Oh no ! Look at the results (at least for now) %55 of people voted for the baby that is a human being. Hey fuck those puppies i would kill all pupies for a human baby ! Human life is valuable !
Seriously, the problem I had with all of that was that everything was either black and white or shades of grey. Everything was either wrong or right or in circumstances, There wasn't any acknowledgement that while a LOT of the world is shades of grey there are still things that are black and white. Plus it included Peter Singer (there are just some people Australia should not have Knighted)
@Waffles731 "There wasn't any acknowledgement that while a LOT of the world is shades of grey there are still things that are black and white." That's actually exactly what we were told to do in our final exam... That's what I really liked about my TOK class, it wasn't only learning and knowing the given but using that to come up with your own theories & analysis.
It was one of those courses though I just skated through and came out with an A but I actually was hoping for a challenge but nope. Had a bad professor
@Waffles731 it was probably more your programme as a whole then as the professors/teachers themselves often don't even determine the questions but the examination board..
Yeah, it was just general ed anyway and I still haven't decided on a backup career behind novelist yet, I still need one that in case that doesn't work out and it needs to be something that might actually make me happy (Of course the liklihood of me being happy in life is pretty much zero anyway )
@Waffles731 then I still rather have the 100 puppies enjoy their lives first and have one baby ghost haunt me instead :P Hell 1 ghost is way easier to cope with than 100!
Utilitarian morality, that which benefits the most, while kantian would, as you say, be in regards to duty, which in this case would oblige you to save the baby
@madelacroix it's more about "acting according to maxims that you could support if they were to be an actual law" and this takes into account not only the final outcome but every person involved so that's where it differs from utilitarianism. But I suppose you could sum it up as a sense of duty in a broad way. And yeah, since the parents of the baby would be devastated if you killed it this would be the only morally correct way to decide accoding to Kant.
@madelacroix lol that's a plot twist, but no because according to utilitarianism every perspective needs to be taken into account and, although I'm fairly certain this concept was originally meant to be only applied to humans, if you have a scenario deciding between humans and other animals their lives and perspectives still have to be taken into account on an equal level, hence value of dog life = value of human life, there's no difference to the dog. So of course if you get to decide between 1 or 100 lives who are equally valuable you will go with the 100.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
32Opinion
I'll take the baby
Would you torture yourself 1 time or 100 times?
Would you save 1 life or 100?
How many animal lives equal 1 human life?
Females in the USA killed nearly 700,000 babies last year! its not surprising that they would vote A) just as much as B)
by the way, what sick demented question! I choose not to answer! take me instead </3
I don't like baby's but I would never kill ether baby's or puppy's I would kill Satan
Niether. The baby could be a real life Stewie and one of the puppies could be a real Brian 😛
Tell that to your loved one who is going to be dragged into hell by Satan 🙈
@Bandit74 I'll kill Satan instead. he's pretty easy to defeat.
If you say so 😅
If anyone said the baby instead of the puppy is a savage prick
The baby.. there are already a lot of redundant people around the world.
As much as I wouldn't want to, I'd kill the puppies.
Kill the baby, just a poop explosion waiting to happen.
The puppies. Fuck whoever says the baby.
the baby
@damnwinter Fuck you :)
still the baby
@damnwinter Cool gtfoh
Lmao you always say human lives are greater than dog loves
Lives*
@Puppylove94 That's what I believe.
Right right I misread it. For a sec I thought the question said which would you save
Lol at people saying puppies or baby. You wouldn't be able to do it unless you are a sick psycho
sure, but this is a hypothetical situation
That's a hard choice, can I choose both?
That would please Satan, yes. You might get a VIP ticket for when you die.
Hope it has A/C , gonna be hell of a ride.
Baby because having too kill 100 would kill me.
I would not kill a human being.
Oh no ! Look at the results (at least for now) %55 of people voted for the baby that is a human being. Hey fuck those puppies i would kill all pupies for a human baby ! Human life is valuable !
Puppies. I'm not going to kill a human.
The baby.
Utilitarianism aye!
What if they were Chihuahuas
Very kantian of you
@Waffles731 still save them lol. 100 always > 1
@madelacroix you mean Benthamian :P
Kantian would mean I'm in favor of the categorical imperative which isn't in itself a utilitarian concept
Oh dear god,
That reminds me of my ethics class.
It really should have been,
Pretentious bullshit class.
@Waffles731 lmao if you would have paid attention you could have actually learned something :P
Seriously, the problem I had with all of that was that everything was either black and white or shades of grey.
Everything was either wrong or right or in circumstances,
There wasn't any acknowledgement that while a LOT of the world is shades of grey there are still things that are black and white.
Plus it included Peter Singer (there are just some people Australia should not have Knighted)
I did, I got an A
Doesn't change the fact that I thought 95 percent of it was pretentious.
I understood the Materiel just fine, I just thought most of it was bullshit.
@Waffles731 "There wasn't any acknowledgement that while a LOT of the world is shades of grey there are still things that are black and white."
That's actually exactly what we were told to do in our final exam... That's what I really liked about my TOK class, it wasn't only learning and knowing the given but using that to come up with your own theories & analysis.
I would have liked that.
I had a Bad professor so thats why.
It was one of those courses though I just skated through and came out with an A but I actually was hoping for a challenge but nope.
Had a bad professor
@Waffles731 it was probably more your programme as a whole then as the professors/teachers themselves often don't even determine the questions but the examination board..
Yeah, it was just general ed anyway and I still haven't decided on a backup career behind novelist yet,
I still need one that in case that doesn't work out and it needs to be something that might actually make me happy (Of course the liklihood of me being happy in life is pretty much zero anyway )
Okay, but what if you got an army of one hundred spectral puppies out of the deal?
(My aunts house has a ghost cat apparenty)
@Waffles731 then I still rather have the 100 puppies enjoy their lives first and have one baby ghost haunt me instead :P
Hell 1 ghost is way easier to cope with than 100!
Oh yea Jeremy Bentham!! He was in the page next to Kant and I always mix em up!! So smart!!!
@madelacroix lol
Utilitarian morality, that which benefits the most, while kantian would, as you say, be in regards to duty, which in this case would oblige you to save the baby
@madelacroix it's more about "acting according to maxims that you could support if they were to be an actual law" and this takes into account not only the final outcome but every person involved so that's where it differs from utilitarianism.
But I suppose you could sum it up as a sense of duty in a broad way. And yeah, since the parents of the baby would be devastated if you killed it this would be the only morally correct way to decide accoding to Kant.
* this as in saving the baby lol
But wouldn't utilitarianism mean to "benefit" the most? For that reason a puppy dinner might feed plenty of hungry babies, no?
I paid little attention in ethics knowing I would do anything to get what I wanted in life.
@madelacroix lol that's a plot twist, but no because according to utilitarianism every perspective needs to be taken into account and, although I'm fairly certain this concept was originally meant to be only applied to humans, if you have a scenario deciding between humans and other animals their lives and perspectives still have to be taken into account on an equal level, hence value of dog life = value of human life, there's no difference to the dog. So of course if you get to decide between 1 or 100 lives who are equally valuable you will go with the 100.
That's why I like utilitarianism in these scenarios, because it completely ignores human arrogance.
1 baby since it's only 1. It's fucked up either way.
But at least it's not 100 of them.
well its not legal to but babies on the barbecue...
to put*
Hmmm. I guess the baby
I would kill them all to get my loved one back.
1 private opinion(s)Only the asker and the opinion owner can see it. Learn more