If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
That's not really correct is it. Foxes are not dogs but they both belong to the same familly. They're both Canids.
Not that it matters.
You're not crazy; but you're not exactly rational either.
If you can't give an adequate reason why we should think a child's life is more valuable that that of a human, then you're not being rational to think that - rationality is about responding correctly to reasons, and being able to give reasons for your decisions and judgments.
Without giving anything approaching a good reason for this, it just an emotional, gut reaction that can't stand up to scrutiny, and therefore gives us no reason to act on your position or incorporate it into our considered judgments about morality.
Sure, lots of people have an emotional, gut reaction that killing a child is worse than killing an adult. It doesn't mean they are right though, unless they can offer sound reasons why this is so. And appealing to vague, wishy-washy metaphysical bullshit like 'innocence' won't really cut it, either.
It may not be rational but it doesn't make me wrong either.
You beleive a childs life is of equal worth to that of a phytoplankton, but you'll never act on that beleif bacasue you have emotions that would lead you to put the child above all other life. That's because humankind (and all other life) isn't rational. We have emotions, but you obviously don't consider them relevant when putting a value on life.
I do.
Saving a child over an adult is simply a logical choice, in an extreme position.
Unless you have time to conduct an interview - which the concept of having to make such a choice suggests you do not - then saving the child makes more sense, as they will live longer, and can therefore be more productive for longer than the adult.
Most people though - I suspect - would not make such a choice based on logic or rationality, as they would simply react emotionally and save the child. You do not have to rationalise the decision to make it right.
It wasn't a wolf. I'll try and find the pictures, and for all I know you are a goldfish
X
I know I am a cunt, so that is true. Even if you don't think it.
X
It's one thing to act emotionally and to make emotional judgments, that might be fine. But you also need to justify it with good reasons. If you can't justify your emotional reaction with good reasons, then you run the risk of being accused of irrationality and acting impulsively and unreasonably. It's fine to make emotional judgments and responses. But then you need to support them with good reasons.
Acting morally is about being able to justify our actions to others. To be a moral agent is to be committed to offering other people reasons they could accept for our conduct. If you can't, you're just acting on a whim.
I'm going to qualify the theoretical situation futher, though I suspect it'll be futile. If the pond was only up to your neck for both the child and the cat, and you weren't in any danger yourself, would you choose to save either of them?
I wasn't talking about morality though, that wasn't what you were asking about.
What else do you mean by right and wrong, if not morality?
You said: "You do not have to rationalise the decision to make it right".
What do you mean by right, if not morally right?
And if you mean morally right, how can you argue that, except with reference to good reasons?
Hmmm, I'd probaly get someone else in the park to do it. And I'd save which ever one they didn't, I have prefrence between the drowning person/cat as I don't know them and also- I'm not that tall and I reckon the child could get out if it was up to my neck.
But otherwise, I'd ring the police and rspca.
X
Just to clear up a little misconception i think you have. Foxes are not cuddly, sweet little animals. They probably are similar to wild dogs yes in the fact they are natural born killers and one of the countryside's best predators (barring ourselves of course). They maim and mutilate for vicious thrills. Hence the reason why farmers loathe them. I've seen a fox get into a shed full of 300 chickens (yes badly fenced i know) and have a field day. It wasn't nice and it certainly wasn't cuddly. (this isnt said in the defence of hunting by the way, just as a statement of fact for you).
And whoever said hounds aren't cared for that's a bit of a sweeping statement. The majority of hounds are looked after by good huntsmen who know their job and live for those hounds.
X
I'm not going to qualify the theoretical situation any further. I think I've heard everything I need to: I find your outlook disturbing. It appears that you can't draw distinction between the life of a cat and that of a human. It also worries me that you seem to believe in some way it would be possible to ascertain the vices and virtues of a cat. I thought at first you were elevating animals to the level of humans, but it seems that actually you have an utter disregard for all life.
Including my own. Tbh, I I'm sure if I cared I'd probaly save them both and let the world have a happy ending. But it doesn't work that way. Why should one die and not the other? They both got themselves in that stupid situation, I'm not getting them out. It is mean, selfish, and wrong. But I wouldn't save one and not the other- I couldn't live with that.
X
You will never change the nature of the beast. There will always be predators in this world no matter how much change you make. The law of the wild. There are hunters and there are prey, we've evolved so much so that we will always be at the top of the food chain. You can't quite put world peace in the same bracket as shooting animals i'm afraid. We won't ever "evolve" to the extent you wish. But then i'm a cynical old cow i'm afraid
What the fuck do you think foxes are going to evolve into ...hippys?
Guys in suits with nukes?
You think we evolved ...beyond our environment ...we no longer need soil?
Everyone is different. I love animals too, i have cats, horses and dogs. But i also admit to being a human predator in the fact that I see pest control, meat eating etc. as an everyday thing. I'm quite similar to skive in my views really as i agree with a lot of what he's said on here.
The only person I can change is myself- and what I do. And if that shows someone else a new way of life, so be it. I'm not out to convert the world. No one will change me, therefore I expect to change no one
X
Not terribly au fait with the principles of evolution are we?
Foxes are not unevolved. They are as evolved as us. Evolution is not a journey from many paths to one single goal of consciousness, morality and being able to watch the X Factor. The housefly is as evolved as we are. It is as evolved as it needs to be to survive in its habitat. Just as foxes, sheep, cows and every other creature on the planet.
Foxes will not evolve to wear tweed suits, read the FT and live in semis in suburbia. Nor will houseflies eventually evolve legs and walk upright. They are both as evolved as they need to be in their current habitat.
I don't understand any of this.
We are not using smart bombs, high-powered sniper rifles and anti-personnel mines to kill foxes. What planet are you on?
The "weapons" used in fox hunting are dogs and horses. According to Wikipedia, horses are believed to have been first domesticated in the Eurasian steppes around 3500-4000 BC. Dogs were first domesticated for certain in around 7000 BC, with evidence to suggest it happened even earlier.
Not exactly cutting edge weaponry is it?
You've never changed your opinion on a matter? I suspect plenty of people have changed you. We don't live in a vacuum. People are changing our opinions all the time - sometimes consciously, sometimes not.
Your attempted non-interventionist stance isn't feasible or moral.
Funnily enough I was also reading about some cats poisoned today - it took several days of excruciating agony for them to die. It's not that they're poisoned and gently sleep into the long good night, but that they're insides putrefy from bits of sharp metal that was blasted into them and they gasp up bits of entrails before they die in agony.
If there were compelling evidence that hunting with dogs was an effective way not just of killing foxes, but of significantly controlling the fox population;
And I was presented with a compelling case that such a cull of the fox population is absolutely necessary (I'm not saying it's not - I'm just not sure about it);
Then I absolutely would change my mind.
I repeatedly asked for evidence of the first claim in this thread; no one presented any.
I would be interested to hear the case for the second condition too.
NO! Would you accept your vet "putting your dog down" by allowing him/her to set a group of other dogs on it?