Poll: Who would you rather let die, your pet or me?

[Gladiateher]

Man, I had no idea that a person's pet could mean so much to them. I had a dog that died recently that I had owned literally as far as my memories go back. When she died I was a little sad but I got over it almost immediately. I may have loved this dog like a family member, but I also remember how I felt when I personally witnessed the death of a man who drove his motorcycle a little too recklessly one day and that felt a hell of a lot worse. I never knew the guy but it really affected me deep down seeing a person die.

 

[Devil's Due]

I value human life, and especially the numbers theory. If pressed against saving a loved one or ten strangers, I'd take the strangers, simply out of the fact that I was raised to protect and serve as many as possible. Besides, all the guilt afterwards would be too much for me to handle, so I'd have to choose. But don't worry about the results, most people are selfish jerks who can't think of anyone outside their monkeysphere [http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html]. The few that can are the true people you want as friends, and are the true heroes of society that can make those sacrifices.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

Sorry buddy, My dog or cat>random dude

But I'll help you up if the fish are at stake!

 

[Grayjack]

I wouldn't kill my dogs. Yes, I know that's selfish/bad, but my choice remains the same.
*Flameshield*

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I think the issue is that if you had time to think it through rationally we'd all make that call.

But if you had that much time, you'd save them both.

In an emergency situation you act on instinct, and instinct is not rational, its a "protect the pack" thing (assuming you aren't the "flee and save yourself" type)

If I had to choose between saving my daughter and saving 100 strangers, my daughter will live.

I can agree with that. In a quick flash if it were between my cute cuddly couch buddy versus some random dude, I'd probably go for the cat.

 

[Way]

Your cat would have shown Hitler equal devotion as you if he fed it regularly, bought it toys, gave it attention, and kept it safe.

History shows that so would a human, sadly.

 

[WanderingBiscuits]

I'm gonna sound obnoxious in my logic regarding this, but ehhh least im being honest. I would save whichever one pisses me off less. The dog barks a lot and bites me. So your leading atm but i don't know you well enough to tell if you could potentially annoy me in the future.

For now though. You win.

 

[Tdc2182]

Do you do the "peanut butter" trick?

I didn't think so. Tough luck.

 

[Maze1125]

A rational being with friends and family that is capable of changing the world, versus an animal that makes YOU, and ONLY YOU, happy.

So, if the choice was between a mentally disabled person who I personally knew, who had no friends or family other myself and, due to their disability, was not rational enough to achieve anything, and a perfect stranger who was of sound mind, you'd expect me to pick the stranger I didn't know over the guy I did, simply because the only thing the guy I knew did was make me happy?

He's not a rational being, he doesn't have any friends or family, he's not capable of changing the world and he's an animal. So, by everything you've said there, I'd be selfish to save him and not the complete stranger, right?

 

[Eijarel]

You are on luck if you are with me,
because i have cold heart, and would rather sacrifice an animal like a cute kitten or puppy than a human life,.. yeah i know, i fail as a proper misanthropist.

what can i say...

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

My pet. In a heartbeat.

It's quite simple, really: it has nothing to do with a lack of empathy or selfishness (nice strawmen by the way). It has to do with pragmatism.

Ok, I'll bite. But let's set the stage a bit: since empathy and selfishness are irrelevant (according to you), let's discard the notion of it being *your* pet. With no selfishness, that's an irrelevant qualifier. Instead, we will say that this is a typical animal of the same type as your pet.

That pet is non-sentient, literally a creature of instinct. It can only be what it is; nothing more, nothing less. It is neither guilty nor innocent; it will act in accordance to instinct at all times.

You make it sound little better than a machine. Let's file that away for later.

You are a human being I do not know. That means I have absolutely no idea what kind of person you are; what you've done or what you could potentially do. I do, however, have history and society as precedents, and they tell me this: most human beings don't deserve being saved over an animal I happen to hold dear. Why? Look at a damning list of humanity's flaws:

We could debate some of these in another forum, but it would take the discussion off topic. Suffice to say that there are a number of common flaws in human reasoning. I'll accept that premise without debate.

As a human being I do not know, there's a pretty strong chance you fall under at least one of the above. And while you might not, when put in a situation where it's either you or a pet, that pet gets saved. Unquestionably. Without regret. Without remorse.

So this is your pragmatic argument? It appears to consist of:

1) Animals are instinct driven biological machines.
2) Human beings have a number of flaws relating to their higher order rational thinking capabilities.
3) ....
4) Ergo, animals are more fit to live than humans.

Where's step 3? Where's the step where you somehow explain why flaws in higher order thought processes make people less fit to live than animals that don't even *possess* higher order thought processes? What value do we assign the life of an animal, anyway? You make it sound awfully low.... So where's the part where you justify this notion that things like gullibility and magical thinking make your life essentially worthless?

And finally, what is pragmatic about any of this? What is the practical outcome you would advocate? All I can think that you're saying is that the death of random human beings decreases the incidence of irrational thinking. Is that what you're saying?

If I DID know you, that would likely change; I'll always save someone I know and at least marginally respect over an animal.

So you think that you would not even have a marginal respect for the typical human being. It's funny. When I was teenager, I sort of felt that way. I was very bitter about the difficulties I had being accepted as nonreligious (ok, atheist). So I hardened my heart against people and passed off my misanthropy as dispassionate reason. And thus ideas like yours were born. But people aren't fundamentally bad. Over the years since then, I've come to realize I was largely unfair to people.

To borrow a bit from a Men in Black quote I've always liked: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." You seem right on board with the second part of the quote, but think about the first. If you actually sit and have a respectful conversation with most people, you'll find that they don't fit your caricature of the common fool.

 

[dagens24]

I wouldn't have you, but only because you asked the question, otherwise I would have.

 

[Maze1125]

Go up to a parent that just lost their child, and tell them that you're more upset about losing your dog than they are about their kid dying. Go on, I dare you.

Go up to them and say you're more upset about losing your six kids and parents than they are about losing their dog. It'd still be callous, no matter what it was you lost. You're arguing something entirely different, something which no-one was disputing in the first place.

All I meant was that, when parents lose a child, it affects them emotionally until the day they die. It's something they never get over. I have known people who have had dogs pass away. While they were understandably sad, every single one of them bought a new one within a year and generally got over it.

I just wanted to illustrate the difference between a human dying and a pet dying. It is not the same thing, and is an unfair comparison. I apologize if my example wasn't clear in explaining this.

That's an awful example then.
I've known people who have had their parents die, their siblings die or their friends die, and they all get over it with-in a few years. They, of course, occasionally reminisce, but then everyone I know who's lost a pet does the same. People who lose pets get over it faster, and reminisce less, but they're still pretty much the same thing, just longer for a human.

Yes, if someone loses a child then they are significantly more upset, and will likely never get over it. That is by far more traumatic then losing a pet, it is not comparable at all. But the reason for that is not that the child is a human being, but because the child is their child.
A parent feels a far greater bond for their child than any human does for any other human. Picking the example of a parent child relationship completely biases the example unfairly in your favour.

 

[sooperman]

If my house caught fire, I'd use my cats as dirt to try to put it out.

I'd save you, OP, and take whatever opportunity I can get to dump these little monsters. I'd save any person instead a thousand cats or dogs, no joke.

 

[joshuaayt]

I'd save my ferret, thanks- not only because he is ADORABLE, but because my sister would probably fall apart without him.

If that were not a factor? I don't know- let me cross that bridge when I come to it.

I know they don't live for so long, but I'm not one to think ahead- It's a choice between delaying the inevitable and letting it slam down on me *now*, and I'll take the former.

 

[JB1528]

Yeaaahh no, my cat has gotta live bro. Maybe if I knew you or if you were a friend, but since you're some random dude, I really couldn't care less.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

Selfish? Lack of Empathy? No. What you have is life, what my pet has is life. Your humanity does not elevate the value of your life. You present me a choice between two lives. One I know, one I don't. I'm simply making the logical choice. If you feel offended simply because I chose to forgo the human choice than there truly is a lack of empathy in this world, especially for non-human life. Life is life no matter who it belongs to.

Surely that can't be a line you draw so clearly. A bacterium has life, and I imagine you don't think a thing about putting some hand sanitizer on your hands.

If you don't like that example, let's jump up to plants. A tomato plant has life.

Don't like that either? Ok, animal kingdom, then. A fly has life. Don't like that one? Ok, a cow. We regularly slaughter and eat them. How do you feel about that? Would you feel differently if it was being done to humans instead or is it the same to you?

I don't know where you draw your line, but there is a point at which you would say that one form of life has more value than another, which is no different, in principle, from him feeling that his humanity elevates the value of his life.