Losing Touch?

            I do not mean to dwell on the same subject matter, but a recent discussion in class seemed extremely relevant to the point I tried to make in my previous post.  We were discussing a scenario involving a human child in danger of being attacked by a wolf (presumably as prey), and whether or not one would be morally justified, or obligated, to intervene. 

I understand that an ethics class is a unique environment, where interesting questions are given more thought than might otherwise be the case.  However, I found the extent to which this scenario was actually treated as a moral dilemma to be somewhat disturbing.  Some even went so far as to suggest that, morally speaking, there is no difference between killing the wolf to protect the child and simply allowing the child to be eaten by the wolf.  According to this view, both beings have equal value and the death of one would be equivalent to the death of the other.

In my opinion, this demonstrates the extent to which many, in entering the realm of philosophical discussion, actually seem to abandon the reality of experience, thereby rendering their ethical propositions meaningless.  To suggest that any human being would be justified in allowing any other human being (particularly a child) to be eaten by a wolf, so as to respect either the inherent value of the wolf or its natural right to predation, is a perfect example of why so many people are so contemptuous toward overly intellectualized ethical philosophy.  Any ethical standard that suggests the acceptability of such behavior could not possibly be taken seriously as a manner in which to live one’s life.

Perhaps it is speciesism (although in my last post I believe I demonstrated that there are many types of relationships/sentiments that hold significant moral relevance), but I believe absolutely every decent person would do anything they could to save the child.  Not only that, but anyone that stood by and watched, due to some hardline belief in the moral equality of all sentient creatures, would be looked at as a monster.  In this case, I believe that natural sentiments and social norms are entirely in the right, and the burden of proof lies with those who would suggest that a wolf is just as important as a human child.

I do understand that it was simply a hypothetical discussion, and I do not mean this as an attack on anyone personally.  Nor do I believe that anyone would actually refrain from saving a child from a wolf attack.  But that is essentially my point.  I think it is important, regardless of how ridiculous the hypothetical scenario may be, to keep ourselves grounded in the reality of actual experience when discussing morality.  Otherwise, I feel as though ethics loses its meaning.