Quote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 01:47:34 PM

I'm not really advocating it, there just isn't much wrong with it.

Yes there is.

nuh uh

Turkey already beat the argument to death, but in this specific instance, I view it as very obvious that the proper course of action, given the type of dog, and the circumstances, would have been to give the puppies to a shelter. Always take the moral high road, what this owner tried to do was lazy and unethical.

The "moral high road" would have been to dedicate his life to making sure these pups had the best lives they're going to have and raising them himself without concern for cost or time. Who knows who the fuck is going to get the dog if it goes to the shelter, maybe the dog will find no owner, maybe the dog will wind up in an abusive family?

But wait, that's unreasonable to expect of someone, not everyone is or should be obligated to do everything in their power to do the absolute most ethical thing possible.

Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 12:40:09 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 12:08:20 PM

Turkey already beat the argument to death, but in this specific instance, I view it as very obvious that the proper course of action, given the type of dog, and the circumstances, would have been to give the puppies to a shelter. Always take the moral high road, what this owner tried to do was lazy and unethical.

The "moral high road" would have been to dedicate his life to making sure these pups had the best lives they're going to have and raising them himself without concern for cost or time. Who knows who the fuck is going to get the dog if it goes to the shelter, maybe the dog will find no owner, maybe the dog will wind up in an abusive family?

But wait, that's unreasonable to expect of someone, not everyone is or should be obligated to do everything in their power to do the absolute most ethical thing possible.

The alternative you just poised is also very unlikely. I could very easily say "Yes, but x could happen" in reference to any situation in which morals are coming into question, but that's grossly overthinking the issue. And it really didn't disprove that the choice he made wasn't the correct one. No sane person would think, "Hm, if I give these animals to a shelter, they might get abused. Better shoot them to spare the pain!"

How can you assert that there is a definitive "correct" choice of action in this situation when you acknowledge it rests on taking a chance? At what point do you have the authority to say what is an acceptable probability?

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 12:48:21 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 12:40:09 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 12:08:20 PM

Turkey already beat the argument to death, but in this specific instance, I view it as very obvious that the proper course of action, given the type of dog, and the circumstances, would have been to give the puppies to a shelter. Always take the moral high road, what this owner tried to do was lazy and unethical.

The "moral high road" would have been to dedicate his life to making sure these pups had the best lives they're going to have and raising them himself without concern for cost or time. Who knows who the fuck is going to get the dog if it goes to the shelter, maybe the dog will find no owner, maybe the dog will wind up in an abusive family?

But wait, that's unreasonable to expect of someone, not everyone is or should be obligated to do everything in their power to do the absolute most ethical thing possible.

The alternative you just poised is also very unlikely. I could very easily say "Yes, but x could happen" in reference to any situation in which morals are coming into question, but that's grossly overthinking the issue. And it really didn't disprove that the choice he made wasn't the correct one. No sane person would think, "Hm, if I give these animals to a shelter, they might get abused. Better shoot them to spare the pain!"

How can you assert that there is a definitive "correct" choice of action in this situation when you acknowledge it rests on taking a chance? At what point do you have the authority to say what is an acceptable probability?

The chance being rested on really isn't worth considering. Many of the dogs found in shelters are there because they were abused, it's incredibly unlikely they'll just wind up in the hands of another negligent or sadistic prick. Probability dictates the puppies will likely find suitable homes which, as Turkey said, is obviously better than them being dead.

The chance being rested on really isn't worth considering.

I'd say it very much is. If the case were that 50% of dog in shelters wind up in abusive homes, this discussion wouldn't happen. At some point we recognize that it is better we take an option with a guaranteed neutral outcome (dead dogs do not live in suffering, but also do not experience joy) rather than flip a coin that may result in further suffering.

Many of the dogs found in shelters are there because they were abused, it's incredibly unlikely they'll just wind up in the hands of another negligent or sadistic prick.

Yeah, it's unlikely, but it is entirely possible and we cannot assure a positive outcome. If these were people and not dogs, how would you respond to someone that suffered because of your choice on their  behalf. Could you do anything other than apologize and acknowledge that it wouldn't have happened had you instead opted for killing them?

Probability dictates the puppies will likely find suitable homes which, as Turkey said, is obviously better than them being dead.

And being put in a bad home is obviously worse than being dead. Death is simply a no-risk alternative to an inherently risky action. You have every right to say "considering the statistics, adoption was likely the best choice", but you have not made any reason as to why you have the authority to say "death is an objectively wrong course of action".

Egg also does not like considering the metaphysical implications of death ("Death is simply a no-risk alternative").

And as I told you last night, it is entirely pointless to take moral arguments to a metaphysical level because the metaphysical level revokes any sense of authority.

And, funnily enough, I'm the one taking a morally relativistic stance here, whilst others are making absolute statements of what is and is not a correct action.

nature of a metaphysical phenomenon (death)

uwot

I'm just dumbfounded that this is even a discussion. I never really expected to have to explain to somebody why offering the very high probability of an excellent quality of life to a dog is morally superior to killing them and providing no sensation of joy at all. The alternative outcome is so negligible that I view it being brought up in this discussion as extremely odd. Yeah, I get it, it's anti-Natalist stuff, but I fundamentally disagree with that philosophy, and that's clearly where Egg's position is grounded in. I'm not about to take this discussion to a completely different direction.

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 02:10:04 PM

I'm just dumbfounded that this is even a discussion. I never really expected to have to explain to somebody why offering the very high probability of an excellent quality of life to a dog is morally superior to killing them and providing no sensation of joy at all. The alternative outcome is so negligible that I view it being brought up in this discussion as extremely odd.

Because when dealing on the behalf of other parties, you are responsible for negative outcomes that happen. Your assessment of the risk may appear more rational and work on aggregate, but if the negative result occurs, you have no response to those who suffered as a result of your choice.

Yes I do.

"Oops, didn't think that would happen. My bad."

Because when dealing on the behalf of other parties, you are responsible for negative outcomes that happen. Your assessment of the risk may appear more rational and work on aggregate, but if the negative result occurs, you have no response to those who suffered as a result of your choice.

It's not like I even said that you are wrong in thinking that shelter is the preferred option. You are right it probably is, but that doesn't make other solutions wrong when there is no longer any entities to even possibly feel the negative effects of the choice.

Usually such a response would be like, "I'm sorry this had to happen to you. Yes, it is my fault that this happened. What can I do to help you now? Why did I do it? Because on aggregate it creates a net positive by helping more people than it hurts, and the net result is good." This explanation tends to suffice because it aligns with most folks' moral principles.

And I think Winy operates under a pretty typical moral system that selects among options and designates the most net positive outcome as the "right" course of action and the others as "less right" or even "wrong", which is the typical purpose of a moral system. Are they absolutely right and wrong? No, but you should consider his moral system before trying to convince him of the results of your own. Your ethical arguments were relevant because when a moral difference arises the debate tends to shift to the inspection of the processes used to reach the moral conclusions, but it should be obvious to you just from typical public opinion as well as Winy's posts that he doesn't operate under the moral principles that death is doing no harm and that the slightest harm resulting from a process invalidates the larger gains made from it.

Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 02:35:47 PM

the truly morally superior mentality

Oh, get off your imaginary high-horse. If the expected outcome did not reflect the probability that was established beforehand, then what else do you expect someone who supported that outcome to say?

At that point I'd expect them to come to the realization that the negative result could have been prevented very easily. And that their rationale, while working on aggregate, will inevitably fail in some cases.

Mathematically, the positive outcome outweighed the negative, and in this case, by a substantial margin. There is literally nothing you can do afterwards if the negative outcome manages to come forth.

Which is why it is irresponsible to take that risk, and especially immoral to do so on someone else's behalf.

And I can apply this principle to literally anything where you have to wager the most minuscule degree of uncertainty. And believe me, you do it.

Which further illustrates that this system is subjective in nature, and therefor what is "the correct option" is not a matter of right or wrong, it's a difference of willingness to take risks for others who may or may not share that same willingness.

-Redacted-

Quote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 12:33:53 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 23, 2015, 12:18:28 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 12:12:17 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 23, 2015, 11:45:01 AM

I wonder why he didn't just drop them off at a shelter.

Because killing them (quickly) does no harm and doesn't put more burden on shelters which already have plenty to worry about.
Really he just fat fingered a task that otherwise doesn't have anything wrong with it (other than not spaying his dog)

Shepherd pups are usually quickly adopted, and no, it's definitely not legal or okay to kill your dogs.

I'd say it's definitely okay if done humanely (I don't think a puppies skull has good chances of surviving a .38).

> Humanely

> lining them up and shooting them in the head

gg

Damn just like Shitler

Why should guns be banned just cause an idiot trying to shoot some puppies got himself shot

Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 07:54:05 PM

I don't think it's fair to compare those two when one is leaving someone in a state of misery and the other is putting them in a state in which it is [seemingly] impossible for them to [humanly] experience negative [human] emotions.

edited appropriately

GET YOUR SPIRITUALISM OFF MY BOARD
REEEEEEEEE