Moral Decision Poll

[Mr 5 0]

In our emotional responses to cats, dogs and people we're losing sight of the original moral dilemma Hammer proposed and a factor that should be considered, that is, while getting rear-ended to avoid hitting a cat may or may not be illegal or a loss that insurance will cover, there are very real physical dangers involved in being rear ended.

Some years back, my lovely wife was rear-ended by a guy in a van, on a highway exit ramp, in the rain. He mis-judged his ability to stop and hit a guardrail trying to avoid her but slammed into my wife's Plymouth Horizon at about 20 mph. Her car was repairable but she was never quite the same and has had various back problems ever since. She received an insurance settlement but we both would rather the accident never happened. Money doesn't buy health.

I recount this story to make the point that getting rear-ended can cause you real physical problems not to mention the physical damage that may occur to the other person who slams into your rear. Is that morally acceptable? To possibly injure another human being to avoid hitting an animal? Maybe so. That's part of the dilemma.

So, as an intellectual exercise, we should consider the possible physical damage that could occur from a rear-end collision.

I believe this factor, alone, trumps the life of a cat or even a dog but if the decision is based on sheer emotion ('I love cats') than, of course, brace forself for the very hard shot you're about to take in this hypothetical scenario.