Split from "Are Stereotypes Justified?". Hmm i recall you saying that you would prefer to save from death few animals than few spoiled teenage girls.
And? You have to make a choice... People just usually make the socially accepted one. It doesn't necessarily reflect their personal conviction, because.. well.. they are selfish and afraid of the consequences. Take from that what you want.
No. 1.Visceral sounds politically correct in this post but the old one i mentioned she was more "picky",am just showing her how biased she is,she contradicts herself. 2.Wrong emnos,that is called MURDER,and its not about a "choice" like the brand of soda you wanna drink. For example,if your daughter was spoiled teen and there was situation that visceral had the two options (save her or the animal) and she chose the wild animal she likes,what would you do and say? i know what you wouldn't say: "And? You have to make a choice... People just usually make the socially accepted one. It doesn't necessarily reflect their personal conviction, because.. well.. they are selfish and afraid of the consequences."
And why is that? If you pick the child, you're somehow not murdering the animal? What if you have a bond with the animal and not with the human?
nice title -,- Anyway,personaly i dont see any objective value in different life forms,i was taking a more moral character just to point out my...point. But since its on topic now,do you personally think that it would be right to save those animals or the teen hotties? And give an answer to your's. Murder = human killing human.
Well, the question here is: Who decides what is right? The answer is simple of course; it's humans. We think that we are more important than any other species just because we say so. Morality is biased. People make 'the right choice' because it's the only way to go if they want social acceptance. Not necessarily, but I see your point. You're talking about the legal definition of the word. But does it really matter what it's called? The act is the same.
Biologicaly everyone is suppose to prioritize their species. As i said there is not objective value in lifeforms(including humans),only our point of view and our species,althought there is never a right or wrong but you ultimately must decide one of those in certain situations,so you go whats more "right" maybe its 80% right and 20% wrong ,or 51 right and 49 wrong.The right resides in that difference.
Says who? Then, I think, the only right decision is to do what you personally think is the right thing to do, regardless of what others think your decision should be and regardless of running the chance of becoming a social outcast. Of course no one does that in situations like the one described, the price is just too high. Again, according to whom? That's what bothers me.
There is no such thing as the 'right choice', nor is there such thing as right or wrong. It all changes based on perspective. For example. A soldier writes home saying they are having trouble with booby traps and tripwires when they open doors. Somebody thinks of an ingenious solution to open the door a crack and spray silly string which would be suspended and almost weightless by the wire (actually that part is a true story). So the soldiers like the idea and use it widely and fewer soldiers die because you and your friends made the 'right'/'good' decision to send more silly string. But what do you think the 'terrorists' (which we can apply the same argument to the word 'terrorist' but I won't for now) think? they think it is a terrible idea and is the bad thing to do. So you see, its all a matter of perspective.
Says biology. That is how we evolved. Organisms that favoured other species were less succesful at procreation, so any tendency in that direction was selected against. It is not a question of right or wrong, that's how we are wired.
Is it really how we evolved? Humans in general don't really seem to care all that much about people they don't know or have no connections with. If the preservation of all humans is instinctual, it can't be all that strong of an instinct. Socially acceptable or not from what I've noticed people care about themselves most (ie self preservation is a much stronger instinctual drive), which of course extends to their own personal feelings. "What will make me happiest after this is all said and done?" So people prioritize. Their individual self is most important, then whoever is closest to them and then extend outwards from there. So depending on one's perspective another species of animal can fall into a category that puts their life above another human's.
Yes. Absolutely. In most instances people are driven to preserve their own genes. Organisms that are efficient at protecting their own genes tend to generate species that are efficient at protectin their own genes. We were not 'meant' to be six billion strong, mxing everyday with complete strangers. We evolved as a tribal animal. Our goal was to protect members of our tribe. But, as noted, in so doing we indirectly protected the species. (Sure we may have bumped of a few neighbours, but that was just survival of the fittest in action. the result was more hunting land for our tribe, which could thereby expand its numbers.) Except when the going gets tough. Watch a parent protecting their child. The child takes precedence in most instances. Why? The parents that are not inclined to place their child first lose their child and their genes exit the gene pool. Simples.
