The hiker. Which would mean that any confliction over the cat is in regards to an emotional attachment to the cat and not based on any belief in animal rights.
I also think the other part is that if my cat is caught in a fire and some other guy is trapped in the same fire, I'm responsible for that cat. If she dies, that was my cat and I failed to protect her. But that's being selfish because not only is that MY CAT and would cause my suffering because I would miss her AND it would be MY GUILT for not keeping her safe.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I'm thinking that "Frank the Tank" is of the thought that killing 1,000,000 monkeys though animal experimentation to save 1 person is worth it. That's a very common opinion. That, simply be being sentient and able to reason, 1 human life is worth any number of animal lives. I prefer Shakespeare's "If you ****** me, do I not bleed?". (apparently Shakespeare needs censoring here :P) I don't eat or wear anything that came from a creature that bleeds.
That said, I'm a utilitarianist with the belief in the right to life (the latter is an addition to cover off the chopped-up baby exception). So, with all else being equal, would saving the human or saving the cat cause the least amount of suffering? Likely the human, by virtue of being able to appreciate the state of being alive, by default wins out.
Just like the hiker.
|