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

[Maze1125]

no because a cat doesn't have a real thought process and the human does,

How do you know it doesn't?
How do you even define "real thought process"?
And, once you've defined it in an unambiguous way, why does that thing you've defined even matter?

quality of life means more than just happiness for example when the cat becomes obsesed with it's own mortality then we can talk,

Everyone I know who's become obsessed with their own mortality has had a worse quality of life because of it.

but you never anwsered my question would you rather kill your pet or murder a man walking by on the street which one will lead to more sleepless nights and if you choose the cat I think you need to look more heavily into the weight that your anwser holds

I wouldn't kill either. If a guy had me a gun point, then I'd probably grab my pet and run, or try to fight him. If I was in an impenetrable box and I had two buttons and had to pick one otherwise we'd all die, then I'd probably end up letting us all die.

 

[DarkRyter]

My pet.

I don't give a fuck about you, man.

 

[Ghengis John]

We care for them, we love them, we feed them, we teach them if we can, we watch them grow. I've had a lot of pets, and so have the people in my family; but these bundles of cuteness or interesting, unusual pets really draw out our maternal or caring side.

And on superiority, if you do believe your dog/cat/fish/pet scorpion is equal or better than a human, that is indeed your opinion--but it is not the case in law, rights, intellectual capacity or potential.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a child substitute though. I mean, I guess it makes sense with the rabbits your friend had, but I go for dogs. And not some fluffy thing, a goddamn working dog. That thing ain't your child, it's your brother. They're tougher, more intelligent, less demanding, less work, and more loving than a lot of humans I know. And yes, I stand by the "intelligent" part.

Again, that only applies to a small minority of pets, but it's MY minority.

I mean that all said, humanity as a whole is superior to animal-kind. Why this thread is interesting is because we're talking one-on-one.

Ah working animals, companions and helpers on the job, good things. Although that is more in a class of its own, the working dog, and less tied to the pet and what that typically entails and the culture around it. Thanks for your input.

To the people that argue animals are equal or superior, I've heard this before and I'll put it this way. What beagle has built or steadily filled a library with literature and science over generations? What canary has opened a shop to sell goods and make the lives of other canaries (or people) better? A cheetah is fast (although not a typical pet by any stretch) but does it catch violent criminals in a society, or does it run into burning buildings and carry out the helpless or injured? Some animals have languages as identified, but have they developed or used telecommunications? Animals can eat, but can they cook and present a fine meal (a croc leaving a corpse to rot under a log does not count, lol). Various types of monkeys can be intelligent, but have they ever written a screenplay, novel or persuasive essay? Ants are industrious (some of the time) to our perceptions, and cultivate fungus, but do they plant and nurture varied crops of wheat, fruits and a variety of vegetables? Pack animals bully or follow but have they ever created and institutionalised something like the code of Hammurabi or any code of jurisprudence? Lizards bask on hot rocks, but have they ever used solar power for their benefit, and so they didn't have to go outside and be vulnerable to predators? Animals can sometimes heal injuries and some are better at this than others, but has any non-human animal species ever developed medicine and acted to improve and refine its treatments?

The superiority of humans is plain if you move beyond emotion swaying your opinion and examine history and multiple human civilisations. I'm a sociologist, so this is somewhat my area.

Very good old bean, however all of these accomplishments apparently fail in light of the accomplishments of amoeba.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

no because a cat doesn't have a real thought process and the human does,

How do you know it doesn't?
How do you even define "real thought process"?
And, once you've defined it in an unambiguous way, why does that thing you've defined even matter?

quality of life means more than just happiness for example when the cat becomes obsesed with it's own mortality then we can talk,

Everyone I know who's become obsessed with their own mortality has had a worse quality of life because of it.

but you never anwsered my question would you rather kill your pet or murder a man walking by on the street which one will lead to more sleepless nights and if you choose the cat I think you need to look more heavily into the weight that your anwser holds

I wouldn't kill either. If a guy had me a gun point, then I'd probably grab my pet and run, or try to fight him. If I was in an impenetrable box and I had two buttons and had to pick one otherwise we'd all die, then I'd probably end up letting us all die.

funny but it just shows that you are unwilling to an the question because you know morally what the answer is. Serial killers don't have a sense of morality butchers do

 

[Maze1125]

To the people that argue animals are equal or superior, I've heard this before and I'll put it this way. What beagle has built or steadily filled a library with literature and science over generations? What canary has opened a shop to sell goods and make the lives of other canaries (or people) better? A cheetah is fast (although not a typical pet by any stretch) but does it catch violent criminals in a society, or does it run into burning buildings and carry out the helpless or injured? Some animals have languages as identified, but have they developed or used telecommunications? Animals can eat, but can they cook and present a fine meal (a croc leaving a corpse to rot under a log does not count, lol). Various types of monkeys can be intelligent, but have they ever written a screenplay, novel or persuasive essay? Ants are industrious (some of the time) to our perceptions, and cultivate fungus, but do they plant and nurture varied crops of wheat, fruits and a variety of vegetables? Pack animals bully or follow but have they ever created and institutionalised something like the code of Hammurabi or any code of jurisprudence? Lizards bask on hot rocks, but have they ever used solar power for their benefit, and so they didn't have to go outside and be vulnerable to predators? Animals can sometimes heal injuries and some are better at this than others, but has any non-human animal species ever developed medicine and acted to improve and refine its treatments?

The superiority of humans is plain if you move beyond emotion swaying your opinion and examine history and multiple human civilisations. I'm a sociologist, so this is somewhat my area.

Yes, well done, that rambling paragraph just showed that humans are, as a whole, the most intelligent species on the planet.

But so what? That doesn't mean anything unless you choose to value that intelligence.
We, as humans, of course choose to value intelligence, because we pick the attribute that defines our species over any other. But that is nothing more than a biased opinion of a species wanting itself to be the best.

Nothing in that makes intelligence more moral, or more worthy of life. We, as humans, like valuing humans. But so damn what?

 

[Maze1125]

funny but it just shows that you are unwilling to an the question because you know morally what the answer is.

Bollocks. I answered the question with what I would actually do. Nothing could ever force me to make that choice, so I wouldn't make it.

Serial killers don't have a sense of morality butchers do

So do terrorists and people who murder abortion doctors.
It may not be the same morality as yourself, but that doesn't mean they don't have a sense of it.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

This is a serious question. I want to know whether you would rather save the life of your pet animal or me in an emergency.

I am a complete stranger and you know nothing about me, therefore I could be a disliked loner or beloved by family or friends, a dumbass or a prodigy, a criminal or a volunteer with children and the elderly. You can't know.


EDIT:

These poll results are hardly surprising; a similar question was posed by another user on a forum I frequent and most people were more than happy to let that OP die, even kill and torture him, over their dog or cat. There is a serious lack of empathy in the modern world.

Even as a pet owner myself (I have a cat), I feel that people who put the lives of animals they own over other human beings are SELFISH. Selfish because their pets love them unconditionally and provide companionship, and they don't want to give this source of happiness up, while many people don't get along well with other humans. However, I personally could never live with the guilt knowing that I let another human being with family, friends, a significant other, a job where they provide value to others, hopes, and dreams die for an animal that is barely self-aware and mainly exists to make me happy and entertain me.

It would pain me to do so, but I would kill my cat myself so that any one of you may live.

EDIT 2:

Yes, the poll question was poorly worded when compared to the content of the OP, sorry.

They key here is that it is OUR pet.

If it was A pet, then I would save you, but since I don't know you I would definitely save the creature to which I have become so attached.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

Everyone I know who's become obsessed with their own mortality has had a worse quality of life because of it.

this is because they are willing to stand for something and take the bad that comes with it and as cute animals are they don't have to make choices in their lives based around their beliefs. If you don't have any beliefs fine just don't try and act so superior about it some people want to change things and if you want to live your life in ignorance like an animal let me say "ignorance is bliss"

 

[AceAngel]

I don't have anything against pet/animals in general. But people need to get a grip on reality, we have Santa Paws on Christmas, a dog wearing a Santa Costume for other dog, yet in the small shopping mall, we have Santa Clause for Kids.

People, even with Kids are more willing visit Mr. Paws instead of another human being for their childs make-belief.

Sorry, but people have lost it ages ago, and animals die early, plus, while it's true there have been many stories of dogs waiting for their owner or chasing them to find them, those stories are far and between.

EDIT: On second read, I see the escapist is just as guilty as your average hypocritical Joe who thinks an animal at their side is more important then a human life who most likely has a daughter and wife, as well a son who's going to college.

Honestly, how freaking apathetic are you people? I sure hope none of you animal lovers ever need help in your life, in which a person either must side with a street cat/dog versus you.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

Possibly. I've yet to see a really strong argument for saving the human posted, and you've failed to make one.

Indeed, and I'm not going to make an honest attempt either. I do not consistently adhere to any system of ethics, and can't be arsed to debate the subject.

Even so, I can guarantee you that you won't be able to choose the pet over the OP without being a supreme egoist. Regardless of how much you care for the lives of people whom you do not know, idly taking their lives opens up a parallel dimension of worms which most people should be rational enough to avoid.

let me get this straight....your saying that anyone who values a pet(which as has been said are seen by some(myself included) as family) are self-centered....and conceited for deciding they'd rather save a much loved animal than a random human being when God knows how many people die every single day.

yeah that makes complete sense../sarcasm

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Question is, is it something you want to be accountable for?

I don't know him. Big deal. Another statistic. He would still have died had I never gotten the question in the first place, I didn't do anything to cause his death, so bah. Just another statistic. Nothing I'm going to lose any sleep of...or even remember, for that matter.

But that's because this isn't real, right? Because this is just a question, not an actual choice. He's asking you to imagine like it was, which therefore reflects your attitude on life and how you treat other people. If you looked him in the face, would you still choose the same result? Would you feel better if he was in some other part of the world? If these factors have an impact, what does that say about you and your actions in life?

This is why I like these moral dilemmas, it puts us in places that stress our principles, and the result helps us grow as humans.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

funny but it just shows that you are unwilling to an the question because you know morally what the answer is.

Bollocks. I answered the question with what I would actually do. Nothing could ever force me to make that choice, so I wouldn't make it.

Serial killers don't have a sense of morality butchers do

So do terrorists and people who murder abortion doctors.
It may not be the same morality as yourself, but that doesn't mean they don't have a sense of it.

your still talking about people murdering people i'm saying normal people no when things are wrong and do you realize by saying this you are putting yourself in the same ring with terrorists and worst of all tea partyers
by choosing to murder someone over your pet you are justifying it with your own set of morals thats what I mean by he puts himself with terrorists/teapartyers

 

[trooper6]

I think I voted incorrectly. Your poll was a tad poorly worded. I would have gone with the positive rather than the negative.

So who would I save? You.

 

[UnmotivatedSlacker]

You're still saving a person capable of living and feeling emotion. I wouldn't judge you for either choice.

How are my pets not capable or living or feeling emotion?

Your pets have a life, but not in the sense humans do. They can't rationalize and they can't comprehend the notion we call "love". They are governed by instinct.

If you died tomorrow, your cat would not even notice the difference if it still got its food.

You do know humans aren't the only creatures who mourn right? I've heard of pets crying all of the time, becoming more lethargic, and in extreme cases, stop eating. How can you say a creature who reacts like that is incapable of comprehending love?

 

[Dexiro]

As much as I love my pet cats I'd let you win this one. I don't have a major connection with them, I just give them food in exchange for being fluffy and adorable :3

I'd like to say that If I had a dog then I'd want him to win, but if I imagine myself being put in OP's shoes I don't want some randomer valuing his dogs life over mine.

 

[Astoria]

I'd save my dog no question. Sorry but I don't know you and my dog is like a best friend to me. You say that it's selfish to save an animals life over a humans because a human can do more with their life. I don't find that to be a very good arguement. I love my dog just as much as I love another other member of my family. While yes he may never invent a cure for cancer or anything like that he provides a lot of love and support to my whole family as do other family dogs and in my opinion that means that he does live a very rich life and one worth saving. True humans can do more with our lives and make a impact but really how many of us actually achieve something with our lives? A majority of us just stay in a crappy job and live each day exactly the same. If you were a scientist working on cancer reasearch then yes I'd save you not my dog but just some random stranger? No, sorry.

 

[Xan Krieger]

This is a serious question. I want to know whether you would rather save the life of your pet animal or me in an emergency.

I am a complete stranger and you know nothing about me, therefore I could be a disliked loner or beloved by family or friends, a dumbass or a prodigy, a criminal or a volunteer with children and the elderly. You can't know.


EDIT:

These poll results are hardly surprising; a similar question was posed by another user on a forum I frequent and most people were more than happy to let that OP die, even kill and torture him, over their dog or cat. There is a serious lack of empathy in the modern world.

Even as a pet owner myself (I have a cat), I feel that people who put the lives of animals they own over other human beings are SELFISH. Selfish because their pets love them unconditionally and provide companionship, and they don't want to give this source of happiness up, while many people don't get along well with other humans. However, I personally could never live with the guilt knowing that I let another human being with family, friends, a significant other, a job where they provide value to others, hopes, and dreams die for an animal that is barely self-aware and mainly exists to make me happy and entertain me.

It would pain me to do so, but I would kill my cat myself so that any one of you may live.

EDIT 2:

Yes, the poll question was poorly worded when compared to the content of the OP, sorry.

We're selfish for saving our own family over a stranger? How does that make sense? Either way the world is down one life.

 

[IThinkImASofa]

I don't have a pet.... you

 

[jayzz911]

sorry (wo)man but i look at it this way

Spikey (my dog): Born as a pup in my house, spent buying dogfood for for about five years, warms my feet, and I love my dog

Random (wo)man : Don't know you, have never known you, and probarbly will never meet you again.

sorry (wo)man but you'd be dead within a heartbeat.