Wild and Radical? I Think Not.

One thing that I've noticed we keep coming back to, text after text, is the notion of whose interests are more relevant and if there is a sort of "hierarchy" to personhood. We go around and around in circles with the whole question. I am not so much curious about the question, as much as the way in which we answer it.

Every time the question arises, we seek to answer it by thinking up a hypothetical situation. For example, we ask what should be done if a building is burning and you have the chance to save a human or a dog. Sometimes, we even spice it up by making the human our child or best friend. These questions are always so crazy and absolute. It even provoked Professor Johnson to quote, "Ehtics does not apply to wild and radical scenarios". But doesn't it? And are these situations so wild and radical?

I ask this because I am confused as to how one would answer these questions then. It seems to me that these scenarios are not as outlandish as we would think. To me, asking if it is okay to wash your hands because of the loss of life seems more drastic. But then again, that makes me appear to subscribe to the hierarchy, so I'll refrain.

But in all honesty, why do we consider these legitimate questions towards morality to be so wild and radical? And in the same right, why can we not apply ethics to them? I'd be curious to see other thoughts.