Koldo
Outstanding Member
No gotcha involved. I was talking about killing to survive when necessary. It is pretty apparent you were not, even when replying to me, so we were talking past each other. That's it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dog's Life vs Human's Life
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
No gotcha involved. I was talking about killing to survive when necessary. It is pretty apparent you were not, even when replying to me, so we were talking past each other. That's it.
Cute, but you're the one deliberately structuring the discussion in such a way as to force its unproductivity.
Maybe if you'd state your point from the outset rather than playing silly games (for reasons only you can explain), then you wouldn't have to get mad and say "Curse that Stevicus! Foiled again!"
You just don't like the fact that I can see through your BS every time. You think you're fooling everyone, but you can't fool me! Ha!
You are transparent. I see many things. I see plans within plans.
And accurate.
Try being less distracting & less bickering, but more interesting.
Your ilk killed the thread several pages ago.
You're not fooling anyone but yourself. It seems that you just look for excuses to get angry and start bickering, while I'm bending over backwards to be nice.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
It's telling, isn't it?
Oh, you're still at this?
Just as you are.
I heard a small noise from this thread.
Hmmm...nothing now.
Hmmm...nothing now.
We shouldn't value another anymore than any other life.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Humans are destructive, filled with hatred and spite and keep breaking the world. Dogs tend to be more peaceful, more loving and better than we are.
But try to get one to serve you shawarma.
Humans are best at that.
Friend of Mara
Active Member
It depends on a few different factors. For example are two human lives equal? Yes. But we would kill someone who threatened to kill a hostage in order to save the hostage. Because taking out an attacking force to save an innocent life is treated as better than letting the crime happen. But in general humans have rights. Animals have some level of rights but they are not on the same level as humans. Some vegans would probably argue they are equal but in practice they are absolutely not. I would 100% take someone out for *my* dog. But then that involves personal attachment value rather than some abstract value.
I agree they probably shouldn't have taken lethal action if possible. But I disagree that they should simply have let him stab the dog if they were capable of stopping him. A little ironic though given the number of dogs gun down by police I'd say. But hey it keeps the world interesting.
We Never Know
No Slack
It started with a kidnapping and burglary call
The woman escaped, the guy ran
He was going to knife a police dog that was sent in during a standoff.
Less-than-lethal means (eg, tazing) strike me as reasonable.
But to cops, their dogs have a greater right to life than civilian humans.
It's a complex pecking order.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
It is a case of moral relativism, but you do know that, don't you? And that can't be solved with objective reasoning.
I still think that one has to question one's overall morality when a human is assessed as having lower value than any other living creature - no matter what that human might be. Otherwise - slippery slope beckons.
Duh.
All morals are.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I still think that one has to question one's overall morality when a human is assessed as having lower value than any other living creature - no matter what that human might be. Otherwise - slippery slope beckons.
Yeah, but they are everywhere. Only treat humans based on a cost benefit analysis. Already happening, in disaster medicine that is call triage. In the welfare it happens with considering the cost of helping a human.
So for a limited specific situation you could consider the worth of a service dog of some kind and consider it worth killing a human over that. It is an utility assessment.
Now do I agree? Irrelevant other than how I vote and if I choose to act otherwise. It is a part of how humans consider the worth of humans versus a given use/loss of recourses.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I miss some detail here. Was he warned? Was it his own dog? Could he have been stopped without killing him?
I am a moral speciist, I don't think that non-human animals deserve the same right to life that every human should have (and doesn't in the US). But sometimes it is OK to use force (if nothing else works, deadly force) to prevent a crime.