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

[orangeban]

...I can't swim.

But if I could, I would save the human. I love my dog, but it's just a dog.

 

[Stasisesque]

It relates more, I think, to the fact we know our pets; we know they're not capable of harm, we know they've never caused someone pain, emotional or physical. A stranger could be anyone from Mother Teresa to Hitler; we might jump in to save the former, but most people would let the latter drown. It has little to do with the value we place on human life, but more the value we place on the goodness of strangers.

If I jumped into a whirlpool to attempt to save anyone, all three of us would drown. I'd like to think I'd save the stranger, but it is a surprisingly hard choice to make.

Personally knowing the person isn't the point.

People here are comparing the pain of burying their cat to letting someone bury their child.

No that isn't the point I was making. My point was that when we do know someone, we know how good a person they are or how bad a person they are. If we don't know the person, we cannot judge (no, not even with the innocence of childhood, there are numerous cases of 'innocents' doing despicable things) and thus we must rely on the likelihood of a stranger being someone worth saving.

If you saw Hitler drowning but did not know it was Hitler, and you saved him, you'd have to live with the fact you saved Hitler from drowning. But you could also live with the knowledge you saved another human's life. Balancing those two extremes is not something most of us can do. Saving a life is inherently good, allowing someone to commit genocide is inherently bad. Do you see what I'm trying to say now?

When you see a stranger drowning, you immediately help. We all would, it's human nature to want to protect others. But making a conscious decision to save someone is not something most of us do - we act on instinct. All these people saying they'd save their pet because they don't know the person are only saying so because they know their pet, they understand what it would be like if they lost their pet. It is not about not knowing the stranger, but all about knowing their pet.

 

[Tiamattt]

I'm sure a LOT of people love their pets dearly and see them as real members of their families, so it's really not that hard to see why they would choose them over someone they don't know. Especially in a split second situation like this scenario where there's no time to really think about what's truly right or wrong.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

To allow the death of another Human Being, through action or inaction, is murder.

Plain and simple, the pet will have to die, unfortunately.

EDIT: Had to make it clear which being.

 

[jordanredd]

Well, likewise it's a little jarring to me that so many are saying they really don't give a damn about their pet's life at all and that anyone who does doesn't have their priorities straight. I am afraid that the extreme end of that sort of thinking leads to people like Michael Vick who took great pleasure in hanging dogs from trees and smashing their heads into the pavement because they didn't fight well enough.

So I guess that's different minds, different morals.

Saying "I value human life over an animal's," doesn't equate to saying "I want to kill random dogs."

I also value human life over animals, in general. I was referring to those who are implying that an animal's life is *worthless*, that they care no more for their dog than they do their clothes or their computers.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I can't swim (well, not well - certainly not well enough to save anyone).

My cat can swim. She doesn't like to, but she can.

So I guess that person is screwed, unless I can shout loud enough to find a proper swimmer.

 

[Mikejames]

No that isn't the point I was making. My point was that when we do know someone, we know how good a person they are or how bad a person they are. If we don't know the person, we cannot judge (no, not even with the innocence of childhood, there are numerous cases of 'innocents' doing despicable things) and thus we must rely on the likelihood of a stranger being someone worth saving.

If you saw Hitler drowning but did not know it was Hitler, and you saved him, you'd have to live with the fact you saved Hitler from drowning. But you could also live with the knowledge you saved another human's life. Balancing those two extremes is not something most of us can do. Saving a life is inherently good, allowing someone to commit genocide is inherently bad. Do you see what I'm trying to say now?

When you see a stranger drowning, you immediately help. We all would, it's human nature to want to protect others. But making a conscious decision to save someone is not something most of us do - we act on instinct. All these people saying they'd save their pet because they don't know the person are only saying so because they know their pet, they understand what it would be like if they lost their pet. It is not about not knowing the stranger, but all about knowing their pet.

No, many people here are saying, "Why should I care about a stranger or the feelings of their family?" Which is frankly depressing.

Debating what kind of person the stranger is shouldn't be what's going through your head if they're drowning. What if rescue workers had that mentality? Would you feel indignant at the idea that the majority of people would consider letting you die based on the idea that they didn't know what kind of person you were?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

To allow the death of another Human Being, through action or inaction, is murder.

Not true, or at least not true in any legal code I've ever heard.

Inaction is never murder if risk to yourself is involved.

If you can't swim, or don't wish to risk your own life (it is VERY hard to save a drowning person by swimming out to them - it is, in fact, nearly suicidal), you are not required to do so. In fact, you are encouraged NOT to because, if you aren't a good swimmer, then you've just put a SECOND person in danger (yourself) forcing someone else to come save you.

The same thing if you see someone being murdered and you are unarmed. You are not expected to risk your life to help the person - because you'd probably only succeed in getting yourself killed too.

In both cases, you would be expected to call 911 (or your local version) and get the police/fire dept/medical teams on the scene ASAP.

Hence why I voted "call someone who can swim".

Edit: Actually, your comment there sounds like one of Asimov's Laws of Robotics. That is the only time I've ever heard of inaction being in a definition like that - and that's because, in that assumption, a Robot's "life" is worth less than a human life, so they are expected to risk themselves.

 

[Saviliana Negalister]

I don't think a pet seal can't swim, and I can't swim.

 

[Kevka]

I understand everybody in this thread who says that they'd save their pet. I had several pets that I grew up with that I viewed as true family members. And in that way I cannot judge anybody who would choose such a pet over a stranger.

But, I dunno, I'm reading through the responses and seeing a lot of language of justification, often to the tune of "Humans don't have a choice to rescue the thing that's actually important to them."

Don't say that. You're making a choice. That's what this poll is about, the idea is "If you were forced to choose between your pet or a stranger who would you choose." My choice was a person. That's it. That's my choice. I don't need to justify or defend my position beyond "I value human life above other forms of life, regardless of what that person might be".

Granted, I understand the defensive posture many of you pro-pet guys are adopting: the OP basically attacked anybody who was pro-pet at the beginning. But you don't need more than "I don't see my pet as worth less than a human, not after I've bonded with it much closer than most other humans I've known." Anything else sounds like you're trying to convince yourselves as much as us. And that's where I see people shoot themselves in the foot, like with the "I don't care about strangers" stuff.

EDIT: Also, the people trying to dissect this scenario and saying stupid shit like "I can't swim, it's the person's fault for not being able to swim" are assholes. The situation isn't important, it's the choice the situation is trying to force you to make.

 

[jordanredd]

Debating what kind of person the stranger is shouldn't be what's going through your head if they're drowning. What if rescue workers had that mentality? Would you feel indignant at the idea that the majority of people would consider letting you die based on the idea that they didn't know what kind of person you were?

A rescue worker's job is to save people. If they consciously make the decision not to do so, at a minimum they'd be fired. They have a vested interest in saving people that has nothing to do with their moral compass.

We already know, more or less, that most people would happily consider letting me or you or any other stranger die without a second thought. We know this because there is an ample amount of video evidence showing some poor bastard dying on the street somewhere while hundreds of people walk by and do nothing.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I would save my pet. I don't even particularly like my pet, but I have a duty of care towards her. I'm not responsible for the stranger.

That's not to say I wouldn't try to save the stranger; I would just prioritise my dog's life because I don't see what's reasonable or noble about letting a creature which is entirely dependent on me for its existence drown. I made a commitment to look after my dog when I took her in, even if she is an asshole. The fact that no one would mourn her if she dies just makes me more determined to protect her.

 

[frizzlebyte]

You know, I think as heartbroken as I would be to lose my pet, I'd have to save the human. Sorry, but in that situation a human stranger trumps my dog.

EDIT: Referencing the rant in the OP, I consider myself a liberal, albeit not totally sold on the whole 'socialism' thing that the core of the Democratic party seems to be polarized around. Great idea, but in theory, I think it could lead to more intrusive government, which I am against.

At the same time, I am not for the core of the Republican party, either, with Norquist and his Ayn Randian loonacy taking over these days.

 

[SuperSamio64]

I fail to see how a fish would drown, so I'd save the stranger.

What if your fresh water fish was 'drowning' in salt water (or vice-versa)?

Due to the fact that it's a fish, I have little to no emotional attachment to it, so still the stranger.

 

[DarthSka]

I would save the person. Sure, I love my pet, but I value human life above animal life. Also, there are too many factors concerning the human to not save them, at least to me. Are they a parent for one. I know my cat doesn't have others depending on her to provide for them.

]Again, why should he care? Yeah, having a mother of three die in that situation would fucking suck. But I'm not going to have anything to do with that mother or her kids. Why should I care?

You are a shining beacon of humanity. Why can't everyone be like you?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

the idea that people like that even make up 1% of our society is ludicrous

No shit, that would mean 60,000,000 serial killers globally. That's... a lot.

 

[Basement Cat]

How old is this stranger, exactly? It's going to inevitably come up, so just get it over with.

A fair question. For the sake of this little test let's say it's a woman in her late twenties to early thirties.

----

Note: Please don't read below until you answer the poll. I don't want to tilt the results with my angry rantings.

Spoiler

So I saw this poll on MMO-Champion and it tilted 2:1 towards saving the pet. I find this disgusting on a level I can't even begin to describe. Excuses ranged from arguments from ignorance "Well the stranger might be a pedophile!" to admissions that their own feelings trump the feelings of the friends and family of the human being who is going to die due to their action (or inaction).

What bothers me most is that I remember Dennis Prager, a conservative loudmouth, talking about a poll conducted with "liberals" asking the same question. He claimed that an overwhelming majority of them would save their pet over a human, and at the time I thought that sounded like just more bullshit from a bullshit artist.
Was I wrong? Does that loudmouth imbecile actually have a valid point for once in his career? I decided to run a completely unscientific test with a fairly liberal audience (you guys) to find out.

I voted to save my pet's life. As for the stranger: "Another one bites the dust!!!"

As for your disgust with people feeling this way---learn to live with disappointment.

P.S.: Did Prager consider the fact that plenty of conservatives love their pets, too? Did the poll he was condemning ask people to identify themselves as libs/cons in the course of answering whether they would go for their pet or the stranger?

These are legitimate questions.

 

[Stasisesque]

No that isn't the point I was making. My point was that when we do know someone, we know how good a person they are or how bad a person they are. If we don't know the person, we cannot judge (no, not even with the innocence of childhood, there are numerous cases of 'innocents' doing despicable things) and thus we must rely on the likelihood of a stranger being someone worth saving.

If you saw Hitler drowning but did not know it was Hitler, and you saved him, you'd have to live with the fact you saved Hitler from drowning. But you could also live with the knowledge you saved another human's life. Balancing those two extremes is not something most of us can do. Saving a life is inherently good, allowing someone to commit genocide is inherently bad. Do you see what I'm trying to say now?

When you see a stranger drowning, you immediately help. We all would, it's human nature to want to protect others. But making a conscious decision to save someone is not something most of us do - we act on instinct. All these people saying they'd save their pet because they don't know the person are only saying so because they know their pet, they understand what it would be like if they lost their pet. It is not about not knowing the stranger, but all about knowing their pet.

No, many people here are saying, "Why should I care about a stranger or the feelings of their family?" Which is frankly depressing.

Debating what kind of person the stranger is shouldn't be what's going through your head if they're drowning. What if rescue workers had that mentality? Would you feel indignant at the idea that the majority of people would consider letting you die based on the idea that they didn't know what kind of person you were?

Okay again, I said no one consciously decides to save someone or let them die. We act on instinct to save someone. Rescue workers come into that category, they save because they have to - they are just in the position to do so much more often than most. They are also, due to their line of work (most of whom do so as volunteers) much less likely to debate saving someone or not. It is simply second nature to them to save someone.

The problem arises when people are asked to make a conscious decision to save someone whilst letting someone else drown. People focus more on the latter than the former. Saving is positive, drowning is negative - we focus on the bad, and that bad would be our pets, animals we love and cherish, die. In this sort of situation, even thinking "but a stranger would live" doesn't change the fact something we love has had to die.

If you put every single person in this thread in the position mentioned, most would save the stranger and leave the pet. Wanting to save the pet over the stranger in a safe environment wherein nobody will be hurt is natural, it does not make anyone (even those people who are revelling in their hatred of humanity) here a bad person.

We are only debating this because we can. It is no different to the endless debates about killing one to save a thousand, or killing someone if you are guaranteed not to get caught. If these scenarios were playing out in front of us, most wouldn't kill one to save a thousand as killing is not in our nature. Most would not commit murder if they were guaranteed to get away scot free, either, for the same reasons. And most would save a human's life over an animal's.

 

[ZeroMachine]

The results of this poll reminded me why I don't come on here as much anymore.

 

[the December King]

I understand everybody in this thread who says that they'd save their pet. I had several pets that I grew up with that I viewed as true family members. And in that way I cannot judge anybody who would choose such a pet over a stranger.

But, I dunno, I'm reading through the responses and seeing a lot of language of justification, often to the tune of "Humans don't have a choice to rescue the thing that's actually important to them."

Don't say that. You're making a choice. That's what this poll is about, the idea is "If you were forced to choose between your pet or a stranger who would you choose." My choice was a person. That's it. That's my choice. I don't need to justify or defend my position beyond "I value human life above other forms of life, regardless of what that person might be".

Granted, I understand the defensive posture many of you pro-pet guys are adopting: the OP basically attacked anybody who was pro-pet at the beginning. But you don't need more than "I don't see my pet as worth less than a human, not after I've bonded with it much closer than most other humans I've known." Anything else sounds like you're trying to convince yourselves as much as us. And that's where I see people shoot themselves in the foot, like with the "I don't care about strangers" stuff.

EDIT: Also, the people trying to dissect this scenario and saying stupid shit like "I can't swim, it's the person's fault for not being able to swim" are assholes. The situation isn't important, it's the choice the situation is trying to force you to make.

Well, put, Kevka. Your choice is your own- it's not the choice I 'd necessarily make, but that's okay, too.