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

[the December King]

You know, 'heartless' is a term often used to describe sociopaths. Maybe you need the doctor?

And I'm the heartless one for opting to save a human being? I don't care what you love, you could love stabbing infants in the head for all I care, but this here is a really simple case of basic morality.

No, no, you're not heartless for saving the stranger. But you might be heartless for not seeming to even try to understand why someone might want to save their loved one. You know, the whole 'I don't care what you love' part.

EDIT: stabbing infants in the face being somehow aside from basic morality is pretty funny!

 

[Domoslaf]

No, no, you're not heartless for saving the stranger. But you might be heartless for not seeming to even try to understand why someone might want to save their loved one. You know, the whole 'I don't care what you love' part.

Well if your love condemns another person to die then I reserve my right to have a problem with it.

EDIT: Oh, the infants part, I was just trying to be funny, I may have gone a little overboard.

 

[Sam Neale]

No, no, you're not heartless for saving the stranger. But you might be heartless for not seeming to even try to understand why someone might want to save their loved one. You know, the whole 'I don't care what you love' part.

Well if your love condemns another person to die then I reserve my right to have a problem with it.

EDIT: Oh, the infants part, I was just trying to be funny, I may have gone a little overboard.

Agreed its understandable as a gut reaction but if you stop and think about it for a few seconds it makes little sense

 

[the December King]

No, no, you're not heartless for saving the stranger. But you might be heartless for not seeming to even try to understand why someone might want to save their loved one. You know, the whole 'I don't care what you love' part.

Well if your love condemns another person to die then I reserve my right to have a problem with it.

This is a no- win situation- someone is going to lose the one they love, either way. That's why it's such a heartbreaking and difficult question. And you can have a problem with it, of course- you don't have to share my opinion. But telling us we need to see a doctor comes across as juvenile.

 

[Sam Neale]

also just a quick question how would you feel if you lost a loved one because someone saved their pet instead of your loved one?

 

[the December King]

EDIT: Oh, the infants part, I was just trying to be funny, I may have gone a little overboard.

It was funny! It's sad that it took me a second to realize it, though. 'Going overboard', and shaking a morbid discussion like this one up, is always commendable.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

But this here is a really simple case of basic morality.

See, I would argue that the vast majority of people, let's say at least 80% of the population, understand basic morality. The fact that the results are pretty much tied then, surely suggests that this isn't that simple.

All you're doing is labeling us wrong, because our opinions aren't conforming to your ethics, and of course only you and the people who agree with you actually have the one and only, true understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

EDIT: Sorry for the sarcasm, I've been up all night and am feeling very ratty.

 

[Xisin]

I would save the stranger. Sorry, Tub, but we both know you would be in a complete panic and would claw my eyes out. (We also both know, you would never be near a pool of water unless I threw you in it.)

 

[Domoslaf]

This is a no- win situation- someone is going to lose the one they love, either way. That's why it's such a heartbreaking and difficult question. And you can have a problem with it, of course- you don't have to share my opinion. But telling us we need to see a doctor comes across as juvenile.

What you don't understand is that not everything in life is a case of opinion and subjective perspective. You may think that after so many discussions on internet forums, but that's just not true. And I can't agree that saving another person facing certain death is a matter of personal decision and weighing in pros and cons and calculating life expectancy and whatnot.

Of course if you're inable to help, then by all means, don't try to. But if you are it is your goddamn responsibility, even if you may lose something you love in the process. That's why we have society, if you reject that you may as well go and try to live without any help from other people, see how that works out.

EDIT: And I'm not telling you're not entitled to your own opinion either way. Of course you are. But I can see you as a bad person for having it, can't I?

 

[persephone]

Given my physical disabilities, I would just drown if I had to jump in to help. So I would scream for help. But if I wasn't disabled, I would save the stranger; as much as I love my cat, I can always get a new one.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

If you picked the pet i understand but you don't really have any right to complain if you or someone you loved died in an identical scenario because someone saved their pet.

I mean if you were like "Why didn't they save me or my family!" They could just use your reasons and you'd basically have to agree with them. You have to wonder why, in a world where everyone holds your opinion, why would it be a worse place for you? I mean you'd basically show yourself up as a massive hypocrite if you were in any way upset or felt wronged by the person who failed to save you or your family. "STOP AGREEING WITH ME! STOP IT! EVEN THOUGH IM RIGHT I DONT WANT YOU TO REALIZE IT! BE WRONG SO I CAN LIVE" which sounds hilarious.

My life goal is to think "If everyone else shared my view on this would the world be a better place for me and for others?" If the answer is no its obvious your opinion is unsustainable. For example i became an organ donor because i realized if i was dying of kidney failure id ask "Why didn't people donate?" and my only answer would be "Because people are like me" which labels me a horrible hypocrite. I cant live with that. I have to pick the human.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

With ethical dilemma polling classically an option like I call for help is considered a way for the person to avoid helping while avoiding guilt. This is because people are typically more cavalier when being polled than in action, so careful behaviour as a response is normally indicative of something else. Also, the reason the stranger doesn't have a stated age is to allow the subject to self-define the stranger, the term stranger implies negative associations and you will statistically get more people saving the person if you said your pet and a person you don't know instead of stranger.

This isn't a test of how much you love your pet, but which you feel more empathy for: familiar non-human vs unfamiliar possibly unsavory human.

 

[the December King]

This is a no- win situation- someone is going to lose the one they love, either way. That's why it's such a heartbreaking and difficult question. And you can have a problem with it, of course- you don't have to share my opinion. But telling us we need to see a doctor comes across as juvenile.

What you don't understand is that not everything in life is a case of opinion and subjective perspective. You may think that after so many discussions on internet forums, but that's just not true. And I can't agree that saving another person facing certain death is a matter of personal decision and weighing in pros and cons and calculating life expectancy and whatnot.

Of course if you're inable to help, then by all means, don't try to. But if you are it is your goddamn responsibility, even if you may lose something you love in the process. That's why we have society, if you reject that you may as well go and try to live without any help from other people, see how that works out.

But the bond that I share with my pet might mean more to me than someone I don't know. Is this so hard to see for people? Have you ever had a pet? The stranger's life is most certainly not my responsibility- the stranger has made several poor descisions, and under any other situation I'd do my best to save them, but not to sacrifice a loved one for them.

And this is not a rejection of society. My culture does not require me to drown kittens to allow hobos another day of life. Don't be so melodramatic, Domoslaf.

I can see that this thread disturbs you- I'm bothered by parts of it myself!- but this is how I feel.

 

[Domoslaf]

All you're doing is labeling us wrong, because our opinions aren't conforming to your ethics

Not wanting other people to die, yeah, those are some real eccentric ethics I have.

 

[Domoslaf]

And this is not a rejection of society. My culture does not require me to drown kittens to allow hobos another day of life. Don't be so melodramatic, Domoslaf.

OK, as we've already said all we had to say, to put things in perspective I will point out that the very problem is constructed in a extremely melodramatic way and obviously means to cause controversy. So there's that, I don't really believe that all you "save the pet" supporters are Hitlers in the making.

 

[Karhukonna]

Man, I almost feel bad about my answer now. You guessed it, I'd save my pet. Thing is, I really like my pet. I have no reason to place the needs of another above mine, as I stand to gain nothing from it. Sure, it's a possibility that the family of the drowning person would grant a reward, but saving them just for monetary gain really does away with the moral high ground taken with this choice.

I really like my pets, but now that I think about it, only two of them are capable of drowning in the first place. Aquatic lizards and turtles are hardly going to suffer from... water!

 

[the December King]

If you picked the pet i understand but you don't really have any right to complain if you or someone you loved died in an identical scenario because someone saved their pet.

I mean if you were like "Why didn't they save me or my family!" They could just use your reasons and you'd basically have to agree with them. You have to wonder why, in a world where everyone holds your opinion, why would it be a worse place for you? I mean you'd basically show yourself up as a massive hypocrite if you were in any way upset or felt wronged by the person who failed to save you or your family. "STOP AGREEING WITH ME! STOP IT! EVEN THOUGH IM RIGHT I DONT WANT YOU TO REALIZE IT! BE WRONG SO I CAN LIVE" which sounds hilarious.

My life goal is to think "If everyone else shared my view on this would the world be a better place for me and for others?" If the answer is no its obvious your opinion is unsustainable. For example i became an organ donor because i realized if i was dying of kidney failure id ask "Why didn't people donate?" and my only answer would be "Because people are like me" which labels me a horrible hypocrite. I cant live with that. I have to pick the human.

I can appreciate the rationalization here. If I were drowning, I suppose I'd want help, too. But at the time, I'd only care about trying to breathe and stay above water. What happened afterwards would be either surprise that someone acted differently to me, once it had been explained that I had cost them their beloved pet (but understanding full well that they just made a descision that I don't think I could), or, you know, decomposing.

I do appreciate your stance on a better world view, however- a commendable position for you to take.

 

[puncturedrectum]

It really depends on the age, attractiveness, weight, sex, apparent wealth, and fame of the stranger. If some random jackoff that I don't know is drowning, of course I'm going to save my pet, however, if a very attractive woman was drowning, I might save her for obvious reasons, although she may have a boyfriend so... kind of a 50/50 chance of her drowning. But, let's say I'm walking near some random body of water, and there's my fucking dog, drowning like a *****, and 20 feet to his right, Martin Scorsese, for Boardwalk Empire alone I would have to save that talented fucking asthmatic. It would suck, but my dog would have to be sacrificed for the Great Eyebrows of Cinema, besides I'm pretty sure my dog can swim regardless of any legendary directors in his wake.

 

[Spartan448]

I would save the pet. Asking wether you'd save your pet or a stranger is like asking someone "Two people are drowning. Who do you save: Your beloved family member or some random shmuck who is probably drunk?". Depending on how deep the water is, I would go and retrieve the stranger's wallet after rescuing my pet.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Not wanting other people to die, yeah, those are some real eccentric ethics I have.

I never said I want someone else to die, I just said I value the life of the pet I love over the stranger I don't know. That doesn't mean I don't value the life of the stranger. It means that I put a whole lot of value, more than that of the stranger, on the life of my pet.