I'm not really advocating it, there just isn't much wrong with it.
Quote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 01:47:34 PMI'm not really advocating it, there just isn't much wrong with it.Yes there is.
Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 11:32:43 AMQuote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 01:47:34 PMI'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.
Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 12:08:20 PMTurkey 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 PMQuote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 12:08:20 PMTurkey 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!"
Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 12:48:21 PMQuote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 12:40:09 PMQuote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 12:08:20 PMTurkey 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?
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.
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.
Egg also does not like considering the metaphysical implications of death ("Death is simply a no-risk alternative").
Quote from: Tsirist on September 26, 2015, 02:01:51 PMEgg 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)
Quote from: Tsirist on September 26, 2015, 02:05:33 PMnature 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.
Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 02:10:04 PMI'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.
Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 02:29:24 PMQuote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 02:10:04 PMI'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.
the truly morally superior mentality
Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 02:35:47 PMthe truly morally superior mentalityOh, 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?
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.
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.
Quote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 12:33:53 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 23, 2015, 12:18:28 PMQuote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 12:12:17 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 23, 2015, 11:45:01 AMI 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 headgg
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 23, 2015, 12:18:28 PMQuote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 12:12:17 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 23, 2015, 11:45:01 AMI 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).
Quote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 12:12:17 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 23, 2015, 11:45:01 AMI 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.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 23, 2015, 11:45:01 AMI 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)
I wonder why he didn't just drop them off at a shelter.
Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 04:47:27 PMBanking on the high probability of a very beneficial outcome is not irresponsible. It's the wiser choice when given the option in this circumstance- your philosophy about this is so extreme that it borders on outright pessimism. From your perspective, it could be argued that curing somebody's depression would be a morally irresponsible act, because there's a chance that as a result, they will go out live their life more exploitative and happily, and therefore end up being killed brutally in a car accident while on their way to a social event that they would not have attended if they were still depressed. The worry of "Yeah, but x could happen" is rationally acceptable if the chance is high that no harm will come to them.
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.
Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 07:54:05 PMI 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