Another uncomfortable ethics question!

[Paul the Human]

Are the humans the cast of "Jersey Shore"? If so, I choose the ducks.

[Skipper]

The ducks are less likely to find a cure for any disease I may catch. But on the other hand they are also less likely to try and steal my wallet. Hmmm, tough one.

[Shell B]

I would do nothing and give the bastard making me choose a taste of his own medicine.

[Violet]

It is not a crime to kill ducks to save humans, it is a crime to kill humans to save ducks.

So to prevent jail time I'd kill the ducks.

Simples

Only it would have required your acting to avoid killing the humans. Surely it isn't a crime to not act

---

I would do nothing and give the bastard making me choose a taste of his own medicine.

Throw him in front of the train? That's justice.

[downbeatplumb]

It is not a crime to kill ducks to save humans, it is a crime to kill humans to save ducks.

So to prevent jail time I'd kill the ducks.

Simples

Only it would have required your acting to avoid killing the humans. Surely it isn't a crime to not act

I wouldnt like to have to defend myself in court on that one, I wouldnt take the chance.

[ib.me.ub]

I wouldnt like to have to defend myself in court on that one, I wouldnt take the chance.

Reality aside, as with EVsF thread (10,000 people), what are your arguments to as why humans are more important than ducks, or any other animals for that matter. Be it elepahnts, whales, tigers, chickens, fish, slugs, birds, dogs, cats, or mice.

I care about all beings that experience emotion.

Is this a good argument for the merits of equality among all living organisms.

[Edwardo Piet]

Whichever group contains the individual that suffers the most (be it human or duck or any other form of 'sufferer') is the group I prioritize because that would prioritize saving the individual suffering the most. If neither group contains any individual that suffers the most out of both groups then all individuals in both groups all suffer equally, so then it doesn't matter which group I save so long as I do it as quick as possible (if I am to be the most moral I can be).

[ib.me.ub]

ok, sounds like a fair philosophy. But how does one then determine which individual within the larger group is sufferenig the most.

Could you say that an individual, within a certain species with the least number of actual beings remaining, would be suffering the most.

[Edwardo Piet]

ok, sounds like a fair philosophy.

Indeed.

But how does one then determine which individual within the larger group is suffering the most.

Well that's another task. One can only give their best intuitive estimate.

Could you say that an individual, within a certain species with the least number of actual beings remaining, would be suffering the most.

If it is it is if it isn't it isn't. It's less likely to though because suffering varies over individuals and so the more individuals the more likely that one of them is suffering greater. They don't actually add up because that would mean that enough pin pricks would be worse than extreme torture when a pin-prick can only ever be as bad as a pin-prick by definition.

If we have no information whatsoever then it's better to save the larger group not because they add up (they logically can't) but because the larger the group the more likely there is someone in it who suffers the most out of both groups.

[ib.me.ub]

If we have no information whatsoever then it's better to save the larger group not because they add up (they logically can't) but because the larger the group the more likely there is someone in it who suffers the most out of both groups.

Would this depend on the circumstances of their existence.