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

[DugMachine]

Sociopaths or psychopaths can do all those things, they're still broken people. They do it for their own reasons, not because it's the right thing to do.

Sociopaths and psychopaths also tend to view animals as disposable and torture and kill them for their own pleasure and satisfaction. In your case you'd let this animal die just so you can have the satisfaction of being righteous and staying true to the moral codes of humanity or whatever bullcrap you're spouting. I'm done, you're not going to change your mind and neither will I. I'm a good person, and i'm sure you are too. Good day.

 

[the December King]

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?

Cool!

If I wanted to save the stranger, I'd totally explain that they might need a breeding pair of us to begin to understand us (assuming they understand english, or read my mind, or some such thing).

If I wanted to save the animal, I'd probably explain that it would provide a wider sample of genetic material for study.

...

Either way I'm getting probed, aren't I?

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Depends on the size of the stranger.

If they were large enough, I would have zero chance of saving them, so I'd go for the pet.

If I though I COULD save them, I might just save the person. I'd have to think about it.

It also depends on which pet. If it was my fat, aging dog I'd save the person. If it was my cat, I'd have to think even harder.

 

[Callate]

I'd save the stranger (and voted as much), but honestly, I'd feel lousy afterwards.

I'm not surprised that a poll might skew the other way, though. I don't think it's a liberal thing- people just get a little nuts as far as their pets are concerned.

 

[Basement Cat]

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.

His assertion, if I recall correctly (it has been a long time), was that the poll was conducted among liberal college students, and the results were proof of the moral superiority of Christianity because the 'libs' would let the human die to save Fido.

He was apparently right, and this is the first time I've ever, -EVER- heard a conservative talk show host make a strong, effective, factually-accurate argument.

Actually Rush Limbaugh---a man whom I am in NO way endeared towards---gave some high school kid who called him asking for an opinion on something a full thirty minute interview about his views of liberal media. It was sometime after the Martin Trayvon incident (or is it Trayvon Martin? I dunno). You can probably find it on YouTube. It's been a while for me, too, so roll with me on specifics. The gist is there.

In the course of the interview Limbaugh gave some DAMNED good factual examples of how some very notable senior media types publicly make no bones about how they believe news "should" be reported. One of them from NBC said, on the record, that "Racism is in America's blood."

The point of it was that NBC pursues certain stories with blatant, unabashed bias. Essentially they are dogmatically determined to color certain stories with accusations of racism, etc. And they were willing to go on public record saying so, though they qualified much of how they said it to not completely scuttle their own credibility.

As I said, I'm NO fan of Rush Limbaugh, and I personally find most of what comes out of his mouth both ridiculous and offensive. BUT WE MUST ALWAYS BE WILLING TO GIVE THE DEVIL HIS DUE, as they say.

NOTE: I don't know how to do italics--I'm not yelling.

OT: Prager's taking the poll among apparent liberals without doing the same with conservatives effectively mitigates its legitimacy persuant of proving his point that non christian liberals are inherently immoral, etc. It's almost a case of entrapment: "Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer 'Yes' or 'No'".

Back to my first post where I said the stranger could bite the dust. I don't have a pet now, but my last one was a cat that had been in my family 21 years before she died. Yep, you read that right--TWENTY ONE YEARS.

EDIT: That one was a HOORAH!!! yell.

Damn right my spinal reflex would be to go for her. The stranger might not even register to me. But since the question requires us to have done so--yes, upon consideration, I might very well ignore the plight of another human being and reflexively go for a loved family member--even if that family member is a cat.

Just being honest.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, my reasons are selfish. Yes, I am doing it purely out of my relation to which is dying. Yes, only self-gain would motivate me to save the stranger. Yes, I would still do exactly the same.

You seem to think of pets as completely different things than humans, things that people won't care about the loss of, and won't suffer when they die. An animal will suffer when drowning just as much as a human would. You also seem to think that one, lets say dog, is just as good as any dog. That simply isn't true. By spending time with said dog, raising it, caring for it, you grow a bond with it. If one dog truly is the same as any other dog then the same could be said for humans.

Just out of curiosity, you say that my feelings of guilt and loss are trivial, so then why is it that later on you attempt to guilt-trip me with a hypothetical life that the person has lives, or their family?

I don't think a dog's life is "completely different" I do deeply consider the similarities and the suffering of drowning will be severe for both, I abhor cruelty to animals, pain is as vivid and profound to a human, chimp or dog it's effects on each mind are ultimately indistinguishable. Pain is a fundamental thing, the simplest animals feels it profoundly as the WORST thing. Still, death as the antithesis of life is different for a human from a dog just as the life of a human is different from a dog. A dog's life is far from worthless, but I think we can agree if there are dozens of rats in your habitation you won't consider each of their several month-long lives that valuable.

But those are irrelevant if your motivation is selfishness, not altruism for their wellbeing.

Why the guilt trip? Because as you admit your loss for your pet is selfish self-pity at not having your dog any more. I am asking you to feel empathy for a being you aren't going to directly get anything out of. Why? Because if YOU were in the water, and you never had any reason or ability to help your saviour, wouldn't you want him to show some empathy? Empathy is what dragged us out of the stone age.

Empathy is what sociopaths like Ayn Rand didn't understand so mistrusted and railed against.

Empathy works for every living thing, really it's a matter of stepping out of your perspective without becoming detached, it is quite an amazing and unique ability of the human brain to perform the thought process of empathy, to think about someone else's thoughts. This is an amazingly influential cooperative ability.

All you say about raising a dog, that only shows how much YOU are attached to it. Not why it's life is more important.

Dogs don't do empathy, they do pack loyalty. That's the way their brains work, they are obedient, subservient and dependent. Man's best "friend" but that's not what a real friend is, a friend is a confidant, who will support you yet challenge you, give you the hard truths and talk things over. Dogs are smart, they'll drag their owners out of burning buildings... and they'll do this even if you beat them, even if you give them no love they will love you.

What life is there to save with a human compared to a dog.

I cannot say a dog's life is worthless, but you must consider that your dog likely only has a special connection with you and could only be with you and it would only ever have been for a short time. While a human has a special connection with dozens of people for a long life, with their parents, with their spouse, with their offspring, with their work, with their art, with their contribution to society in general.

Ideally both would be saved, the dog and the stranger, and you all get to pose for the local newspaper. But which life is most valuable.

But If I'm the winchman on a light rescue helicopter and we are loaded to stall capacity and there is your dog and a child (of the same weight as your dog) as the last few kilos to save before the wave comes... the kid is getting on and your dog is not.

Big question, would you get off the helicopter to stay and die with your dog, or would you get off and let your dog go on the helicopter his/her weight in your place so you'd die alone but your dog would live another few years?

If you think another human's life is less than a dog, is your own human life less than your dog?

I know, if my sister or my mother and I were to be one of the last people out of the jaws of death I'd ask the winchman to lie and tell her that I'd catch my sister on the next flight out.

 

[CarlMin]

Save a human being who can benefit society in some way.

Are humans more likely to benefit humanity? Considering how the world looks today, I'd say that a human being is just as likely to invent a new agent of biological warfare as curing aids. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that humans are inherently good, and that premise is needed for your argument to work.

I'm just being realistic.

 

[DRes82]

The hypocrisy of course is that you'd be pissed beyond words if the same thing happened to you...

God damn, your assumptions are obnoxious. I would say that your experience dealing with people is limited and that is why you're so presumptuous and self-righteous, but that's obviously not true if you work at a night club. So I'll just guess that you're naturally intolerant and hateful towards people who disagree with you.

As a note, I wouldn't expect a perfect stranger to rescue me over their pet if that situation ever came to be. I sure as fuck wouldn't be pissed if they didn't choose me.

 

[the December King]

It's really about one thing and one thing only. Are you gonna care about yourself, or are you gonna care about your fellow man? You're not saving that animal for the sake of the animal, you're saving it for your own sake. Because of YOUR connection to it.

That's the thing that keeps coming back in this discussion. ME, ME, ME. Number 1 comes first. That's the biggest wrong in modern society.

There are too many questions to answer in the blink of an eye. A loved one is in distress, my pet that I am the unwritten protector of. That's all I need to make my descision. Since you're so inclined, you save the stranger. I'm not going to tell you that it's the wrong choice. But it would be for me.

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

I honestly hate threads like this. Don't try to justify that fact that you'd be so 'noble' by saving a drowning stranger. Threads like this serve no purpose than to garner fans and heated arguments. If i saw a stranger and a pet of mine 'drowning' i'd save neither because the last time i checked anyone can doggie paddle and my pets all can swim and one can freaking fly! Plus if i can swim out to save you, you can obviously save yourself. I can't even describe how irritated these things make me. Don't give the 'stranger' a back story like its a mother of 3, or a Vietnam vet, or someone with a handicap. Its pointless and stupid. People would save a pet, that is a given and its a point because they are familiar and have emotional attachment. A stranger could be anyone. What if the person you saved became the next Hitler and murdered millions of people? What if the person drowning then cuts your throat and then kills your pet? See? I can add variables that are equally pointless. Stranger saving doesn't equal kindness nor does not saving them equal evil that is reprehensible. Its plain that you gave 2 choices that don't equate well to one another. Forgive the rant but its just bull**** drama

 

[Basement Cat]

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.

His assertion, if I recall correctly (it has been a long time), was that the poll was conducted among liberal college students, and the results were proof of the moral superiority of Christianity because the 'libs' would let the human die to save Fido.

He was apparently right, and this is the first time I've ever, -EVER- heard a conservative talk show host make a strong, effective, factually-accurate argument.

Forgot to ask for a clarification--One that may save you from being flamed for being misunderstood.

I'm guessing that when you said "He was apparently right-" you were referring to people going after Fido and not that his assertion that 'Christianity' is inherently morally superior to all others.

Yes? If so, and others jump you, just post this specific exchange to act as a 'fire suppressant'.

I prefer civil exchanges, myself. If I want flame wars I'll go to Yahoo, News.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Don't give the 'stranger' a back story like its a mother of 3, or a Vietnam vet, or someone with a handicap.

Someone asked for specifics, I gave specifics.

 

[Pandabearparade]

I'm guessing that when you said "He was apparently right-" you were referring to people going after Fido and not that his assertion that 'Christianity' is inherently morally superior to all others.

Oh, absolutely. I should have been more clear. He was right that morality has tanked in society if kids value their dog more than their fellow humans. His remedy for the problem ("GAAAAAAWD AND JEEESUS!") is ridiculous and has already been shown to be a complete failure in producing the best human societies.

 

[solemnwar]

Fine. Let me try. If you have a choice of saving an old woman, who has maybe 10-15 years of her life expectancy left to live, or a child that has about 70 years of her life expectancy left to live, which would be the logical choice? And seriously dude, if you say the old woman, I'll slit my wrists. So for the sake of my own life(I'm joking), I'll assume you'll agree.

No, you choose whomever you're able to save.
There's a question similar in the test those of the medical profession have to take. It's a trick question sort of thing. So they're drowning in a river, that's the scenario, right? Who has the more likely chance of being saved, in this case- the old woman, who is close to you, or the child, who is further from you and perhaps close to going over a water fall? In that case, it would be best to go after the old woman, because likely as not you will not be able to reach the child in time, and in trying to save the child while ignoring the old woman, you might end up with both dead.

But, really, in the end, people go with their EMOTIONS in situations like these, not logic. So in the example other people have given, i.e. stranger vs. sister, of course someone is going to go after their sister (unless they hate them, I guess). Likewise, a lot of people are going to their pets. A pet isn't just "some animal". My cat is like my baby. I sincerely value him as a proper member of my family. And I am going to save a member of my family over some random stranger.

And as a side note, I don't really believe in true altruism. EVERYONE does something to get out of it, even if it's just to feel good or a sense of fulfilling their "soceital obligations".

 

[Treblaine]

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

Are we so surprised? How many atrocities and genocides is it going to take? Perpetrated not by a tiny minority of psychopaths but huge numbers generally typical people all stirred by "strong feelings" to put their selfish desires and intentions above the lives of "people I don't even know".

It's interesting this idea of the "connection" that until we relate to other human beings on some personal level there is no inherent sympathy for them.

I don't think these people think "animals" have more rights than humans, if they got a rat infestation they wouldn't hesitate to call the exterminator. They care about THEIR pets, the animals that fawn over and love THEM, are more important than humans who don't adore them and are not utterly loyal and dependent to them.

I don't think that's entirely fair.

I'd be terribly sad that someone died instead of my pet. I would be traumatized. Shocked. Depressed for a long, long time. In short, sympathetic.

But to say something like 'loving pets over asshats on the street leads to genocide' is ridiculous, in my opinion. Atrocities seem to be commited by people against people, and usually over money, or ethnic differences.

I'm not a psychopath. I love my pet. Why would I throw that love and trust away, that companionship and shared life, all in an instant for a complete stranger?

Let's be clear.

I'm not making a "this causes genocide" I am saying both indifference to suffering of strangers and genocide both come from the same root problem of lack of inherent empathy. Genocides and other systematic atrocities are just examples of the same principal.

Pets aren't particularly the problem. I'm not demonising pet owners any more than I'm objecting to someone who cares more about breaking their ipod than hearing about a newspaper salesman being beaten to death by the police. The problem is the dependence on "connection". You OWN your ipod, it's got all your stuff on it and you saw it break right in front of you.

But because you don't have a connection with the random violent death of another person living a life you can't relate to, it doesn't affect us.

I don't have a problem that you love your pet. I have a problem that is trumps the life of a stranger... because you don't have a connection.

This is the problem, it doesn't matter what the life in peril is for society or for the wider benefit of people. Only how it stimulates your emotional synapses, are we really rational beings if we make decisions like this.

 

[Porygon-2000]

Well, since my pet is a turtle, I reckon I can leave it to it's own devices and go after the stranger.

 

[Rednog]

Save the person, hands down, every time.
Sorry I know you love fido but we're talking about another human being. And I'll be brutally honest if I saw anyone in that situation (and I couldn't make it in time to help the person drowning) I'd kick the person and their pet into the whirlpool for being absolute d-bags.

 

[Treblaine]

Fine. Let me try. If you have a choice of saving an old woman, who has maybe 10-15 years of her life expectancy left to live, or a child that has about 70 years of her life expectancy left to live, which would be the logical choice? And seriously dude, if you say the old woman, I'll slit my wrists. So for the sake of my own life(I'm joking), I'll assume you'll agree.

No, you choose whomever you're able to save.
There's a question similar in the test those of the medical profession have to take. It's a trick question sort of thing. So they're drowning in a river, that's the scenario, right? Who has the more likely chance of being saved, in this case- the old woman, who is close to you, or the child, who is further from you and perhaps close to going over a water fall? In that case, it would be best to go after the old woman, because likely as not you will not be able to reach the child in time, and in trying to save the child while ignoring the old woman, you might end up with both dead.

I like the "Rescue Helicopter" scenario with VERY STRICT weight limits. You can't take half a person, and you have to leave immediately. You can leave with one, none, but not both. If you even try to leave with both the helicopter will stall and crash killing everyone. You're the pilot, no one else can fly. A huge wave is coming and will kill anyone who hasn't flown up 100 feet up in the air.

I think it's pretty bulletproof. The trick here is you can't force the other one not the grab onto the skids, you need to CONVINCE them to agree for one to stay and the other leave in the helicopter.

 

[TKretts3]

Yes, my reasons are selfish. Yes, I am doing it purely out of my relation to which is dying. Yes, only self-gain would motivate me to save the stranger. Yes, I would still do exactly the same.

You seem to think of pets as completely different things than humans, things that people won't care about the loss of, and won't suffer when they die. An animal will suffer when drowning just as much as a human would. You also seem to think that one, lets say dog, is just as good as any dog. That simply isn't true. By spending time with said dog, raising it, caring for it, you grow a bond with it. If one dog truly is the same as any other dog then the same could be said for humans.

Just out of curiosity, you say that my feelings of guilt and loss are trivial, so then why is it that later on you attempt to guilt-trip me with a hypothetical life that the person has lives, or their family?

I don't think a dog's life is "completely different" I do deeply consider the similarities and the suffering of drowning will be severe for both, I abhor cruelty to animals, pain is as vivid and profound to a human, chimp or dog it's effects on each mind are ultimately indistinguishable. Pain is a fundamental thing, the simplest animals feels it profoundly as the WORST thing. Still, death as the antithesis of life is different for a human from a dog just as the life of a human is different from a dog. A dog's life is far from worthless, but I think we can agree if there are dozens of rats in your habitation you won't consider each of their several month-long lives that valuable.

But those are irrelevant if your motivation is selfishness, not altruism for their wellbeing.

Why the guilt trip? Because as you admit your loss for your pet is selfish self-pity at not having your dog any more. I am asking you to feel empathy for a being you aren't going to directly get anything out of. Why? Because if YOU were in the water, and you never had any reason or ability to help your saviour, wouldn't you want him to show some empathy? Empathy is what dragged us out of the stone age.

Empathy is what sociopaths like Ayn Rand didn't understand so mistrusted and railed against.

Empathy works for every living thing, really it's a matter of stepping out of your perspective without becoming detached, it is quite an amazing and unique ability of the human brain to perform the thought process of empathy, to think about someone else's thoughts. This is an amazingly influential cooperative ability.

All you say about raising a dog, that only shows how much YOU are attached to it. Not why it's life is more important.

Dogs don't do empathy, they do pack loyalty. That's the way their brains work, they are obedient, subservient and dependent. Man's best "friend" but that's not what a real friend is, a friend is a confidant, who will support you yet challenge you, give you the hard truths and talk things over. Dogs are smart, they'll drag their owners out of burning buildings... and they'll do this even if you beat them, even if you give them no love they will love you.

What life is there to save with a human compared to a dog.

I cannot say a dog's life is worthless, but you must consider that your dog likely only has a special connection with you and could only be with you and it would only ever have been for a short time. While a human has a special connection with dozens of people for a long life, with their parents, with their spouse, with their offspring, with their work, with their art, with their contribution to society in general.

Ideally both would be saved, the dog and the stranger, and you all get to pose for the local newspaper. But which life is most valuable.

But If I'm the winchman on a light rescue helicopter and we are loaded to stall capacity and there is your dog and a child (of the same weight as your dog) as the last few kilos to save before the wave comes... the kid is getting on and your dog is not.

Big question, would you get off the helicopter to stay and die with your dog, or would you get off and let your dog go on the helicopter his/her weight in your place so you'd die alone but your dog would live another few years?

If you think another human's life is less than a dog, is your own human life less than your dog?

I know, if my sister or my mother and I were to be one of the last people out of the jaws of death I'd ask the winchman to lie and tell her that I'd catch my sister on the next flight out.

If I were in the water and someone else had the choice of saving a life that they knew and loved, and a complete stranger (me) I would not expect that to go for me, and therefore do everything in my power to help myself. One such thing would be to offer incentive for them to save me.

I wouldn't categorize my wanting to save my dog to avoid, "self-pity." I would do it because that dog brings me joy, it is loyal (even if just by instinct) - because I have reason to save it. Furthermore, by buying/adopting the dog, I am entering an agreement in which I must protect the dog and keep it safe. Therefore if it is in danger I have an obligation to save it. I have no such obligations to someone I have not met prior.

As for empathy, I disagree that it is what dragged us out of the stone age. What dragged us out of the stone age was the discovery of new technologies, primarily iron. Advancements in technology, culture, and other fields are what advance society into the future. More often than not the people who make such discoveries do so out of greed.

I also think it's quite clear, by now at the least, that I would disagree with your blows on Ayn Rand. I find her a fascinating individual, both for her philosophy and her literature.

EDIT: I also forgot to write that I never imagined that it was in a helicopter. I imagine that I was on a beach and saw a person drowning, and my pet drowning. If I were in a helicopter I would no doubt be in a rescue team and my sole obligation would be to rescue the human stranger. That is why I imagined the beach, because I am a private individual with no job to perform who just happened to walk upon the scenario.

 

[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?

Cool!

If I wanted to save the stranger, I'd totally explain that they might need a breeding pair of us to begin to understand us (assuming they understand english, or read my mind, or some such thing).

If I wanted to save the animal, I'd probably explain that it would provide a wider sample of genetic material for study.

...

Either way I'm getting probed, aren't I?

I'm not sure you're entering into the spirit of this right, the point is to be more objective and argue on far more objective terms, that yo'd have in common with a completely alien but intelligent life form.

Not to instead try to appeal to alien logic of them being scientists manically obsessive with samples, they are supposed to be passive observers seeking a universal morality but erring on the side of total non-intervention. Not interested in probing, they just downloaded human anatomy textbook from the internet, they know everything FACTUAL about humans.

You need to make a non-contradictory argument for one or the other. Breeding pair and genetic variables they could get elsewhere. Why save THAT organism from THAT situation.

They are going to rescue you both 9whichever both) then when their orbit has looped around again set you back on earth much later and get you do sign a NDA form or something so you don't tell anyone about the alien abduction and secret observation of earth thing.

I'm starting to realise this analogy has too many holes.