(07-13-2012, 01:17 PM)Diana Wrote: I have always liked Captain Kirk's take on the Kobayashi Maru test: he cheated because he did not believe in a no-win scenario. I do not think there is only one possibility for the outcome of the above scenario (save one or the other). I would save both.
Whenever this hypothetical scenario comes up, I always answer "well of course I'd save the child first" mainly to reassure them that I'm not one of those "animal rights zealots" who puts animals in front of humans. This seems to be a recurring concern, and yet, why is it even a question?
I don't put animals in front of humans, because in everyday life, it's never even an issue. The idea of having to choose between my cat and my neighbor's 6-year-old daughter is absurd, because it never comes up. It just doesn't. And I doubt it comes up very often for other people either.
And if it did, I agree, Diana, that there is almost always a win-win-win solution. We just have to be willing to open our minds and our hearts to that possibility, and it will manifest.
In most cases, we shouldn't have to choose, just as it's exceedingly rare to have to choose one human over another. We often hear stories of firefighters rescuing puppies or kittens. No one ever asks them if they made sure all the humans were out of the building first! So why are the vegetarians so frequently asked this question?
In a real situation, we all do what we can do. We don't over-analyze. When confronted with a puppy who needs saving, we don't look around first to see if there are any humans in the proximity before we save that puppy. We just save it...because it's the thing to do.
These hypothetical scenarios rarely happen in real life. Their only purpose is to give solace to the prevailing attitude of speciesism. I wonder: When blacks were just beginning to get recognized as having equal rights, did whites ask other whites if they'd save the white child first before saving the black child?