Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
EXACTLY!! Now when I gave that same answer why was that not ok? Still waiting for someone to tackle my superior race question.  |
No, not exactly.
You see, there is no right answer in the 1 person vs 2 person example because it depends on how you assign value to the lives.
You've already stated that you assign EQUAL value to all lives.
So logically it should come down to a numbers game for you should it not?
As for the superior race question. That's another case of where you draw the line on what life has greater value.
Most peole will agree that human life has a greater value mostly based on the fact that we are sentient, and have developed culture so it is wrong to mistreat other people. Technological superiority doesn't factor in at all, as it is no more acceptable to do cruel things to natives in the Amazon as it is to someone here in Calgary.
This is to some degree transfered to animals that are similar to us, as most people think it is wrong to kill chimps.
Cows are dumb, so we think that's okay.
The point is that we all draw the line somewhere and that line is based on the preceived value of a species.
You CLAIM that you do not see any distiction in the value of different species, yet if you would rather let a train run over 100 rats than 1 person, then it's safe to assume that you do in fact value different species differently.
Not to mention the fact that you obviously differntialt the value of members of your own species, based on criminal record.