Forums | MacLife

The question implies that the possibility that 99 % of humans are better than the very best dog.

By comparison, in my experience -- there are far more very good dogs than very good humans on a per capita (percentage ?) basis.

To justify the eating of meat, I feel that my life is more important than that of the animal that I am eating. Therefore, I would have to say the dog would die. Its just a dog. Thats being completely divorced from the situation. On the other hand, if the guy had just raped my girlfriend then slaughtered her in front of my eyes (ie. worst possible characteristics ) then I would happily take a scalpel to his offending organs before slowly roasting him over an open fire. Ummm. Yeah. So that wasn't really all that helpfull was it?

I might change my mind just a little... Bad-bastard-human can go. Screw him. The dog is an innocent.

Hmmm... So two replys were written while I was typing this...
mo'ron: Good call on the family, hadn't considered that.

as said in unplugged, visualize lassie and hitler

This is a no-brainer.

You don't even need to go to "the BEST characteristics of a dog". Since the worst most HALF-decent dogs would do is crap on the carpet if they don't get let out, the dog would win hands down even if it wasn't Lassie. A semi-decent dog loves everybody, wouldn't steal your money or wreck your car and keeps your feet warm at night.

Since the human in question is tagged as 'the worst' they are already way, way, way below the dog. The "family" question above is moot: They've already been disowned, the wife and kids have moved to another state and changed their name, mom & dad won't even admit he's their son. And frankly, you probably don't need to go as low as "the worst person" to get someone less worthy than your typical (non-genius) dog.

Even if it was worst dog and worst human, I'd still vote the human. A dog is just an animal, and knows only what it is taught. It has no morals, and cannot be taught morals. A human on the other hand, knows very well when it is inflicting pain on another. So, human dies.

The dog.  If I had the choice to save my dog or BestBuy from a burning building, I'd save my dog.

BURN!!!

I completely agree.    I guess I ment I would choose to kill the dog over any human except BestBuy.

The dog.  If I had the choice to save my dog or BestBuy from a burning building, I'd save my dog.

I might even save the rats and cockroaches first. They may be annoying and vile, but not intentionally.

Hell, easily.  You don't even have to think about that.

Kingfred is on the mark here. Dogs are smart enough to be great friends, but not quite smart enough to contemplate betrayal and theft. I love dogs.

I'm not a big cat fan. All they do is sit around and sh*t on the floor.

I'd happily save a good animal over a bad human.

I chose human.  I can't think of any moral justification for killing the best possible dog.  I can, however, under certain circumstances, think of moral justification for killing the worse posible human.  Hitler, say.  Or Donald Rumsfeld. 

Speaking in these generic terms, I'd say the human, always.

Of course, when you start assigning these characters names, like 'Hitler,' the situation changes.

"]A dog... has no morals, and cannot be taught morals.

Total disagreement.  A wagging tale means something good and snarling means bad, usually.  If after the fact, the dog is proud of what he did, such as fetching a stick.  Or, if the tail is between the leg, the dog may be aware that stealing the steak off the table is bad.