Okay. Hmmm. It's not claiming moral superiority due to lack of natural affection. I will put it in a way of which one would you give up if it will comes down to you will have to give up one. It is a tough and/or hard decision, but you have to give up one. I know I asked an animal over a human being. Tough decision making. But you need to choose one.One side of the debate believes that one has an obligation to one's own family members - even the non-human ones - that one does not have to complete strangers.
The other side... well their perspective, which is an alien one to me, seems to be based on claiming moral superiority due to lack of such natural affection.
It is which one would you save, your dog an animal over a stranger a human being.The question though needs more background. Save how or from what?
I would try to convert the stranger to Christianity of course, in order to save his or her soul. I don't consider this needed for a dog.
...Strangers might be friends you haven't been introduced to yet but my dog is a friend right now...
Dog.
Appropriate decision.Because his father figure was willing to do things like allow an entire village of innocents to get raided by vikings if it meant that said vikings would escort the prince
Bull one side loves thier pet yet reconizes said pet is still just an animal. I'd obviously prefer to not be in this position but your way off base. I mean if you said anything approaching that to me in person. We'd be throwing hands pretty quickly. Seriously don't ever imply I don't love my family again.One side of the debate believes that one has an obligation to one's own family members - even the non-human ones - that one does not have to complete strangers.
The other side... well their perspective, which is an alien one to me, seems to be based on claiming moral superiority due to lack of such natural affection.
Yes. Hierarchy. Good.My family -> my friends -> my pets / unknown children -> unknown adults in need of saving because of things beyond their control -> animals that I don't dislike -> adults in need of saving because of their own stupidity.
The nature of the question preculudes thought. It's a situation where you must act on instinct. Which is the point as reacting on principles is instinctive by its very nature.I need more to go on; what am I saving them from? Am I even capable of saving either of them? Why can't they save themselves, and why can't I save both of them? I'm sorry, vague thought experiments just don't sit well with me.
I reject the very concept. I'm autistic; I don't have instincts. Or at least, none that tell me anything other than I should be very, very confused.The nature of the question preculudes thought. It's a situation where you must act on instinct. Which is the point as reacting on principles is instinctive by its very nature.
That's fine I don't try and impose my morality on others. I do however hold mine in the absolute sense. Which means I willing and (very very) aboe yo fight to defend it.I reject the very concept. I'm autistic; I don't have instincts. Or at least, none that tell me anything other than I should be very, very confused.