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

[Candidus]

There is a serious lack of empathy in the modern world.

It has nothing to do with a lack of empathy. The human race is not one big family- there is no empathy owed here, so you can hardly tell us it's missing. I'd let you die because you're not a part of my tribe: my four or so good mates, my parents, siblings and pets. Those are the only entities in this world I'd go well out of my way for.

After that, I care about irreplaceable environments like the antarctic circle, and endangered species like the Tiger. The preservation of either of these things is worth as many human lives as you care to number, short of endangering our own species.

Again, this has *nothing* to do with a lack of empathy. The idea that it is human nature to care for and love ALL people is absurd bordering on simple-minded. We are hard wired to respond to different peoples and tribes with hostile caution, if anything, and there's nothing morally questionable about our natural compulsions.

In response to the inevitable "natural compulsions as something to be overcome", if *you* want to override a behaviour that has significant survival value, that's your choice. Don't expect the same from me or most others.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

i'd save my cat sorry. that said though between a ct and you i would save you. However i think we have to many humans so between stopping a nuke killing 100,000 people i would stop a nuke killing 100,000 wild animals. not pets though pets would die without their owners after being domesticated anyway.

 

[Leadfinger]

You'd be toast-no question. See, I care whether my pet lives or dies. You? Not so much.

 

[Chronologger]

Nothing against the rest of your post, but that point is completely meaningless, the same logic could be applied to other people, not just a pet. Why save your friend over a stranger when you could just make friends with the stranger to replace him? It's fucking pointless to state hypothetical potential futures, sure it might happen, but it has no place in the process of actually making the decision of which to save, pet or stranger.

To be honest I was just scraping the barrel to try and find as much humanity in these people as possible, it's a terrible idea, but there ARE people who think that way in this world, there ARE people who would put those thoughts into the decision making of this type of situation.

It may be for the totally wrong reasons, but I thought that perhaps if I gave people that afterthought they might be a bit more considerate of human life, even if the reasons are selfish and hypothetical.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

@OP
Are you saying humans are worth more than cats?

Absolutely. 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.

Well, Hitler was apparently better with dogs... and kids...
Would have made a good babysitter if he didn't go the path of the dictator...

 

[Maze1125]

snip

There's obviously no point discussing anything with you as you don't even bother to read it properly.

I mean, seriously, I say "I love my children, so obviously I have no evidence that they really love me back, I just assume they do because I want them to."

And your response is "So if you have no evidence, why are you so adamant that animals express love?"

And that's not the only example, it's like you haven't bother to pay attention in the slightest. If you refuse to respect my argument, to the point you don't even bother to read it well enough to understand it, why should I respect yours?

 

[Maze1125]

I am not just putting a value on intelligence here, I am also pointing to achievements, real accomplishments and potential to prove my point on the superiority of humans,

Yes, and your value on those things are nothing but your own opinion.

Ants and bees build nests of much greater complexity than any building a human has built, but you choose not to value their accomplishments and you choose to value human ones instead. Yes, you have "reasons" but the very fact you value those reasons are nothing more than your own biased human opinion.

Back to the question, choosing an animal's life over a human life is to be swayed by emotions (powerful impulses to be sure) but not to make the best choice or the most moral choice. A dog could be a great dog to its owner and some people that really like it, i.e. a really trusted companion. A human could give happiness to many people over the years (like family or lovers over the years) and help out multiple lives through personal achievement or application (the arts, or engineering as illustrated above or science or teaching to name a few areas). Humans don't always live up to their potential or cease to be selfish, but animals can also be rabid, lazy or a nuisance.

So you think I should save an able stranger over a disabled friend then? Because the friend has less potential to achieve and give happiness, so saving them would be selfish. Right?

Next time we take some medication, even a bit of cough syrup or drink some soothing tea, we should realise what goes into such helpful items (effort, expertise and application), and who makes them: humans.

Again, you're choosing to put value on those things. Those things have no intrinsic value, just the value we put upon them.

"But so what?" is also not an argument. It is a refutation without a counter-point.

That's a perfectly value argument. When an argument is hollow of substance the only thing you can do is just question it, because there's nothing to explicitly refute.

You believe you value these things for some objective underlying reason, but you always leave that reason implicit, because it doesn't actually exist. I show that by simply questioning your presumptions that the things to mention are "clearly" good with intrinsic value.

You value medicine, good for you, most other people do too. But not everyone does, there are people who believe that the whole human race should die, they undoubtedly think of medicine as a bad thing, equally people who believe that survival of the fittest and anarchy should rule.
You value our buildings, I would guess most hermits don't.

Nothing proves humans to be objectively better, you just believe it, because you're a humans and you're biased to believe humans are better.

I get you think to privilege humans is speciesist, but I've presented why I think the unknown potential of the human makes it a more moral and less biased choice to choose the stranger over the loved dog

Which again leads me back to the disabled person. If you know the human has very little potential compared to humans in general, then surely, by your own argument, saving the human with more unknown potential would be the moral thing, while leaving your disabled friend to die.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

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.

You said that for all we know, you could be a total loner. We don't know if you have friends or family, we don't know anything.

Hitler ALMOST died in World War One, y'know? The odds of you being the next Messiah are just as low, if not lower, than you being a madman.

We know absolutely nothing.

Are you saying that you are rationally calculating the possibility of someone in danger having higher-than-average value, and at the same time utterly emotionally and irrationally ignoring it for a lower mammal you're attached to?

How does that work? I mean, after an emotionally-driven choice, this is exactly the kind of talk you'd use to justify it to yourself why you didn't save the person. "It could have been a loner! Oh please let him/her be a loner." Your cat is a probably quite a loner, I doubt it shows unlimited affectionate bonds with hundreds of people.

I mean, jesus, people, we're talking about a person or a pet dying here. How can anyone say that either of those options is in any way EASY?! At least a bit level-headed sensibility might be alright.

Okay, first off, you insulting my intelligence only further convinces me to save a cat over a stranger.

You're clearly not an idiot, I recognize and respect that, but for someone claiming there is no empathy in the world, maybe it'd be wise to stop shouting to us like children.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

I respect life, but I'm not such a bleeding heart that I cry and worry about death that happens outside of my realm of influence.

Nor am I, but I possess the capacity for empathy, so even if I don't personally have a stake in whether or not the OP lives or dies, I know that there are people who do, and I can imagine how I would feel in their position. So I will show them the courtesy I would want them to show me.

Death is a part of life, both in extending the lives of others and in the act of dying itself, and if life comes into my realm of influence such as in the situation the OP presents. Then yes, I will weight life as fairly as I can.

By giving all life the same weight, according to your previous post. And I'm skeptical that you actually give all life the same weight, so I'm not sure where you're going with this argument.

I am both the person who will guide a fly out of a room instead of swatting it,

Out of respect for the value of the fly's life? Because if you only do it because it's sometimes more convenient than swatting it, that's not really applicable to the discussion.

and the one who won't shed a tear for the fly who landed on the ground a second before my foot tread across it.

What about a person who stepped in front of your car? I have a feeling you're being disingenuous here. Can I pin you down on this one? Do you think a human life has more value than a fly's life or don't you? If you do, then you don't weight all life the same, which was my point.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

Under what rationality would I be selfish for choosing the life of my beloved animal to whom may have been apart of my life for years over a stranger?

The remarkable thing about this question is that it contains its own answer.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

A kitten? You barely even know him. For all you know he's an arsonist! Then again, looking at your avatar, maybe that's a plus for you.

This thread is very sad. So many selfish, short sighted people. Who consider themselves moral no less. Depressing. Is the average age of this forum like 8 years old? I've lost lots of pets. You get new ones. It's not a big deal.

Honestly, I think you've struck on the problem. No, they aren't 8, but I bet they are young, most of them. Probably teenagers, mostly. Teenagers can be very smart, don't get me wrong, but I think they have a less developed and mature sense of morality, by and large, and many of them probably aren't seriously thinking through the issue. Others are probably still in that "misanthropy is cool" phase that a lot of teenagers seem to go through.

At least I hope that's the case. I weep for humanity otherwise.

 

[Seneschal]

There is a serious lack of empathy in the modern world.

It has nothing to do with a lack of empathy. The human race is not one big family- there is no empathy owed here, so you can hardly tell us it's missing. I'd let you die because you're not a part of my tribe: my four or so good mates, my parents, siblings and pets. Those are the only entities in this world I'd go well out of my way for.

After that, I care about irreplaceable environments like the antarctic circle, and endangered species like the Tiger. The preservation of either of these things is worth as many human lives as you care to number, short of endangering our own species.

Again, this has *nothing* to do with a lack of empathy. The idea that it is human nature to care for and love ALL people is absurd bordering on simple-minded. We are hard wired to respond to different peoples and tribes with hostile caution, if anything, and there's nothing morally questionable about our natural compulsions.

In response to the inevitable "natural compulsions as something to be overcome", if *you* want to override a behaviour that has significant survival value, that's your choice. Don't expect the same from me or most others.

"Hostile tribes"? It's a person in a life-or-death situation that would be saved by your assistance, and you instantly put a "hostile tribe" sticker on him/her? So you can be excused if he/she dies? And, while reasonably discussing it as a sapient life-form, you still blame "natural compulsions" when you can obviously choose otherwise because you are a sapient life-form.

I mean, isn't that backwards? Fuck the police? Who do they think they are, not following tribal mindsets and caring only for their mate and litter?! Fuck the firemen and doctors too, they are all obviously doing it for themselves, because care and perspective outside of what immediately affects you is weeeeird and irrational. Humanity is a warring pile of 2-to-6-members aggregates that cannot care for others because natural compulsions say so!

I'm sorry, is it really so hard to understand that our entire society wouldn't exist without altruism? I'm literally creeped out that so many people add "without a second thought" when saying they would let the OP die. Yes, it is selfish. It is destructive, short-sighted, unreasonable and dangerous. It undermines everything we've build beyond tribal huts. Pets may bring joy to their owners, but so do mind-altering drugs, chocolate and sex. Emotional attachment is not a good enough reason to sacrifice a being that serves millions of purposes beyond "emotional support to its master".

In a face-to-face interview, I think most people would answer differently. There's such a thing as societal shame, and there's a lot of shame in knowing that other people consider you completely undependable and without social responsibility.

 

[CG NUTS]

you are the wrong one, why is a human life more important then that from an other animal. humans just think there the most important because they are the smartest and think everything on this earth is theres. and i use the term smartest litely. because you can see how smart people are when there still is religion.

Humans think they are the most important because they actually can. I don't see cows building cars. We are vastly more important.

Also, why do people keep on insisting in mentioning religion in everything? I don't care if you're atheist, just don't be an anti-theist. Sure, overly religious people are annoying, but anti-theists (such as yourself) are considerably louder.

so if an advanst alien life force comes to ower planet wich has more advanst tecnologie and a far superior intellect than owers, they are in your mind more important then humans and there fore do wat ever they want with humans. and it's not only against religion it's just to piont out how humans think of them selfs so highly, while most of them believe the stupidest things because they can't find the explenasion ore refuse to listen to the most ovius one.

 

[CG NUTS]

you are the wrong one, why is a human life more important then that from an other animal. humans just think there the most important because they are the smartest and think everything on this earth is theres. and i use the term smartest litely. because you can see how smart people are when there still is religion.

The reason why humans have more impact on the world is because our leaders can decide what area gets nuked while the pack leader of wolves decides where they get to pee.

first i wanne say congrats with the wolf joke that was funny. but you say because humans can do more to change there serroundings humans are of grater value. so if we one day an alien sivilisation comes that smarter and has greater impact on there serroundings, you wull save one of them instead of a human.

 

[CG NUTS]

you are the wrong one, why is a human life more important then that from an other animal. humans just think there the most important because they are the smartest and think everything on this earth is theres. and i use the term smartest litely. because you can see how smart people are when there still is religion.

The reason why humans have more impact on the world is because our leaders can decide what area gets nuked while the pack leader of wolves decides where they get to pee.

first i wanne say congrats with the wolf joke that was funny. but you say because humans can do more to change there serroundings humans are of grater value. so if we one day an alien sivilisation comes that smarter and has greater impact on there serroundings, you wull save one of them instead of a human.

 

[Maze1125]

You just implied that, like your children, you can only assume your pets love you back. I'm saying that's not good enough, and that you can't call me wrong based on an assumption. I don't see how that's not even reading your argument.

No, that wasn't my point at all. So, thank you for proving that you haven't been paying attention at all. I would explain what I did mean, but I've already tried that several times, and you just insist on misunderstanding me again.

Like I said, that wasn't the only case of you doing it. You've been doing it the whole time, to the point that at least one other person pointed it out too.

And, no, spending 20 minutes breaking my post down into little bits doesn't mean anything when you don't bother to properly read any of the individual bits you're supposed to be responding to.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

You just implied that, like your children, you can only assume your pets love you back. I'm saying that's not good enough, and that you can't call me wrong based on an assumption. I don't see how that's not even reading your argument.

No, that wasn't my point at all. So, thank you for proving that you haven't been paying attention at all. I would explain what I did mean, but I've already tried that several times, and you just insist on misunderstanding me again.

Like I said, that wasn't the only case of you doing it. You've been doing it the whole time, to the point that at least one other person pointed it out too.

And, no, spending 20 minutes breaking my post down into little bits doesn't mean anything when you don't bother to properly read any of the individual bits you're supposed to be responding to.

You know what I am so tired of you because
A. you clearly don't have a job
B. If you think animals are as good as humans try and get a duck to make a building if and when you find this duck please contact me because you officialy won this argument until then I win

 

[Brawndo]

B. If you think animals are as good as humans try and get a duck to make a building if and when you find this duck please contact me because you officialy won this argument until then I win

Generally people who think that animals should be treated equal to humans are misanthropic, asocial, and get along better with pets than humans. Personally, animals' rights will never rise to same level as the inherent rights of every human being, but at the same time we should show compassion to lower species and not abuse them.