Which one would you kill?

[selfinflikted]

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?

NOt unless I administered a battery of scientific tests, I suppose. I think your previous statement about sentimentality is pretty much the reason I'd choose for the chimp to die. Might be a crappy reason, but it's my reason anyways.

 

[PantsMcFist]

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

Can you read? That's not at all what I said. The chimp is more valuable to the success of it's species.

 

[angellica]

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

No valid answer, so you just put some rubbish. Why not answer the question, if it's not too hard?

 

[Nihilismus]

NOt unless I administered a battery of scientific tests, I suppose. I think your previous statement about sentimentality is pretty much the reason I'd choose for the chimp to die. Might be a crappy reason, but it's my reason anyways.

It's as objectively valid as any other reason. The answers offered so far cannot be designated "good" or "bad" so much as "honest" or "dishonest".

 

[angellica]

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

It was a question, not an accusation of right or wrong.

 

[angellica]

Can you read? That's not at all what I said. The chimp is more valuable to the success of it's species.

Oh, I misunderstood. Well, do you think furthering the chimp species is more important than furthering the human species? Are chimps going to suddenly start contributing some inventions or discover a cure for cancer?

 

[cantata]

No valid answer, so you just put some rubbish. Why not answer the question, if it's not too hard?

Well since we're onto the issue of answering questions; for, what is it, the seventh or eighth time:

What inclines you to privilege human life over the life of any other animal, regardless of the quality of the life of each?

I think your answer to this is pretty important, so if you wouldn't mind...

 

[Nihilismus]

No valid answer, so you just put some rubbish. Why not answer the question, if it's not too hard?

Your question was fatuous, so I responded fatuously.

Can a "retard" perform any of those actions better than a chimp? I am asking what makes one more of a "person" than the other. You have stated you would still be willing to kill a chimp with the average mental capacity of a human in favour of a retard. You are yet to provide any reasoning for this.

 

[keith99]

I really just want to know if you would ever choose to kill a human over an animal.

Come over and try to hurt my puppies and find out.

Of course that requires an aggressive and evil act on your part.

 

[angellica]

Your question was fatuous, so I responded fatuously.

Can a "retard" perform any of those actions better than a chimp? I am asking what makes one more of a "person" than the other. You have stated you would still be willing to kill a chimp with the average mental capacity of a human in favour of a retard. You are yet to provide any reasoning for this.

Because humans > apes.

Show me something an ape invented. Show me a disease an ape cured. Show me something an ape wrote (that makes sense).

 

[angellica]

Come over and try to hurt my puppies and find out.

Of course that requires an aggressive and evil act on your part.

Well, obviously that's different if someone tries to harm your pets or property or family or whatever. I just mean in general.

 

[cantata]

Show me something an ape invented. Show me a disease an ape cured. Show me something an ape wrote (that makes sense).

Well, okay, er, show me something that someone in a vegetative state has invented. Show me a disease that someone in a vegetative state cured. Show me something that someone in a vegetative state wrote (that makes sense).

Why sanctify the human species as a whole? Why not just the useful members of it (since utility basically seems to be your criterion)?

 

[Nihilismus]

Because humans > apes.

Show me something an ape invented. Show me a disease an ape cured. Show me something an ape wrote (that makes sense).

An ape designed the computer you are sitting at right now.

humans = hominidae = apes

 

[keith99]

Well, obviously that's different if someone tries to harm your pets or property or family or whatever. I just mean in general.

In general is useless. The devil is almost always in the details. I'll pick my dogs over a stranger trying to harm them. I might well pick them over a stranger in general in a more real live situation, e.g. which to save. But I owe at least one of my puppies a lot.

Often what things come down to is which someone identifies with the most. They consider me the leader of their pack and I return the favor. A human starts as a member of my species, a long ways from Family, clan or tribe. But closer than a stranger of a different species.

And things cut different ways depending on circumstances. Getting closer to the real world the lack on expected intellegence or experience for a cat, dog, child or baby argues in favor of me taking a risk to save them where I might not for an adult.

 

[WatersMoon110]

DNA determines if it's a person or not.

I disagree. I believe that there could beings out there somewhere that are as intelligent as human beings, I would call those possible aliens "people". Or, from a religious standpoint, wouldn't you say that angels (like Micheal, Gabriel, and Lucifer before he fell) are "people" even though they aren't human?

Seriously, though, could you answer this question:

What inclines you to privilege human life over the life of any other animal, regardless of the quality of the life of each?

 

[sidhe]

I admire you for it.

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

I'm not sure anyone is. I'm not even sure what that means. Killing is, in and of itself, an inhumane act. But it's one that we're naturally disposed to.

ETA: Hit "post" too soon.

Again, I hope I'd never be in that situation, but I'd rather do it at be accountable than put the responsibility on another.

 

[QuakerOats]

A few of the ideas presented thus far interest me. I believe it was WatersMoon who said that she'd kill the chimp because she'd receive a lesser sentence, which makes sense. It's in the interest of self-preservation, so to speak. I like pantless_rationalist's idea, however. He mentions killing those who would force such a choice on him, which in reality, would be the choice I would make; to seek out said person, or persons. As to the original question, I find myself torn. One part of me says to kill the chimp, because it's 'beneath me.' I suspect this part of me is interested, again, in self-preservation, as an individual and as a part of the human race. Another part of me advocates for the chimp, however, not only because it's 'beneath me,' but because, and I'll just assume here, it appears to be 'superior in quality,' if you will; survival of the fittest. In the end, I honestly don't know which one I would pick if I had to, but I just thought I'd share my thoughts on the matter.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I want to know what happens to me if I don't kill either. Because that's my choice.

 

[GeorgeWW]

the chimp

 

[Avatar]

I want to know what happens to me if I don't kill either. Because that's my choice.

Nothing happens to you but then they both die.

Man, I would have made a good torturer...