Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The dog, of course. Because there is no better and more loyal creature than a dog. After saving a dog, you can also save a person. As they say where will he go from the submarine
A person. Just because I don't like him is no reason to condemn him to death. This is my view of morality and justice.
In such questions, it is always necessary to take into account in what society and in what conditions it was asked. Morality, justice and duty are derived from society.
What kind of morality and what kind of justice? Morality is dictated by the canon of the dominant religion. From the Buddhist point of view, a dog and a person are equivalent; in the next life, a person may well be a dog, and a bad person a worm. Will you save the worm? What does an unpleasant person mean? Maybe he needs help drowning if he's a bandit, for example? From the point of view of Christianity, a person is “better” than a dog, a dog is” worse” than a cat. If the dog inadvertently enters the church, it must be re – consecrated, but if the cat does not. In any case, you will have to answer at the last judgment, where the betrayal of a loyal dog may weigh more than the salvation of a trashy person.
In such a situation, there will be no time to think about morality and justice – you will need to obey the impulse, and you will evaluate the act later. Therefore, it makes no sense to give a speculative answer to this question… Now I feel like I would rush to save someone who is closer – I don't want to leave my friend for some fucking thing… But everything is decided in a moment: suddenly the horseradish would look or shout so that the picture of the world would turn an existential wrong side, and a completely unexpected factor would act on my will.
A dog is one of the few animals that can establish full contact with a person. A dog and a human understand each other, can exchange information, sense each other's mood, take care of each other, and fulfill mutual obligations.
Therefore, the dog understands that it is drowning and this is bad. And she understands that she has a master and a friend whom she fully trusts and expects that the person will come to the rescue. Just as a person expects that the dog will help him protect himself or warn him of danger. Therefore, there is no logical reason to think that a dog does not have the right to full support from its human within all available opportunities.
I don't want to get into this situation… It's still a painful choice, even if the person is unpleasant. In my generation, a lot is hammered into the sense of mutual assistance, “die yourself, and save your friend” and other rubbish. But I would probably say to a person, ” Hold on, bro, be patient, I'm going to…” And I would swim to save the dog, and then-as God wills ))) Because the dog's eyes that look at you, and you can't help – I've had this in my life, I still see them, I don't want it to happen again
Depending on what kind of creature, if a cop, leftist or something like Chikatilo, then I won't even think about it. I'll save the dog.
In all other cases – a person.
The dog, of course. First, it is a pleasant being to me, and second, it is my being. Third, I'm not a species chauvinist. Well, that's the moral. Oh, and the volume of the text caught up.
The more you get to know people, the more you like dogs.
You need to save your favorite dog, it's ambiguous. This is my misanthropic morality and justice. The dog has more value for me.