If you picture that the human being is screaming in terrified fear for help I think it does. Picture the scenario in all its emotionally difficult reality, with the sounds and emotions involved.
I think you could increase it to 30 in that scenario and it would still be difficult.
In a clinical situation where you're just pressing one of two buttons and there's no emotion and no screaming or fall or anything like that? Changes completely and the individual involved might make a more rational decision based on numbers and weighing it up alone. But if you place them on top of a building with all the horror of the above pictured scenario I think it's absolutely fair to say you're going to see people struggle at 7, even some larger numbers. The screaming human is going to get a bigger emotional reaction from the rescuer.
Maybe you should reexamine why you feel that a human's life is inherently at least 70 times as valuable as the life of our closest relatives.
If your response is "we're smarter though" then I guess you'd support killing 70 mentally disabled humans if it would save the life of one perfectly fit human which is pretty fuckin :yikes:
Funny how the person I was talking to never said "Actually I think monkeys are 70 times less valuable than humans because xyz." Because I hit the nail on the head, so they had to deflect. You see, there actually is no good reason that a person can give in favor of this argument, so the fact that I already dismantled the only one that sometimes sounds reasonable if you're a eugenicist, they just had to give up in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance which would come from thinking about it.
Ah, you're right. Got your account mixed up with the other one here.
I just didn’t want to have a serious discussion with someone who thinks there’s an equivalence between mentally disabled humans and fucking bonobos.
Good thing no one said anything like that. You just don't have a good reason for what you said, so you're now looking for any way to avoid having to justify it.
Difficult one. I understand and agree with the moral arguments that I know someone is going to make any second now, but still think that I personally would struggle with the decision despite believing the ethics arguments. Emotions will take over.
EDIT: Could also change if I'd bonded with any of the monkeys though. Weird
I'm with you. I don't think it's like a equivalent exchange with 7 monkeys, like that's "worth" more than 1 human I guess (how do you value life), but I'd still definitely go with the human. Feel like I share a closer connection/duty to save my own species than others.
If you picture that the human being is screaming in terrified fear for help I think it does. Picture the scenario in all its emotionally difficult reality, with the sounds and emotions involved.
I think you could increase it to 30 in that scenario and it would still be difficult.
In a clinical situation where you're just pressing one of two buttons and there's no emotion and no screaming or fall or anything like that? Changes completely and the individual involved might make a more rational decision based on numbers and weighing it up alone. But if you place them on top of a building with all the horror of the above pictured scenario I think it's absolutely fair to say you're going to see people struggle at 7, even some larger numbers. The screaming human is going to get a bigger emotional reaction from the rescuer.
deleted by creator
Maybe you should reexamine why you feel that a human's life is inherently at least 70 times as valuable as the life of our closest relatives.
If your response is "we're smarter though" then I guess you'd support killing 70 mentally disabled humans if it would save the life of one perfectly fit human which is pretty fuckin :yikes:
deleted by creator
I didn't. Nice job dodging the point though
deleted by creator
Nope, either your reading comprehension needs work or you are being disingenuous.
The point is that "I am smarter than you therefore you deserve to live less than I do" is just straight up reactionary.
deleted by creator
Funny how the person I was talking to never said "Actually I think monkeys are 70 times less valuable than humans because xyz." Because I hit the nail on the head, so they had to deflect. You see, there actually is no good reason that a person can give in favor of this argument, so the fact that I already dismantled the only one that sometimes sounds reasonable if you're a eugenicist, they just had to give up in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance which would come from thinking about it.
deleted by creator
Ah, you're right. Got your account mixed up with the other one here.
Good thing no one said anything like that. You just don't have a good reason for what you said, so you're now looking for any way to avoid having to justify it.
deleted by creator
A lot of them are pretty cringe. Can I verify political ideology first? No bonobo has ever called me a slur.
Ahhh I see. I misunderstood you.
Difficult one. I understand and agree with the moral arguments that I know someone is going to make any second now, but still think that I personally would struggle with the decision despite believing the ethics arguments. Emotions will take over.
EDIT: Could also change if I'd bonded with any of the monkeys though. Weird
The emotional connection is the biggest factor. Very easy to prioritize whichever creature you’ve bonded with.
Most people would choose their dog’s or cat’s life over a random stranger and that’s fine.
I'm with you. I don't think it's like a equivalent exchange with 7 monkeys, like that's "worth" more than 1 human I guess (how do you value life), but I'd still definitely go with the human. Feel like I share a closer connection/duty to save my own species than others.
Meanwhile 70 screaming people to one 1 monkey makes sense to me. Basically if either side had more, I would probably(?) choose that.