Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
See, that right there is the crux of our arguments.
If you honestly can't see the difference between the value of a human life and a rat then you are seriously messed up.
Here's a little thought experiment.
You're standing next to a railroad switch. You can't stop the train, but you can send it down one of two tracks.
On one track is a person tied down, on the other is a cage or rats.
Now please don't go ahead and tell me it's a ridiculous example, because that is the point.
How many rats would have to be in the cage before you sent the train down the track with the person?
Me, I don't care how many rats there are, they're gonna get it.
You, according to the values you claim to adhere to, all it takes is two rats, hell even with 1 rat it's a coin flip which track you send it down.
Now replace the rats with kittens?
Baby Seals?
Cows?
Panda?
Does your answer change?
what if you relace the person with all of the Pandas in the world, but there are twice as many rats? Are they all still equal?
Damn, logic sure is a tough habit to kick.
|
In a nutshell, no matter what the outcome it is tragic. I would mourn the rat but save the person, The choice is simply preference on who I want to save but the rats death would still make me feel horrible, the better choice is not to send the train at all. I would save the Pandas over the rats, again either way it's a tragedy but your talking about extinction for the pandas vs twice as many rats still leaving millions of rats. Their species would survive. No matter what the right answer is hopefully to stop the train either way.