A majority would actually, and as sad as it is theres a pretty simple set of reasoning behind it.
Its called degrees of separation, and it starts with your partner, children, parents, pets/other family members, then extends outwards to people you dont even know. People closer in you care about more.
Therefore if you make a decision on who to save, you will almost always pick the person or animal with the closest degree of separation to you.
Spitfire said:
It's a nonsensical question. Assuming that you have the swimming skills and body strength required to carry an adult human from water, then clearly you'd be able to do so with your pet as well.
A lot of people like you bring this up, but thats basically not the point. Its a hypothetical situation. So assume you are able to swim and save one, and that situations prevent you from saving both, then try and answer it. Trying to pick apart a hypothetical question isnt really the point.
Correct, I mean I don't condone killing them or hurting them unnecessarily, but I'd shoot a hundred kittens to save one beggar from the same fate. I wouldn't enjoy it, but I've probably been indirectly responsible for more animal deaths in my life so far, just because I didn't pull the trigger doesn't make me exempt. However, if you eat any meat, or use animal products, you probably withhold from judging. Why is your animal better than a cow?
Person A is your mother/girlfriend/brother/someone else who you love and are close to, they're drowning.
So is person B; somebody who does the world a lot of good. This could be the founder of a charity, or a politician who is doing great things for his country. It doesn't really matter. Just someone who'll benefit the world a great deal/
Assuming I somehow know all this and have time (and I don't panic), I'd probably go for the loved one, placing value on human lives is hard. Yes the politician is a person too, but so is my significant other. This is where the comparison falls apart. Your animal of choice is not a person. I'm not doing this to save the world, or for something like that. Like I said, I'd save the crack addict who contributes nothing, and could well be a small time crook. Besides which, you can't say that my significant other or the crack addict won't do something great for humanity in the future, where as I can guarantee your animal will never do anything but what I listed earlier.
I'm not arguing that animals are more important than humans. What I'm saying is that I love my dog. He is another member of my family. If he dies, I can't just go down to the pet shop and buy another one, any more than I could if anybody else I care for died. To me, he's irreplaceable. So I would choose to save him. Even though he'll most likely do less good for the world than a human might.
You might not be saying animal life has a higher value than human life, but your hypothetical actions speak for themselves. Can you blame me for being a bit depressed about the majority of votes being for saving an animal?
Here is a question for you, a REAL member of your family, whom you love and respect greatly, is in the same drowning pool, along with your furry friend. Again, you can only save one.
I feel I should point out that "save the pet" is the correct answer in terms of what humans are evolutionary programmed to do.
Humans are social animals.
We bond with each other and even some other types of creatures (certain species more frequently than others).
Our natural instinct is "PROTECT THE PACK", even if the pack member is a non-human adopted into the pack, and even if it's in favor of the non-human pack member over a foreign member of our species.
Members of the SAME species that are foreign to one's pack are instinctively regarded with suspicion and as possible threats to the pack. Pack members are naturally favored over possible threats.
Note that a pet is NOT the same thing as an animal that you just happen to own and regard as replaceable. For example, ranchers own cattle, they DO NOT own cows as "pets".
There are exceptions to everything, and humans are especially adept at subverting the natural order of things (hence the large minority of people saying they'd save the stranger). Nonetheless that's generally just how social animals naturally work.
To expect otherwise is....foolish.
To believe this to be "wrong" is to spit in the face of the millions of years of evolutionary programming that has made humankind the most advanced and civilized species on the planet.
Ok, seriously now... the pet, as most girls around here have implants that would act as a flotation device.
OK REALLY SERIOUSLY NOA, the stranger. I was thinking of making a joke about benefits but... yeah. so it goes like this; Motobike>other people>self>pets.
I can't believe the pet is winning, god, this is just sad you guys. Who could possibly choose an animal who's lifespan is probably less than 20 years over an actual human being?
It's not that I don't love my dog, but realistically my dog just isn't going to cause me the hardship that the person's death would to their family. Ah screw it, you misanthropes'll never understand.
It's not that I don't love my dog, but realistically my dog just isn't going to cause me the hardship that the person's death would to their family. Ah screw it, you misanthropes'll never understand.
The question would be - will someone else's hardship, that has zero impact on your life at all, matter to you more than the supposed lesser hardship that WILL impact your life.
Why should it?
There's a whole infinite universe of stuff out there that you don't care about because it has no impact on you.
If you knew that defeating the Nazis in World War II would save millions of people on Earth, but as a result it somehow caused the extinction of an entire civilized alien race (est. population 20 billion) elsewhere in the galaxy....do you stop the Nazis or save the entire alien civilization?
I bet you stop the Nazis. It may be unfortunate that the aliens will die, but it won't really impact you beyond that basic knowledge.
Basically this is the same question - saving a population you're familiar with is the same as saving your pet, while the alien civilization of strangers drowns.
I would save my pet. I have a freakish bond with my pet that if I noticed her in a dangerous situation my focus would be only for her. I probably wouldn't even notice the other person until afterwards.
It's not that I don't love my dog, but realistically my dog just isn't going to cause me the hardship that the person's death would to their family. Ah screw it, you misanthropes'll never understand.
The question would be - will someone else's hardship, that has zero impact on your life at all, matter to you more than the supposed lesser hardship that WILL impact your life.
Why should it?
There's a whole infinite universe of stuff out there that you don't care about because it has no impact on you.
If you knew that defeating the Nazis in World War II would save millions of people on Earth, but as a result it somehow caused the extinction of an entire civilized alien race (est. population 20 billion) elsewhere in the galaxy....do you stop the Nazis or save the entire alien civilization?
I bet you stop the Nazis. It may be unfortunate that the aliens will die, but it won't really impact you beyond that basic knowledge.
Basically this is the same question - saving a population you're familiar with is the same as saving your pet, while the alien civilization of strangers drowns.
I think it's funny that you tried to make the situation clearer by introducing Nazis and an alien race.
If I knew for sure that letting the Nazis go would save 20 billion lives I'd definitely let them go. How could anyone justify killing 20 billion to save 6 million? Only if you refuse to see the bigger picture and choose to be close minded to the rest of the universe could you make such a cruel selfish decision.
It's a nonsensical question. Assuming that you have the swimming skills and body strength required to carry an adult human from water, then clearly you'd be able to do so with your pet as well.
A lot of people like you bring this up, but thats basically not the point. Its a hypothetical situation. So assume you are able to swim and save one, and that situations prevent you from saving both, then try and answer it. Trying to pick apart a hypothetical question isnt really the point.
Why not? If you're going to construct a hypothetical scenario in order to either demonstrate something, or to determine people's reactions to it, then you better make sure that your scenario makes sense, otherwise, there's quite literally no point to it. If the circumstances in the OP's scenario don't matter, then why bother creating a hypothetical scenario to begin with?
If I could, it would depend. Is the woman enormous? I'm not a big guy. I'm not going to try and tote a 400 pound woman. We'd probably both die. Otherwise, the person.
right now, my pets are annoying little things that never shut up... But, it's all a matter of circumstance...
I know that I'm a much better swimmer than most other people, but that doesn't mean I'll dive into a raging river to save someone I don't know... Sure, I'll throw something like a rope or flotation thingy, but again, it's a matter of circumstance...
If it's in the ocean on a normal day... Sure, I'd go help them... In a swimming pool.... No worries...
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if the water is calm enough, not a problem...
But that's still laced in the "what if" of the situation...
what if someone else is nearby
what if I'm hurt at the time?
what if...
what if...
what if...
But for the sake of the poll, I'll go with stranger, because the other two options don't really count for my situation
captcha: "I am fine"
alright, fine, I'll save the stranger... although since I'm a state-level swimmer, I could probably save both... ^-^
I don't know that person. They are not a part of my life. Saving the person simply because "it's another human being" means nothing to me. Humanity alone as a quality does not instill me with instant sympathy.
My pet, on the other hand, has an active role in my life, and is something with which I have an emotional investment in. Simple as that.
Reading a lot of these posts makes me sad.
It is hard to imagine human beings who value their personal happiness over the life of another human. The amount of selfish conceit on display here is staggering.
Equally appalling are those who save the stranger because "society wants them to". Fuck that. You should save the stranger not because it is expected of you, save the human because it is the decent thing to do in a civilized society.
The level of simple-minded, over-entitled, and hyper-individualistic (lack of) thinking displayed by many of these posts shows much of what is wrong with the world today.
That is correct.
To an extent, you are the problem.
I can't believe the pet is winning, god, this is just sad you guys. Who could possibly choose an animal who's lifespan is probably less than 20 years over an actual human being?
It's not that I don't love my dog, but realistically my dog just isn't going to cause me the hardship that the person's death would to their family. Ah screw it, you misanthropes'll never understand.
I think it's a little unfair to call everyone who disagrees with you in this scenario a misanthrope. There are many different reasons as to why they chose the way they did. People view animals in very different ways. The folks at PeTA see them as equals, in every sense of the word, some people seem to despise everything about them, some are indifferent, and some love them. Some people view them as simple toys for their amusement; replaceable furniture. While others see them as members of their family. There's at least one person in this thread who wouldn't save any animal, for any reason. Period. And I'm sure there's at least one person who is a legitimate misanthrope.
My first dog saved my life, so I'm pretty biased in the animal's favor. Yeah, the man could, I don't know, cure cancer or become the next Batman, but there's also a good chance that he'll amount to nothing. So it then becomes a choice between "Do I want to feel pain (save the man, pet dies,) or do I want someone else *whom I don't know) to feel pain (save the pet, man dies)?"
You could argue that the man has family who will mourn his loss, whereas I'm the only one who will mourn my pet, but two things: I don't KNOW he has family, and humans are selfish by nature. We all like to think we do the best we can to help our fellow man, but we don't. We don't give to charity as often as we should, we all probably fast forward through those relief fund commercials, and we don't buy Dolphin Safe Tuna because it costs a few cents extra. We're assholes. But.. I digress. Point is, I don't KNOW that the man has family, and, frankly, even if he did, I don't know that I'd care. I don't know them, and I don't know that guy any more than I know the starving kids in Africa, and I don't help them as much as I should. I'd wager you don't, either. So how is this situation that much different? I could donate money and adopt a village, save multiple lives. But do I? Do you? I didn't CAUSE the whirlpool to suck the man into it anymore than I caused the children in Africa to starve.
And there are people who say that the dog will never contribute anything to society, at least in comparison to what a human could contribute. Well, they're obviously not gonna cure cancer, but they do contribute. Saying they don't is just wrong. Seeing eye dogs, K-9 units, drug/bomb sniffers, track down escaped convicts, et cetera. They're even used to help veterans settle back into society. Frankly, if given the choice between saving a dog that might help a veteran or a blind person, versus saving, say, a banker, I have even more reason to choose the dog.
Well, to me a human life is far more valuable, and by extension worth saving than a dogs'. P.S if this wasn't immediately obvious, I'm not an animal person...
I've kinda noticed that people without pets (or people without pets that are emotionally close to them) are the only ones who would save the stranger.
...I'm sorry, what is the point of this question? For people with pets, this question is: Save someone you don't know, or save a family member you love?
Also: Human life is unanimously amazing and flawless and is not the most destructive species in recorded history. Wut?
I know I know, I don't despise my not-so-humble little species, but I do think the point stands. What makes us so damn special? This question is ridiculous, flawed in it's basic premise, and the underlying tone of accusation is condescending. Some people came home from days full of abuse and harassment to a dog who loves you more than you'd think was emotionally possible, some didn't. The end. You could literally change the poll options to:
You don't have/had an awesome pet.
You had/have an awesome pet.
Generic third option.
The anger in this thread is also very silly, for the above reasons. You didn't have my experience in life? YOU MUST BE THE DEVIL. I'm speaking of both sides, for the record. I ain't judging no one. It's a life or death situation. And on that note, the two biggest problems with this question are:
1.) Even as a hypothetical, this stuff doesn't happen outside of horror movies. There isn't a significantly present equivalent to this choice in real life.
2.) You can't judge someone for what they would do in a life or death scenario. Really think about their emotional state. If they try to save a life, kudos. It's the best thing they could do. Move on, and don't claim you'd do better.
Now let's shake hands and paws and play with our puppies and kittens and strangers we saved.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
