Which one would you kill?

[Sitswithamouse]

I wouldn't kill either of them.

*Runs away from Avatar's basement*

 

[sidhe]

If I don't have to do the killing, and the chimp is more aware than the human, I'd kill the human.

I'd rather take responsibility for the action, myself. Saying "Kill the human" is the same as doing it, and I'd rather do it myself so I know it's done humanely.

 

[selfinflikted]

What constitutes a person?

That is a really difficult question to answer.

 

[Nihilismus]

That is a really difficult question to answer.

Take your time.

 

[cantata]

I'd rather take responsibility for the action, myself. Saying "Kill the human" is the same as doing it, and I'd rather do it myself so I know it's done humanely.

Realistically speaking (which I realise is ridiculous in this context, but oh well), I don't think I could bring myself to kill a human being.

If I were in there with the two beings, my inclination would probably be to save the one who appeared most human to me. (That might be the chimp, of course; it depends just how mentally disabled the human is.)

 

[angellica]

DNA determines if it's a person or not.

 

[angellica]

Realistically speaking (which I realise is ridiculous in this context, but oh well), I don't think I could bring myself to kill a human being.

If I were in there with the two beings, my inclination would probably be to save the one who appeared most human to me. (That might be the chimp, of course; it depends just how mentally disabled the human is.)

Based on looks or what? And why does that even matter?

 

[cantata]

DNA determines if it's a person or not.

No it doesn't.

DNA determines whether or not a being is human, but not whether it is a person.

Let's suppose for a moment that the chimp has all the mental capacity of an adult human being. In fact, she works in a bank. Now whom would you prefer to kill?

Based on looks or what? And why does that even matter?

I have a biological instinct to be nice to other human beings. That's why.

It shouldn't matter, but alas, emotions are liable to get in the way when it comes to killing things.

It would probably be based on a mixture of appearance and behaviour. To be honest, I don't know. As it's an emotional thing, it's difficult for me to predict.

 

[angellica]

No it doesn't.

DNA determines whether or not a being is human, but not whether it is a person.

Let's suppose for a moment that the chimp has all the mental capacity of an adult human being. In fact, she works in a bank. Now whom would you prefer to kill?



I have a biological instinct to be nice to other human beings. That's why.

It shouldn't matter, but alas, emotions are liable to get in the way when it comes to killing things.

It would probably be based on a mixture of appearance and behaviour. To be honest, I don't know. As it's an emotional thing, it's difficult for me to predict.

Oh, now we get to play semantic games about what a human is vs. what a person is. I'll be back when that's over.

And I would still kill the chimp before the person, even if she worked in a bank.

 

[sidhe]

Realistically speaking (which I realise is ridiculous in this context, but oh well), I don't think I could bring myself to kill a human being.

If I were in there with the two beings, my inclination would probably be to save the one who appeared most human to me. (That might be the chimp, of course; it depends just how mentally disabled the human is.)

I've come to grips with the fact that I could do so. I'd prefer not to be in the situation, but if I were I'd rather take ownership of the situation than entrust it to others. I'd be less tormented by having the blood (or such) on my hands literally than having callously made a decision concerning another's life and then walked away.

 

[cantata]

Oh, now we get to play semantic games about what a human is vs. what a person is. I'll be back when that's over.

Hardly. It's a very important distinction.

Being a human is not the same as being a person. I would regard a chimp who was capable of working in a bank as a person. I do not regard human beings in vegetative states as persons.

And I would still kill the chimp before the person, even if she worked in a bank.

I think that's pretty twisted, myself. You'd have no qualms about it at all? Even if she got down on her knees and begged you not to kill her?

You have STILL not told me why you think human beings deserve this special privilege. What is it about being human that makes all human life so valuable and important to you, and all animal life considerably less important?

I've come to grips with the fact that I could do so. I'd prefer not to be in the situation, but if I were I'd rather take ownership of the situation than entrust it to others. I'd be less tormented by having the blood (or such) on my hands literally than having callously made a decision concerning another's life and then walked away.

I admire you for it.

To be honest, though, I don't think I'm qualified to kill someone humanely.

 

[selfinflikted]

DNA determines if it's a person or not.

I agree with what Cantata said. DNA doesn't determine personhood.

 

[Nihilismus]

It is base sentimentality that makes us favour the human over the chimp. There is no other reason.

Genetically speaking, we are only half a chromosome away from being chimpanzees. Our DNA is practically identical. The debate over what constitutes a person is hardly one of semantics; it is probably the one that our current society should be trying the hardest to reach consensus on.

 

[PantsMcFist]

What race is the retard? What sex?

Seriously though, I would kill the retard instead of the chimp. My reasoning:

I've worked with many delightful individuals who were mentally retarded. They all knew they were too, and were quite intuitive about the social stigma attached. They're retarded, but they're not stupid. I'm not saying it's impossible to enjoy life in that position, but you really do become something of a social leper, except in a few cases when you have an especially understanding and supportive community.

The chimp has a lot going for it - if in the wild, it will most likely succeed, as well as being high on it's social order, and living in a meaningful community. It may even sharpen a stick or something.

If it lives in a lab, we can study it's behaviors and learn more about ourselves and lesser primates. Animals in captivity also form strong social bonds with they're handlers, and being socialized by humans increases many animals latent intelligence.

Let's be honest - regardless of our side bias, there are plenty of human beings in the world, and one more won't make or break the species. For many chimps, that is not the case, and one gifted chimp could make the difference between success or failure in the region for the species.

Let the retard have it, let the chimp go.

 

[angellica]

It is base sentimentality that makes us favour the human over the chimp. There is no other reason.

Genetically speaking, we are only half a chromosome away from being chimpanzees. Our DNA is practically identical. The debate over what constitutes a person is hardly one of semantics; it is probably the one that our current society should be trying the hardest to reach consensus on.

They have 24 pairs, we have 23. The numbers may be close, but there is a big difference. If we are practically identical, why haven't chimps figured out how to communicate across the country? Why haven't they found a more efficient way to travel? Why haven't they cured any diseases? Why haven't they put up schools?

 

[selfinflikted]

Take your time.

I'd say a "person" must display these qualities: Concsciousness, sentience, cognizance, self-awareness, memory, intelligence, language, ability to think in the abstract. Of course, this is not a comprehensive list and only what I can think to rattle off the top of my head at the moment. As I said, it's a difficult question to answer.

 

[angellica]

What race is the retard? What sex?

Seriously though, I would kill the retard instead of the chimp. My reasoning:

I've worked with many delightful individuals who were mentally retarded. They all knew they were too, and were quite intuitive about the social stigma attached. They're retarded, but they're not stupid. I'm not saying it's impossible to enjoy life in that position, but you really do become something of a social leper, except in a few cases when you have an especially understanding and supportive community.

The chimp has a lot going for it - if in the wild, it will most likely succeed, as well as being high on it's social order, and living in a meaningful community. It may even sharpen a stick or something.

If it lives in a lab, we can study it's behaviors and learn more about ourselves and lesser primates. Animals in captivity also form strong social bonds with they're handlers, and being socialized by humans increases many animals latent intelligence.

Let's be honest - regardless of our side bias, there are plenty of human beings in the world, and one more won't make or break the species. For many chimps, that is not the case, and one gifted chimp could make the difference between success or failure in the region for the species.

Let the retard have it, let the chimp go.

So you kill the human because you assume he is miserable?

 

[Nihilismus]

They have 24 pairs, we have 23. The numbers may be close, but there is a big difference. If we are practically identical, why haven't chimps figured out how to communicate across the country? Why haven't they found a more efficient way to travel? Why haven't they cured any diseases? Why haven't they put up schools?

Perhaps it's because we are killing them in favour of retards...

I'd say a "person" must display these qualities: Concsciousness, sentience, cognizance, self-awareness, memory, intelligence, language, ability to think in the abstract. Of course, this is not a comprehensive list and only what I can think to rattle off the top of my head at the moment. As I said, it's a difficult question to answer.

Those are the most commonly cited, but they are completely relative. Why is humanity the standard? Can you prove that the chimp has inferior qualities to that of the mental deficient in question?

So you kill the human because you assume he is miserable?

As opposed to killing the chimp because you assume he/she is not a person?

 

[selfinflikted]

It is base sentimentality that makes us favour the human over the chimp. There is no other reason.

I think that's a pretty accurate statement, at least for me.

 

[cantata]

I think that's a pretty accurate statement, at least for me.

+1