Today in my English 1020 class wer ewre discussing an essay by Peter Singer about animal rights. The premise is that animals are just as intelligent (if not more) than infant humans. So why don't we experiment on baby humans instead of animals etc.?
Prof. Austin: If you were on a boat and someone else's baby and your dog fell into the water who would you save? Keeping in mind that you can only save one?
Entire Class: Uh, the baby.
Prof. Austin: Why? Why is the dog's life less important than the irrational infants?
Me: Well...logically the baby has more to offer society since one day it could be a doctor or rocket scientist (or high school English Teacher. xD)
Prof. Austin: Perhaps, but that baby also has a chance of being the next Hitler.
Me:.....
Guy Beside Me: That dog has a chance of being Cujo!
Guy Beside Me=1
Prof. Austin=0
About Me
- Aurora
- Well, I'm a reclusive dork. Which pretty much sums it all up doesn't it?
Current Book
Wieland by Charles Brockden Brown
Tea of the Moment
Jasmine Oolong
Currently Engrossed In
Purple Eyeliner--It's fascinating.
People Who Linked Here Mistakenly
Powered by Blogger.
2 comments:
To a degree, I think questions like that are interesting. For the most part, though, they're mental masturbation, plain and simple. Most people in that situation would save the child without thinking about it. Frankly, if no ethical reason is adequate, how about biological? It's natural to want to preserve your own species above another.
Had I been there, I totally would've high-fived the guy next to you. XD I hope he said it loud enough for the professor to hear.
Indeed he did. The professor had no comeback.
I totally agree with you. There's just things that are GIVENS. The prof. I have is very much into frustrating leaving you without answers and having to come up with logical ones that defy averagre reasoning.
I find him entertaining. Mostly because he looks like Patrick Stewart.
Post a Comment