Painting or the Cat
Poll
 | 22 votes (61.11%) | ||
| | 14 votes (38.88%) |
36 members have voted
Quote: RaleighCrapslife before objects has to draw a line somewhere, might just as well be the cockroach.
Sorry Louis LeBeau (this is too easy of a reference to be called obscure).
Who wants to be first to answer the show, actor, and the character name and actor of the person who used the term?
No responding if you have to look it up!
And for the record, mice and rats would also not merit saving.
Wasn't he the French guy on Hogan's Heroes? LeBeau was the name of the character, but I have no idea who the actor was. LeBeau could keep the camp's German shepherds quiet, and could cook pretty well, and was short, but other than that, I know nothing...nothing...
Quote: RaleighCrapslife before objects has to draw a line somewhere, might just as well be the cockroach.
And for the record, mice and rats would also not merit saving.
Exactly. And there's nothing hypocritical about that. The painting people drew the line at (presumably) human life. We just lowered it to just above rodents. Everyone has the line somewhere.
Quote: cclub79Exactly. And there's nothing hypocritical about that. The painting people drew the line at (presumably) human life. We just lowered it to just above rodents. Everyone has the line somewhere.
Maybe it is art itself that helps us to draw the line between cat and rodent. You see a lot more of the former in paintings than the latter.
Rescue the painting.
If anyone asked me about the cat, I'd tell them, "I told him to run for it."
I am a mass murderer who happens to be a lifelong cat lover and would indeed attempt to rescue the cat despite its desires to run, hide or scratch and bite a rescuer. I'm not particularly fond of dogs but would probably try to rescue one anyway. I would definitely make no attempt to rescue a mouse, rat, cockroach, etc.
I am not particularly appreciative of art and have mostly lived amidst barren walls but have attended various gallery openings or other art shows and derived some enjoyment from such events. I would probably try to rescue the art as well but would surely rescue the cat first.
I would never be a fireman probably because I lack sufficient altruism but also because I could never tolerate the regimentation or the co-workers.
We all draw lines and most of them are indeed somewhat arbitrary and capricious and often do not withstand close examination even in hypothetical scenarios.
Quote: cclub79But he said suppose you are a firefighter. That's what I did. I never had countless hours of training as a firefighter, yet I know how they prioritize.Quote: DJTeddyBearThat's all well and good, but it's also the result of all those countless hours of training.
The original question was posed to ordinary people. The same type of people would would be running out of the burning building while the firefighter is running in.
I completely missed the part in the original question, "Suppose you are a firefighter."
Thanks for pointing that out.
Can I change my vote?
CAT. No doubt about it.
Quote: FleaStiffIn all seriousness:
I am a mass murderer who happens to be a lifelong cat lover and would indeed attempt to rescue the cat despite its desires to run, hide or scratch and bite a rescuer. I'm not particularly fond of dogs but would probably try to rescue one anyway. I would definitely make no attempt to rescue a mouse, rat, cockroach, etc.
I am not particularly appreciative of art and have mostly lived amidst barren walls but have attended various gallery openings or other art shows and derived some enjoyment from such events. I would probably try to rescue the art as well but would surely rescue the cat first.
I would never be a fireman probably because I lack sufficient altruism but also because I could never tolerate the regimentation or the co-workers.
We all draw lines and most of them are indeed somewhat arbitrary and capricious and often do not withstand close examination even in hypothetical scenarios.
You're a mass murderer?
Quote: FinsRuleYou're a mass murderer?
+1 on being a little weirded out when I read that line.
Yeah, and how do you murder a Catholic service anyway? By fumbling the Latin?Quote: FinsRuleYou're a mass murderer?
As for the original question, I think my action would likely be to get myself killed chasing after that stupid cat.
Quote: cclub79+1 on being a little weirded out when I read that line.
He works for Orkin. Remember, this thread devolved into a debate over which kinds of life were worth saving. It's probable that he has the blood of millions of cockroaches on his hands.
Andy: I'll drop an ethics bomb on you. Would you steal bread to feed your family? ... Boom!
Dwight: It's a trick question. The bread is poisoned. Also, it's not your real family. You've been cuckolded by a stronger, smarter male.
Andy: No that's... not how it works.
Michael: I would not... steal the bread. And I would not let my family go hungry.
Quote: cclub79
Dwight: It's a trick question. The bread is poisoned. Also, it's not your real family. You've been cuckolded by a stronger, smarter male.
Sounds like the kind of comment that has been made here several times already.
Quote: WizardSounds like the kind of comment that has been made here several times already.
Indeed.
On the other hand, that's the plot of Les Misserables by Victor Hugo.
My beef is that ethical questions are too complicated and requrie much more than a mere rhethorical question. Also ethics do change between normal times and emergencies; therfore these lifeboat/fire/desert scenarios are not a good basis for the discussion of ethics.
However, copies abound that can be hung in place... A lost masterpiece.
Presuming the cat will die if left behind, saving the cat is saving a life.
The age old question of Whats a life worth?... any life.
Spare the cat and spoil the riches sez I. arrrrr.
Besides, the fireman might be sworn to save a life when possible, if possible.
MOOT POLL therefore... the cat is saved by sworn oath alone!
Now about that diamond collar said cat is wearing.....
98Clubs
Quote: Nareed
My beef is that ethical questions are too complicated and requrie much more than a mere rhethorical question. Also ethics do change between normal times and emergencies; therfore these lifeboat/fire/desert scenarios are not a good basis for the discussion of ethics.
Actually, such discussions are useful because they uncover people's inclinations, and you need an element of abstraction to get a true reading of those. The very fact that ethical questions ARE murky in real life doesn't make an intellectual exercise invalid. I would very strongly disagree that ethics do change, or should change, in times of emergency--such times are when ethics often prove indispensible. Also, having considered potential ethical dilemmas beforehand, using thought exercises such as we have been discussing, can help us apply ethics to those emergency situations when they do arise--rather than having to come up with the "answers" cold turkey, and under stress to boot.
Quote: mkl654321Actually, such discussions are useful because they uncover people's inclinations, and you need an element of abstraction to get a true reading of those. The very fact that ethical questions ARE murky in real life doesn't make an intellectual exercise invalid. I would very strongly disagree that ethics do change, or should change, in times of emergency--such times are when ethics often prove indispensible. Also, having considered potential ethical dilemmas beforehand, using thought exercises such as we have been discussing, can help us apply ethics to those emergency situations when they do arise--rather than having to come up with the "answers" cold turkey, and under stress to boot.
Amen, brother! Very well said. It is hard to have a good discussion about ethics and philosophy without posing a hypothetical question to sink your teeth into. I think it is the easy way out to ridicule the question. Ultimately, this does come down to the question of what a life is worth, as you said. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer about whether the life of a cat is worth more than a painting worth in the millions. What I do like to see is an answer on either side, backed up with a good argument.
Quote: mkl654321Actually, such discussions are useful because they uncover people's inclinations, and you need an element of abstraction to get a true reading of those. The very fact that ethical questions ARE murky in real life doesn't make an intellectual exercise invalid. I would very strongly disagree that ethics do change, or should change, in times of emergency--such times are when ethics often prove indispensible. Also, having considered potential ethical dilemmas beforehand, using thought exercises such as we have been discussing, can help us apply ethics to those emergency situations when they do arise--rather than having to come up with the "answers" cold turkey, and under stress to boot.
Now that I can get behind! Nice post.
Quote: WizardAmen, brother! Very well said. It is hard to have a good discussion about ethics and philosophy without posing a hypothetical question to sink your teeth into. I think it is the easy way out to ridicule the question. Ultimately, this does come down to the question of what a life is worth, as you said. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer about whether the life of a cat is worth more than a painting worth in the millions. What I do like to see is an answer on either side, backed up with a good argument.
Does "I'm selfish and generally feel a stronger emotional connection to cats than rembrandt" count? :P
Quote: bluefireDoes "I'm selfish and generally feel a stronger emotional connection to cats than rembrandt" count? :P
That's kind of the problem, though, isn't it? Our emotional connections/biases should have, ideally, no influence on our ethical decisions. It's sort of like the ACLU defending Nazis--they feel that free speech is free speech, even if that speech disgusts us. That's one of the reasons I LOVED the movie, "The Dark Knight"--there were so many questions of moral ambiguity. The upshot is that APPLIED ethics is a whole different animal than ethics per se. That concept often gets misrespresented via the term "situational ethics", which is a self-canceling phrase if ever I heard one.
That said, if I was that fireman, and the choice was between the Rembrandt and my ex-wife, not only would I unhesitatingly grab the painting, but I would trip her as she tried to escape. (Too bad this is only another exercise in the hypothetical.)
Quote: mkl654321That's kind of the problem, though, isn't it? Our emotional connections/biases should have, ideally, no influence on our ethical decisions. It's sort of like the ACLU defending Nazis--they feel that free speech is free speech, even if that speech disgusts us. That's one of the reasons I LOVED the movie, "The Dark Knight"--there were so many questions of moral ambiguity. The upshot is that APPLIED ethics is a whole different animal than ethics per se. That concept often gets misrespresented via the term "situational ethics", which is a self-canceling phrase if ever I heard one.
That said, if I was that fireman, and the choice was between the Rembrandt and my ex-wife, not only would I unhesitatingly grab the painting, but I would trip her as she tried to escape. (Too bad this is only another exercise in the hypothetical.)
lol @ ex-wife.
Yeah, I agree that my statement was taking the easy way out and shouldn't really play any part in the decision. If I was to be completely unbiased about it, I think I'd have to choose the Rembrandt, as it would have the potential to bring joy to thousands of people whereas the Cat would never have that much of an impact.
Still, I like being selfish. ;)
"Situational Ethics"? Most of my philosophy background is political, and the first thing that comes to mind when you say that is Nietzsche.
Quote: bluefire
"Situational Ethics"? Most of my philosophy background is political, and the first thing that comes to mind when you say that is Nietzsche.
And the first thing that comes to mind when you say "Nietzche" is (besides "Gesundheit!") is Otto in "A Fish Called Wanda":
Otto: Don't call me stupid!
Wendy: Why on earth not?
(Otto was a student of Nietzsche.)
Quote: mkl654321And the first thing that comes to mind when you say "Nietzche" is (besides "Gesundheit!") is Otto in "A Fish Called Wanda":
Otto: Don't call me stupid!
Wendy: Why on earth not?
(Otto was a student of Nietzsche.)
I've never seen that movie, but after looking it up since that comment, it looks absolutely hilarious. Just added to the netflix queue.
1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (no contest)
2. Life of Brian (also Monty Python)
3. A Fish Called Wanda (featuring most of the Monty Python cast)
