Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
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.
|
So there you go, you DON'T think all life is equal.
If you did the answer would be to let the pandas die, or if there were more than 1 rat to letthe person die, but in both instances you let the rats die. Why? I thought they were equals in your mind. So logically if they are equal, the death of half as many people or pandas should be your choice should it not?
Now to bring it back to your original stance.
How do you reconcile this thought experiment with testing drugs?
You chose to let the rats die over the person, yet when it comes to testing drugs, you chose a person, granted a convicted criminal, but should that matter.
Now let's explore some of your contrdictions:
You've clearly stated that all living thigns are equal yet you made the following exceptions:
1) endangered pandas are at least twice as imporant as rats
2) people are to some degree (again you avoided a question by not telling me how many rats it would take before you let the person die) more important than rats when tied to rail road tracks
3) Rats are more important than convicted criminals (last time I checked criminals are still living beings)
You've also stated that we are arrogant and primitive for assuming that we are any better than other living creatures you you yourself have implicitly stated that you have a greater right to life than a convicted criminal, as do rats.
You've made a few comments about playing god, yet you see no conflict with this belief when determining which people are of lesser value than test rats?
Please help me understand the vegan "logic" behind these contradictions.