[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is silly to pose the question where the choice involves a random human and your own pet. Every day, almost every pet owner, basically makes that choice-in favor of the pet, since he knows he could sell it to a laboratory and use the money to save a third world country starving child.

Of course if the scenario was such that he had to look the human in the eye, many pet owners might reluctantly save that human. But it wouldn't be because they thought it was the moral choice. It would be simply out of selfishness. They would be afraid that choosing the animal might haunt them down the road.

Here is a better question. If you could save either Koko or an elderly, moderately retarded, institutionalized individual, who would you choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I choose Koko for two reasons:

That animal is incredibly unique and valuable to human knowledge

and

The other person is elderly and has already livd life. If you had said child,I'd be more inclined to choose the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I are very close on this series Dom. But I'm sure if you polled 100 Catholic Bishops (regarding Koko v the elderly human) they would all say save the human, but I bet some would have secret misgivings. It is likely that none would have misgivings about my (really Prager's) original question.

At the same time I wonder what popular authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins would say about either question. My guess is at least Hitchens and Harris would line up with you on Koko v elderly human and agree with Prager on beloved pet v unknown human. Not sure about Dawkins; I only got through half his book "God Delusion" but hope to finish it at some point.

Too bad we can't ask Thomas Paine.

~ Rick