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

[Mikejames]

I won't argue whose life is worth more because I honestly don't care who the stranger was -unless they were going to do something amazing on a global scale- my dog is worth more to me than that stranger is.

The fact is, you don't know what a stranger's life can amount to, but there's more potential than an animal will have, not to mention a much longer lifespan.

I'm not denying that losing your dog would hurt. I'm saying that losing a pet isn't comparable to someone having to bury a child. Or someone growing up without knowing their mother.

I don't know what else to say. Odds are no one here will be put into a situation remotely like this in the first place, but I hope people won't deny empathizing with others when the situation calls for it.
And that goes for me as well.

You cement your opinion on human morals and dignity based on a ridiculously silly internet poll. You don't see anything wrong with that?

I gave opinion in response to the poll. It's called debate.

Not that you don't have a point. One shouldn't take full stock in what others say on an internet forum on a gaming website. I've probably reiterated myself enough.

 

[Vern]

Honestly I can't swim worth a shit, so I wouldn't dive in to save either. I can doggy paddle or backstroke, but that's about it. Almost drowning when I was a kid just taught me to stay the hell away from water unless it comes out of a faucet. It would just end up with me realizing I can't swim, and I drown and the person or the pet drowns. Now if I could actually swim, and be of help, I would try to rescue the stranger. I can't fathom how someone would save their pet, an animal, over the life of another human being. Yes they may be a shitty human, or they might be an amazing human, you don't know. Human life, to me, trumps an animals life any day.

 

[loc978]

The stranger... even if the silly question held true and my dog was unable to swim in a place that I was able to (she's a stronger swimmer than me... by a little), I've got the "sacred human life" thing pretty deeply ingrained in my psyche. I know it for a bit of a pile of bullshit on a cerebral level, but I have a hard time just watching a human die when I can save 'em (and I don't know for sure that they're an evil prick... if this wasn't a stranger, but rather a public figure I harbor some hatred for, I'd save my dog).

 

[Thistlehart]

2. It's wrong. Society holds a rather strong hold on most of us, despite what we may think to the contrary. Believe me, I know from experience. Too many times I would have loved to have gone for the knees then the neck, but the simple fact was I had been taught that sort of thing is bad. Even when there was a strong chance of getting away with it. The thing it, I would still know about it. And that would follow me around.
 
3. Sorry, it was meant more as an observation.
 
4. I hesitate to equate contradictions with hypocrisy. To quote Walt Whitman, "I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am vast. I contain multitudes!"
 
5.To care is to provoke action on the part of another. I'm going to use a bit of hypothetical/anecdotal/whatsim here, but please bear with me. Considering the political upheaval in the Middle East and Africa; they need to get their shit sorted out and in a hurry, or they'll be under yet another dictator giving himself heirs. I'm not about to go over there and help them, though. I'm not about to donate money to Amnesty International to help them either. I don't care. Their plight, however, still moves me. Such a thing is not impossible.
 
6. Please see #5, and we're talking about living things here. Please don't get sidetracked.
 
7. You see, based on your arguments thus far, you claim it is impossible to not care about people (black) and still hold them in any regard (white).

2. Why would it follow you around? Why would you feel guilty to wrong a random person over wronging an object? If you hold both in zero regard and care about both equally (not at all in the slightest) why would you mind? Why do you care about immoral acts if you dont care if the victim is wronged.

3. Fine. At least you managed to control the snark in this post. Kudos.

4. Granted. Nice quote.

5. You can care about something in a way that yields no physical response but has an emotional response. If i destroy something and it makes you sad there is no way you couldnt have cared about that something at all in the very slightest. If you are moved by their plight its because you care, to some degree, about if their lives are ok. Sure you might not care enough to do something but you care to a degree. Any tiny degree. Do you care about the fly in the room with me? I killed it. Just now. Are you sad? No? Then its possible to care less about the fly than it is about the people you feel sad for. You obviously care more about the people in dictatorships than about this fly which you care nothing for because one has an emotional response and one doesnt. As such the idea that you care both "nothing" for both the humans and the fly must be false since one gives an emotional response and one doesnt.

6. If we are talking about caring about something why does an object get a different category to a human? Does a human you care nothing about differ emotionally to you from a book you care nothing about? Why? If you care about both the least it is possible to care you must care about both equally since you cant have negative caring.

7. Im saying that if one doesnt care at all about people they have no real reason to prevent them from suffering and every reason to cause them suffering if personal gain is guaranteed. Like you said society usually finds out and condemns us though which i imagine prevents anyone with this view actually doing bad things because the personal gain is far from guaranteed. Im trying to ask you, specifically, if one has no empathy for other people and cares nothing for them at all on the basis they dont know them, what possible motivation do they have to prevent their suffering. Why wouldnt they value anything that they have assigned value to over an apparently "worthless" stranger. Im not trying to fit into boxes. Im asking a simple question. Give me a reason. A reason why people should stop other people being murdered in front of them if they dont care at all about the person and no negative effects would befall them if they didnt.

*heartfelt sigh*

I offer counterpoints, and you ignore them in favor of trotting out the same tired arguments you've been waving around this whole thread. You're not even trying.

At this rate I may have been better off to try discourse with Boudica, even with the face-to-desk head-trauma that may result.

You're wrong, but you're also refusing to debate. Good day.

 

[Treblaine]

My pet, because I like it more. I'd feel stronger for the pet then some stranger.
If, however, the stranger were someone well known, or particularly wealthy I'd be more inclined to save them.

Well that's kind of selfish, can you really justify actions by "feel strongly" that's not dependent on anything about the individual suffering or dying, only about you and your relations to them.

This isn't about you and your feelings and how YOU might feel letting one drown and not the other, this is about THEM, THEY are dying. Your feelings of guilt and loss are - if you think about it - trivial compared to the feelings of utter terror of impending suffocating death and then an eternity of oblivion as once they are dead they are dead FOREVER. The last star in the universe will fizzle out and they will never experience anything again, and you're worried about missing your pet?

And this is not like some warlord in Africa terrorising people that you can do very little about, where YOU come in here is not your feelings but your ACTIONS. You have the ability to affect the outcome, to prevent both of them drowning.

So please, if you decide to rescue your pet, do it for your pet, that being's state. Not for your personal selfish needs of an animal companion of which there are MANY unwanted and unloved pets on this planet who suffer worse lingering fates than drowning. You can get another pet.

Pets live relatively short and simple lives. What will they do in 10 years that they won't do in 2? But humans live interdependent lives, highly social creatures the loss of one is far greater than just the loss of one individual's perception and feelings.

They also INVEST in their lives, they study hard for a long career, take so much of their money into a pension and more in taxes investing in their country they intend to live a long life in... all for waste drowning with so much lost potential ahead of them. What about their spouse, what about their hopeful parents or eager offspring? I'd say that most human life is more valauble than most animals, especially the type of animals we keep as pets.

Some animals are so socially intelligent, interdependent and empathetic that they almost qualify for the term "people" like Chimpanzees though they are far from human though enough like a person that they make poor pets.

I think that you don't have to be so subjective as going by your gut reaction on this, that there is a lot to consider objectively on who is better to save if - hypothetically - by whatever circumstance you could only save one from a lingering death.

But I cannot say absolutely, my gut reaction is anger at someone who'd save THEIR pet rather than someone else's life. And I'd say their reasoning is disingenuous if they said their strong feelings guided them on this, rather than empathetic thought.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

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

It's also a ridiculously stupid idea for someone like myself, an average swimmer, to go jumping into a whirlpool to save someone or a pet. Honestly I'd hope I'd attempt to save neither, and instead try to find someone with the appropriate skill set. That would be the best judgment call.

A poll option to reflect that would be appreciated.

You're thinking a little too hard on the question. And no, that doesn't make you look clever. If anything it makes you look ignorant that you put that much thought into a question but still missed the whole point of the question.

 

[DRes82]

It most certainly is NOT a fact. That's a value judgement that you have made based on how you developed.

If all morality is subjective there is no morality.

Though if you want to debate objective vs. subjective ethics I can start a new thread about that.

Its offensive when people declare that their moral views are fact and that anyone who disagrees with it is wrong and 'monstrous'.

I don't care if it's "offensive". I find it offensive that Republicans who lack basic critical thinking skills vote. I find it offensive that Dick Cheney hasn't been tried for war crimes. I find it offensive that so many people would save a fucking dog over a person. We don't have a right not to be offended.

Do you also find it offensive that fundamental christians burn other religions' holy books? Or that conservatives consider abortions a sin and that there are varying levels of rape? Or how about that one church that pickets funerals because they hate gay people? They all do that because they are attempting to force their morals on a larger group of people. The way I see it, you spewing vitriol like 'people who value their family pets over complete strangers are monstrous' is no different from what those misguided, hateful people are doing.

A lot of people view their companion animals as family members and as such, they hold more value than some random stranger's life. Just as your mother's life or your sibling's life would for you. You can't pretend to be accepting and tolerant with one hand, and then be hateful towards a group of people who hold a different view than you on the other.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

*heartfelt sigh*

I offer counterpoints, and you ignore them in favor of trotting out the same tired arguments you've been waving around this whole thread. You're not even trying.

At this rate I may have been better off to try discourse with Boudica, even with the face-to-desk head-trauma that may result.

You're wrong, but you're also refusing to debate. Good day.

My post had questions that you havnt answered yet. As long as that is true the ball is in your side of the court. I am debating. I just have yet to see a counter point that isnt "You can feel empathy without caring about something" which equates to "You can care without caring". The only points you raised were 3 and 5 and i totally refuted 5 by pointing out your scenario makes no sense.

Your scenario is pretty much moot when you consider that being emotionally moved IS an action and at that point by definition you do care.

I also raised an entirely new avenue of discussion about the value of objects and people relative to a person and if there is a difference between the two in a scenario where one cares nothing about either. You didnt address that.

However reading it again im starting to think more about 3. Are you basically saying social indoctrination is the thing that stops people with no personal attachment to others from doing bad things? The lesson drilled in to feel guilty about acts labelled "Immoral" even if we should have no reason to care? Thats interesting. Perhaps that is a good reason. A somewhat flimsy one but yeah ive felt that myself.

 

[the_green_dragon]

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.

I quite agree with you but some people seem to think animals have MORE rights then people.

I started a thread a few months back and some people said that people are worse then animals and should die.

I know right

 

[senobit]

Screw the the stranger I'd save my pet - odds are there a twat anyway, where I already know what a little bastard my dog is.

 

[Pandabearparade]

The way I see it, you spewing vitriol like 'people who value their family pets over complete strangers are monstrous' is no different from what those misguided, hateful people are doing.

It's completely different. The fundamentalist bases their morality upon decrees from an extremely primitive, barbaric book of fairy tales.

They don't have an objective standard of ethics, they have bronze age bullshit and it shows in the things they spend their time fighting for (and against).

You can't pretend to be accepting and tolerant with one hand, and then hateful towards a group of people who hold a different view than you on the other.

To use a ridiculously extreme example, would you accept the Na-

No. No. I'm not going to go there. I'm not going to be the guy who goes there, bad panda.

Ahem, I'll start over: Would you accept the Khmer Rouge as having a different, equally valid view? If ethics are all subjective, they were fine folks. Their value judgments held that people with glasses needed to die. Who are you not to tolerate their equally valid view of the world?

 

[razor343]

The thing is, I have no obligation to save the human. No obligation towards his family or anyone who might be affected by his/her death. Maybe he/she doesn't even have a family? I don't know that.

Whereas I have a clear emotional connection to my pet and would definitely save my dog over John Doe. I really don't think anyone should be labelled as a monster or sociopath for making this choice.

 

[Treblaine]

Better question, you have been abducted by aliens in the middle of a local flood you've been caught in but they are friendly and won't hurt you they are trying to follow objective values of morality to avoid war between planets.

The aliens point out to you two organism below that have survived the flood, a random person holding your pet in the slowly encroaching flood. The aliens have one last teleport zap before they leave that can only take one organism but very soon both will fall into the churning flood and die. It is technically totally impossible for the aliens to rescue any other discrete organism, so no debate there.

The aliens didn't want to teleport you up in the first place, now you have to convince them to save one, or the other in terms even these aliens would accept. You cannot appeal to "it's another human" or "it's MY pet" they are completely neutral, in the most extreme sense, they have no vested interest other than not to be deliberately malicious.

What could you possibly say to convince them?

 

[DRes82]

It's completely different. The fundamentalist bases their morality upon decrees from an extremely primitive, barbaric book of fairy tales.

You're right, it is different. Much more extreme in the fundamentalist case. However...

Ahem, I'll start over: Would you accept the Khmer Rouge as having a different, equally valid view? If ethics are all subjective, they were fine folks. Their value judgments held that people with glasses needed to die. Who are you not to tolerate their equally valid view of the world?

you're going to compare my views to the acts of atrocity committed by the khmer rouge?

I'm sure (hopeful) that we can both agree that torturing and genocide are on a different level than the thought that one values their family pet over a stranger. I'm also certain that genocide and torture can safely be considered objectively ethically wrong.

The issue at hand, however, is much more morally grey.

Nice godwin's law intercept. Lets see how long we can stave it off.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

I've never owned a pet before, so most likely the person. Besides, the most pets live isl ike what, 10 years?

 

[Agayek]

Nice godwin's law intercept. Lets see how long we can stave it off.

Nazis Nazis Nazis Hitler!

...

Sorry, I couldn't stop myself.

 

[Pandabearparade]

you're going to compare my views to the acts of atrocity committed by the khmer rouge?

Only to make the point that ethics aren't entirely subjective. That was the -only- point I was making, I wasn't equating saving a dog over a human with gunning down entire villages.

I'm also certain that genocide and torture can safely be considered objectively ethically wrong.

We agree.

The issue at hand, however, is much more morally grey.

I'd call it a dark, storm cloud grey. One option is selfish and leads to far more suffering.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Nazis Nazis Nazis Hitler!

We might as well go full Godwin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfzJtiM4dvg

 

[Reece Stevens]

well, having never had a pet I can say that I have no value for animal life, so I would save the person by default, but this is not a fair poll for me

 

[DRes82]

Nice godwin's law intercept. Lets see how long we can stave it off.

Nazis Nazis Nazis Hitler!

...

Sorry, I couldn't stop myself.

I suppose I asked for that. Made me laugh, anyways.

I'd call it a dark, storm cloud grey. One option is selfish and leads to far more suffering.

I disagree. I feel it would be extremely selfish to allow a family member who trusts and relies on me to drown. In addition, I would suffer far more if I lost my dog in a horrible whirlpool accident than if I had to live with the burden of allowing a random stranger to drown in order to save him, but I respect and understand your opinion.