your girlfriend live and many children die or your girlfriend die and loads of children live, either way is not fair and he knows what the answer will be from the majority. Pointless to even continue discussing anyway.

[Howie]

It does depend on the human. BUT......... Go in debt to save pet? IMO, our society our culture, maybe our economic wealth has allowed us to take common known pets and some animals and put their sentience equal to us humans. It is just not so. Our environment has changed. Most elders see this change as ludicrous. If a dog gets injured on the farm, you shed a tear and put him down. They do not know the difference! How far above, consciously is a cat or a dog? A bird or a horse, any pet you may have from a "rodent" Because they are not cute I guess. Oddly enough it seems when you grow up seeing animals come and go via the means of hunting, farming and pets you do not consider them an equal yet you can love them just as much as a person who would spend thousands of dollars to perpetually prolong a pets life. So because we have the means does that make it justifiable. OR moreover our duty. As we know many other countries can't afford to follow in the same perspective. I love my dog. I have spent plenty on veterinary bills (Damn you Burns -lol) But at some point I will look at the quality of life for pee Wee, my dog and also my cat. I can assure you it will not be on the same frame of reference to that of a human.

[Replicon]

Nono, what makes the big difference is the cuteness of the animal. So a kitten is more important than a lobster, cause kittens are cute, and lobsters look like space mutants. A dog is more important than a cow, cause dogs have people-like eyebrows they can move and stuff. A cow is just a baseball glove wrapped around a steak. Plus it'll dent your car .

[Universal Mind]

A cow is just a baseball glove wrapped around a steak. I agree with the cuteness point. Pigs and dogs have about equal intelligence and about equal emotional complexity. However, a dog is "man's best friend" while a pig is "bacon". If cats looked and sounded like pigs, we wouldn't be having this conversation or seeing commercials about what food they like the most.

[dodobird]

I agree with the cuteness point. Pigs and dogs have about equal intelligence and about equal emotional complexity. However, a dog is "man's best friend" while a pig is "bacon". If cats looked and sounded like pigs, we wouldn't be having this conversation or seeing commercials about what food they like the most. I heard somewhere that the average pig is actually more intelligent than the average dog or cat... I love pigs. Anyway I think humans think that humans are more important than animals just because this is how they are used to think. For example you can take a severely retarded kid, who is not any smarter than a dog, and most people would value this kid more than a dog. Wake up guys, it's not a matter of intelligence, sentience, consciousness, emotional complexity, cuteness or whatever. It's a matter of what we are used to think and feel, based on our upbringing.

[Super Duck]

Unless it was DeadDollKitty or one of Burns' cats then no, I'd flatten the little bastard and watch his owner scrape him up off the road with a palette knife and a spoon. However, as Ne-yo says, if it was an asshole who I'd have to run over to save the cat then I sure would. In fact, if Leo Volont was standing in the road I'd run him down, reverse over him, drive over his corpse again and reverse over him until the cows came home. *HAS FLASHBACK OF THE MOVIE "JEEPERS-CREEPERS"* *SINGS THE SONG* "Jeepers-Creepers, where d'you get those peepers? Jeepers-Creepers, where d'you get those eyes?"

[dodobird]

Unless it was DeadDollKitty or one of Burns' cats then no, I'd flatten the little bastard and watch his owner scrape him up with a palette knife and a spoon. However, as Ne-yo says, if it was an asshole who I'd have to run over to save the cat then I sure would. In fact, if Leo Volont was standing in the road I'd run him down, reverse over him and drive over his corpse again and reverse until the cows came home. *HAS FLASHBACK OF THE OVIE "JEEPERS-CREEPERS"* *SINGS THE SONG* "Jeepers-Creepers, where d'you get those peepers? Jeepers-reepers, where d'you get those eyes?" lol I watched Death Proof yesterday ( really really good BTW ), and well considering your alias and what you just said I ask my self if there is a coincidence here, or...