Poll: Your Pet is Drowning, and so is a Stranger.

[Kinguendo]

I save the human, it will be painful for me BUT doing the right thing and suffering for it is noble.

 

[Kinguendo]

What if your pet was a turtle or a fish? Then you would be fine!

Actually, if it was a turtle, you'd have a fuck of a time keeping it out of the whirlpool... fuckers love them.

Is that true? Because thats awesome if thats true.

 

[JochemHippie]

I'm going to pick whoever is the most important to me.
Which is my pet.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

If you would save a stranger first then you don't deserve your pet's love. I'd bet the house that, were it the other way around, they'd save you in a heartbeat.

Someone has never owned a cat or a goldfish. I can promise you neither would lift a paw/fin to help you.

To be honest im thinking id save the stranger just because id want someone to do the same for me. A dog is just a dog. Dont get me wrong i love my friends dog and she loves me. Id do a lot for her. But i couldnt hear a person scream for help and ignore it... i just couldnt do that.

Sure we are both animals and nothing is special about humans but dogs live to like 15 anyway and potentially contribute a lot less to society really. Its true no animal is special but if you were asked to choose between a person and a blind flatworm its obvious some animals are regarded higher than others.

That said i dont think it morally wrong to want to save your pet. Its hard to imagine what youd do or how you would feel to watch another human die and know you could have stopped it. Its the kind of thing id feel id want to avoid. I think in the real situation people would be more likely to save the human. We are hardwired to listen to human screams for help.

I do find the idea of killing someone, like actively murdering them to preserve an animals life slightly distasteful though. If its a question of self defense then sure i most likely would. If its a question of lets kill this magic helpless orphan so my dog doesn't die then eh... i couldnt actively murder a person. Im not that callous.

 

[BENZOOKA]

I've saved a puppy that fell into a well couple years back on xmas eve. Incidentally, there were no people drowning there at that time.

Suuuuure there weren't. You just 'happened' to stumble into a real life situation that wasn't a hypothetical moral conundrum, I suppose? Maybe we should look into missing persons reports filed in your area around the time of this non-moral-crisis puppy rescue.

(this is a joke, for people what don't understand.)

For a while I did wonder how those moving face-like stepping stones right above water level ended up there, but they were adequate footholds at getting lower from the makeshift ladder to reach for the dog. Although they did lose their random buoyancy quite rapidly, and it must've been my imagination, but it almost even felt like something tried to catch my leg...

On another note, those kind of hectic situations, like a 7 week old puppy falling to a deep well and my sister scream-crying in panic to no end, are very strange. I literally threw away a nearly my weight, hefty concrete well cover in couple seconds and proceeded to insert a separate roof ladder to the well while "complaining" about ruining my brand new 100 ? sneakers as I climbed down. And everything in a considerably composed manner to calm down other people, and myself too probably. For the record, the dog was, after a visit to vet, wash, examination, medicine, etc. and still is, very much in excellent shape.

 

[jordanredd]

I must say I am shocked as to (right now) there are more people who would rather save their pet than the stranger. After what I have understood, the main reason is because people love their pet (which i did to mine before it died of tuberculosis), but I would never chosen it over another human life.

I could have gone a very long rant about culture, worth of a human life and all that troll bait, but to sum it up, my main reason would be "I think he would have done the same for me".

So i would like you who picked your pet over the stranger, what made you come to that decision, is it a bad experience you've had with people, you don't think people would have done the same for you or is it something very special with your pet which makes you value it so much?

My dog is a member of my family. He would no doubt sacrifice his life to save mine, without a second thought, if given the opportunity; why does being willing to do the same for him seem so shocking? It isn't because of some "bad experience" with people or any silliness like that. I like people just as much or as little as any other well-adjusted human. I simply value my family members' lives over those of strangers, period.

I asked in an earlier post for someone to explain why a person's life is by default more valuable than that of an animals and have not yet received an answer. Here's that post again:

I would like to hear why choosing your pet over a stranger is the "monstrous" or "immature" choice to make. The only rationale given so far is simply "it's a person," which doesn't explain anything. Why, exactly, is a strange human's life so much more valuable than a animal family member, by default? I genuinely cannot think of a reason that does not involve one's personal religious beliefs (which do not apply to anyone but that person).

I'm not a child, or a liberal. I'm a 30-year old conservative Presbyterian. And I would almost certainly prioritize my dog's life over a stranger's. Though, as others have said, I would absolutely go back for the stranger after rescuing my dog. So how does that make me a monster?

 

[DEAD34345]

So i would like you who picked your pet over the stranger, what made you come to that decision, is it a bad experience you've had with people, you don't think people would have done the same for you or is it something very special with your pet which makes you value it so much?

It's definitely the value of the pets thing. My dog is (as far as I'm concerned) a member of my family, and whether it's right or wrong I care about it a lot more than those I don't know at all. I realise the person's death is likely to cause a great deal of suffering for others, but the well-being of my loved ones specifically comes before the overall state of suffering in the world, and that's the same for a lot of people, pet-owners or not.

 

[Snippy the Shoe]

Save the stranger definitely. As much as i love my dog and would grieve for her i would never forgive myself for letting a person die.

That being said i'm not a brilliant swimmer so i'd probably fail to do either unless i had a rope.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

A binary solution to a hypthetical does more than confirm bias Red or blue? Whats your favourite colour out of those? It shows preference in a case of two options.

Preference is bias... and that's not a hypothetical

Thats a fair point. Didnt think of this. Should be more careful around potential sociopaths.

Yes you should, so I wouldn't recommend any field experiments until you get that sorted out.

Funny thing, though, is even people who put a moderate value on human life may very well perfom the exact same actions because the material worth of the magic button machine would probably be in the billions at the lowest.

 

[NotALiberal]

SNIP

SNIP

Because it's a human. That is the only rationale you need. Humans are intrinsically worth more. It's that fucking simple.

 

[jordanredd]

Sure we are both animals and nothing is special about humans but dogs live to like 15 anyway and potentially contribute a lot less to society really.

Just to see if I am following your train of thought correctly, if it were a choice between saving a child afflicted with leukemia and down-syndrome versus a fully-grown "normal" 20 year-old human, you would save the adult, correct? Because of their potential value to society and likely longevity?

Because if true, I have a hunch a lot of folks here who answered "the stranger" on the original poll question would think you're pretty heartless for making such a choice... which is why saying someone is immature or maladjusted for wanting to save their pet is such a poorly-reasoned statement.

 

[jordanredd]

Because it's a human. That is the only rationale you need. Humans are intrinsically worth more. It's that fucking simple.

You did not answer my question.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Is that true? Because thats awesome if thats true.

Might depend on the subspecies of turtle... most of the larger Australian freshwater turtles love them.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

A binary solution to a hypthetical does more than confirm bias Red or blue? Whats your favourite colour out of those? It shows preference in a case of two options.

Preference is bias... and that's not a hypothetical

Yes you should, so I wouldn't recommend any field experiments until you get that sorted out.

Funny thing, though, is even people who put a moderate value on human life may very well perfom the exact same actions because the material worth of the magic button machine would probably be in the billions at the lowest.

Those billions are being given out to people in 10 dollar clumps for shits and giggles. Maybe im the sociopath if im abusing technology like this...

Anyway, lets say you win a contest and have to choose between these two cars, which one would you take and why?:

http://www.180sx.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/contributer-2/japshow-16.jpg

http://costablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/lamborghini_murcielago_1.jpg

That hypothetical told me a little about your taste in cars as did your explanation for why you picked one.

 

[In Search of Username]

Why can't I save both exactly? I have the swimming skills and the physically to save both if need be it. I can't save them at the same time? Why not?

Because that would defeat the point of the thread? It's a hypothetical situation, not real life.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Just to see if I am following your train of thought correctly, if it were a choice between saving a child afflicted with leukemia and down-syndrome versus a fully-grown "normal" 20 year-old human, you would save the adult, correct? Because of their potential value to society and likely longevity?

Because if true, I have a hunch a lot of folks here who answered "the stranger" on the original poll question would think you're pretty heartless for making such a choice... which is why saying someone is immature or maladjusted for wanting to save their pet is such a poorly-reasoned statement.

I think its totally rational to want to save the pet from some peoples perspectives. I wont judge them even if i wouldnt agree. Id save the 20 year man. Yeah. Id feel VERY shit about it but what can you do? From a cursory glance i can see that:

The childs family have prepared for this loss and already know it will happen but by another way.
The mans family have not.
The man will live a full life and will lose a lot.
The child will not lose an awful lot because they didnt have much time left anyway.

Still feel terrible about it though. Just my initial reaction would be to save the man.

 

[Zorg Machine]

So let me get this straight, I save the pet that I love or the stranger I do not.

If there was a random dog or a random person I would save the person because I see people as more important than animals but I would never sacrifice anyone I love for the sake of some random person. If the choice was between my sister and a brilliant professor studying cancer or some great ambassador who is bringing two countries to peace, I would choose my sister.

I don't even like most humans, why would I save one rather than a pet that I love?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I do find the idea of killing someone, like actively murdering them to preserve an animals life slightly distasteful though.

Failure to render assistance is rarely considered murder. In most places you'd get manslaughter or causing-death-through-criminal-negligence (which is pretty much manslaughter again) at best (or worst, depending on your POV).