The gurgling sound of death!

[Luminus]

Seriously you would just die if your limb was trapped in rocks in a desert like happened to that guy? You wouldn't cut off your hand to be free? WHY NOT? It saved his life. Plus the hand was obviously dead anyway.

As to pets, it would take starvation first but sure. People have done this, people trudging through the arctic have eaten their sled dogs. Do you have any children? Would you let them die before you fed them your cat?

And squirrels are no more yuck than delicious chicken.

Yup. I think I would just die. Would you jump in shark infested waters on the chance that you might make it to land, rather than stay on the boat and wait for help? There are some things we as individuals just won't do. I think this is one of them for me.

As for feeding my cat to my daughter, that's a tough one. I might as well feed my wife to them, if that's the case. At what point do you say enough?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Your wife is more valuable than your cat, especially to your daughter.

And really as far as the limb scenario goes that is just a waste of your life. Is it squeamishness that won't allow you to cut off your hand to free yourself? What use is that? It's not even a moral dilemma like cannibalism, or even your cat.

I refuse to believe you wouldn't feed your cat to your daughter to save her.

 

[Luminus]

It's a no win situation. My mind won't accept it. We'll never know for sure what I'd do in these situations, until it happens, which is never. Yes, I'm banking on these things never happening to me.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

What in the world is no win about sawing off a limb to save yourself?

One way you lose because you die of thirst.

One way you might win because you can walk to help.

 

[Venardhi]

Isn't it the Mormons who suggest everyone have one years supply of food stored at home?

3 days at a minimum. I had my own personal 72 hour kit when I was a kid, with several gallons of water, cans of food, bags of rice, a pellet gun, etc. all stored together in my closet. One of the more practical aspects of that wacky religion.

 

[Luminus]

What in the world is no win about sawing off a limb to save save yourself?

I was talking about killing my cat and eating him. I love my cat and I love my daughter. There is no "love one more than the other." It's just love.

I don't think I could bring myself to saw off a limb. Some things are just too much. I know people that would rather die than be thought of as a punk. Would you die for that? There are some that will kill you for stealing a quarter, just on principle alone. I know someone who's willing to use a hypothetical transporter, knowing full well that it kills the original you. This person only cares that a version of herself continues living. I'm not doing that, unless I'm about to die anyway. Would you? Braveheart (a Hollywoodized account) wouldn't say a few simple words (a lie) to save himself from horrible torture. Would you? He wouldn't even take the pain killer. Everyone has a line that's not going to be crossed no matter how rational it might be to cross it.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Stock up on Soylent Green.

 

[Luminus]

As a side note, if you're going to eat your pets when the going gets tough, maybe you shouldn't have pets, let alone purchase health insurance for them. Maybe people shouldn't be arrested for mistreatment of them, either, if they're just "emergency food." This sounds like a slippery slope. What happens if the choice is between feeding your friend to your child? Do you kill your friend like Oliver Queen's father did? Is parental instinct going to takeover and turn you into a cold-blooded killer?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

What in the world is no win about sawing off a limb to save save yourself?

I was talking about killing my cat and eating him. I love my cat and I love my daughter. There is no "love one more than the other." It's just love.

I don't think I could bring myself to saw off a limb. Some things are just too much. I know people that would rather die than be thought of as a punk. Would you die for that? There are some that will kill you for stealing a quarter, just on principle alone. I know someone who's willing to use a hypothetical transporter, knowing full well that it kills the original you. This person only cares that a version of herself continues living. I'm not doing that, unless I'm about to die anyway. Would you? Braveheart (a Hollywoodized account) wouldn't say a few simple words (a lie) to save himself from horrible torture. Would you? He wouldn't even take the pain killer. Everyone has a line that's not going to be crossed no matter how rational it might be to cross it.

Putting your cat over your kid because " There is no "love one more than the other." is not rational. It's awful.

As a side note, if you're going to eat your pets when the going gets tough, maybe you shouldn't have pets, let alone purchase health insurance for them.

And if you are going to put your pets over your children maybe you shouldn't have children.

Your posts have some huge rationality gaps in them. You are too squeamish to wring a pigeons neck for food but you'd choose to watch your child die of starvation before you'd eat a pet?

 

[Luminus]

Putting your cat over your kid because " There is no "love one more than the other." is not rational. It's awful.

Oh, come on. This is a ridiculous scenario. Both situations are awful. Anyway, I invite you to take this test: Would you eat your cat.

And if you are going to put your pets over your children maybe you shouldn't have children.

Your posts have some huge rationality gaps in them. You are too squeamish to wring a pigeons neck for food but you'd choose to watch your child die of starvation before you'd eat a pet?

It's not one over the other. It's neither. We'd both die and I already conceded that this was irrational. One couldn't be starving if the other isn't. How does that work? Why not cut off one of your limbs and feed it to your child, since you apparently can do that so easily? Your child would live longer, seeing how you have more limbs to offer than just a single cat carcass. One cat is going to last one day. Then what?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I think you should definitely become a vegetarian. I don't know how you can eat your delicious chicken with a straight face.

 

[Luminus]

I think you should definitely become a vegetarian. I don't know how you can eat your delicious chicken with a straight face.

Take the test.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Okay I have done the eating your cat test and my results were..

Results:

Moralising Quotient: 0%

Moralising Quotient
The Moralising Quotient is an average measure of your tendency to condemn the actions described in these scenarios as morally wrong. A score of 100% indicates a fully moralising position. A score of 0% is a fully permissive response.

Yuk-O-Meter: 0%

The Yuk-O-Meter measures the tendency of your moral judgements to reflect the feelings of distaste or disgust you might experience when confronted with certain kinds of behaviour. A score of 100% means that each time you've stated you would be bothered or disgusted by a particular behaviour, you have also judged that behaviour to be morally wrong. A score of 0% means that you have never judged a behaviour you've stated you find bothersome or disgusting to be morally wrong. If the Yuk-O-Meter reads "null", it means you have not indicated that you would be bothered or disgusted by any of the behaviours described in the scenarios featured here.

 

[Luminus]

Okay I have done the eating your cat test and my results were..

Results:

Moralising Quotient: 0%

Moralising Quotient
The Moralising Quotient is an average measure of your tendency to condemn the actions described in these scenarios as morally wrong. A score of 100% indicates a fully moralising position. A score of 0% is a fully permissive response.

Yuk-O-Meter: 0%

The Yuk-O-Meter measures the tendency of your moral judgements to reflect the feelings of distaste or disgust you might experience when confronted with certain kinds of behaviour. A score of 100% means that each time you've stated you would be bothered or disgusted by a particular behaviour, you have also judged that behaviour to be morally wrong. A score of 0% means that you have never judged a behaviour you've stated you find bothersome or disgusting to be morally wrong. If the Yuk-O-Meter reads "null", it means you have not indicated that you would be bothered or disgusted by any of the behaviours described in the scenarios featured here.

Here is mine:

Moralising Quotient: 100%

Yuk-O-Meter: 100%

So we are totally opposite. The test says my morality is in contradiction due to my taboos and rituals associated with death, food and sexuality. Interesting.

I've been checking around the web for this question and many people are not in your camp. They view their cats as family. Some say they'd rather die, some say they'll keep looking for food elsewhere.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I have to be the weirdo in the middle, apparently:

Moralising Quotient: 33%

Yuk-O-Meter: 50%

Basically, I don't like the idea of watching a friend eat their cat for dinner (even though I wouldn't call it wrong or immoral.) Also, I think it's wrong to make a promise you don't intend to keep. But adult siblings having sex with each other? Whatever, as long as they aren't having kids.

As for food: I have a well-stocked pantry that, were I to stretch it, could probably get my kids and me through a couple months. Lots of rice, pasta, beans, corn, fruit, etc. I'd also get a read for the local situation to determine if people are turning on each other or trying to come together for the sake of mutual survival. If things look like they are going to fall apart, I'll head for the country.

 

[Amaris]

My results were less than surprising:

Moralising Quotient: 0%
Yuk-O-Meter: 0%

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I did find two of the scenarios yucky, as in that is my visceral reaction. But it didn't lead to my judging them morally wrong, which is what ups your score.

 

[Luminus]

I have to be the weirdo in the middle, apparently:

Moralising Quotient: 33%

Yuk-O-Meter: 50%

Basically, I don't like the idea of watching a friend eat their cat for dinner (even though I wouldn't call it wrong or immoral.) Also, I think it's wrong to make a promise you don't intend to keep. But adult siblings having sex with each other? Whatever, as long as they aren't having kids.

As for food: I have a well-stocked pantry that, were I to stretch it, could probably get my kids and me through a couple months. Lots of rice, pasta, beans, corn, fruit, etc. I'd also get a read for the local situation to determine if people are turning on each other or trying to come together for the sake of mutual survival. If things look like they are going to fall apart, I'll head for the country.

How do you keep the weevils out of your rice? I find that whenever I keep rice sitting around for too long in the closet, I find a weevil infestation.

I did find two of the scenarios yucky, as in that is my visceral reaction. But it didn't lead to my judging them morally wrong, which is what ups your score.

Yeah, I've got to reevaluate my moral system, now. That yuck factor is causing an issue. I thought I was above such things, but apparently not.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Rice actually has a shelf life, it goes rancid in a year or so. At least brown rice does. It is worth checking the use by. I don't store bulk rice but I do have bulk beans. If your rice smells kind of stale, throw it out.

 

[JarodRussell]

I seem to have confused that Would you eat your cat test.

You responded that Carl Bianchi did no moral wrong in failing to keep the promise he made to his mother on her deathbed. This certainly fits with your view that there was no harm associated with his dishonesty. However, there is an interesting tension in your responses. Even though you think there was no moral wrong and that no harm occurred, you nevertheless claimed it would have bothered you to have watched Carl lying to his mother. This is a little odd. There is no logical inconsistency here, but it is somewhat implausible from a psychological point of view. Put simply, it just isn't clear why you'd find it bothersome to watch Carl lying to his mother, which, after all, is just a matter of watching one person talking to another, if there were not something about the morality of what was unfolding that you found troubling (perhaps, for example, to do with thoughts about betrayal or deception).

It's not odd. There is a difference between failing to keep a promise (the text never implied that he was lying at that point) and not keeping a promise. If life unexpectedly gets in his way, he is not at fault. But if he already knew beforehand, well then he is at fault. It's about intention, guys.