It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moral dillemma for materialists

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Do I need to look after the kid/chimp after my choice? Is this a choice made in the world as it is now? or a SHTF kinda situation?

Without any of those answers I'd go with chimp. In fact, regardless, I'd choice the chimp




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I always feel for animals because they do not have the same biological gifts that humans have. However, the retarded boy is still human, but not in the sense that he can take care of himself and make his own decisions like most humans. Well he can to an extent, but basically he would need constant looking after.

I think I would take the chimp, although it would depend on the situation. The main reason is as follows: A chimp is able to care for himself in the wild, and you could help him of course, but it would be much easier to survive with the chimp.

Energy expenditure in a survival situation is very important, especially with a limited food supply, and I think my chances of survival would be better with the chimp.

But then again we may not be talking about a survival situation. If it just happened to be an everyday occurrence, and I had to make a choice, I would probably save the kid instead of the chimp.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
The smart monkey would raise the child(as they always seem to do), the child would be elevated to royalty status by it's peers, I would write the biographies and mime sign language as a hobby after i was ensured an income from the books.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
The chimp can undestand what objects are and can communicate using pictures. Whereas the child can communicate even less than the chimp.

It's for materialists because then humans don't have apriori rights above animals. And in this case the chimp is smarter than the human, or at least appears to be so.

Not a survival question, but a question of which one gets more priority to be saved, and the reason why.
edit on 12-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


I guess the fact that God created human beings and says they are above the animals and have a soul doesn't seem to mean much to most of the posters in this thread. What a shame that human beings put animals before their own kind !!!!



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I dont consider intelligence to be of much importance in deciding who to save, it is a factor, but not as much important, because they both suffer similarly in the end. I guess I would save the human baby because I am a bit racist. But morally speaking, I dont think there is any obligation to save the human retarded child over the chimp or the other way, as long as one of them is saved.
edit on 25/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
...
edit on 25/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 




I guess the fact that God created human beings and says they are above the animals and have a soul


Fact?

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join