Nice link to someone else's thoughts. I see you simply cut and pasted below. It too typical for someone like you to seek out what others think instead of standing on your own thoughts. but if you are puttting out someone else's answer as your own (a cowardly thing to do), I'll still treat it as if you actually answered. Which you didn't
Bartikus wrote:
First, the question assumes that I need to make a quick decision (in a burning building with time to only save the baby or the tank of embryos) and my first inclination is not always the same as the result of rational reflection. Whether I make the right decision needs to be determined later when we can rationally reflect on what I did and determine if I did the right thing when all factors are carefully considered.
The question does not assume you make a quick decision, it only demands that you can only take one or the other. The queastion would be the same if you were in a space station and your orbit was decaying. You have two weeks before you absolutely must use the escape pod. The escape pod can hold you (a pilot) and either a tank of embryos or a human child (or adult, it doesn't matter as long as they have already been born). What do you choose?
The question does not assume anything.
Bartikus wrote:
Second, the question of which I would save isn't decisive over the "humaness" of the embryos, and the fact that I would save the crying baby instead of the embryos doesn't mean that the latter aren't human beings. Radio talk-show host Dennis Praeger has made the following observation: "The majority of American students I have asked since 1970 whether they would save their dog or a stranger have voted against the stranger." Does the fact that the majority of the students choose to rescue their pet mean that the pet is more human than the stranger? Hardly.
All rubish. The question does not hinge on the humaness of either the embryos or the child. The question hinges on the true values a person being asked has.
As for saving the dog, again, this was never a question design to measure the humaness of something. All mute points, but again, you didn't write it so what do you have to own up to. You can comfortably hide behind the words of others.
Bartikus wrote:
Third, a more compelling difference to save the crying baby isn't that the baby is more human but because humans have compassion. We would naturally respond to save the one who is crying over the ones who lack the ability to communicate their fear or pain -- if they feel fear or pain at all. Let me give a counter-example to illustrate what I mean. Assume the same situation, except the choices in the two rooms are as follows:
a. two toddlers who you you believe to be alive but which may be dead lying immobile,
b. a toddler who is sitting on the floor crying for his mother in pain
So, which do you save if you only have time to choose one? In my view, you save the one who is crying for one major reason -- it's beyond doubt that the child is conscious and feeling pain or fear. The others may be alive but the one that is crying is in the more immediate need. If the others are alive and allowed to die, they will probably die without any awareness of the pain caused by the fire, whereas the crying infant would certainly be aware and is already aware of pain and fear. Does the fact that a person would choose to save the one conscious child rather than the two unconscious children make the latter less human than the former? I don't see how it could be so.
The baby crying is a trivial detail in the question. In fact it wasn't even a part of my question. The only reason the baby is crying, is because you are imagining it, for that matter you're not even doing that, because you didn't write your own post. The original poster apparently was proposed the senario with the baby crying, you were asked nothing of the sort.
But it doesn't matter anyways, it's a trivial detail of the question. A silent baby has the same value as a vocal one.
Bartikus wrote:
Finally, if the problem is limited to showing the toddler is more human than the embryos, the analogy is flawed.
It is limited in no such way. The question does not test the embryo or test the baby, the test is designed to the person being questioned.
Bartikus wrote:
P.S You have not answered all my questions in this dialogue as you claim TKO.
BS! I've gone out of my way to answer allof your questions. If any went un answered it certainly wasn't from me choosing not to answer and it would be a very small occurance at that.
How many times did I have to ask you to answer this question? How many? And when you finally answer, you don't even answer, you post someone else's answer. You are a coward and your beliefs are hollow.
T
K
O
