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

[Skops]

Too many 'if's' come into play for me to save the stranger. My dog is my dog. I know what it is, what it means to me, and how heavy it is.

For the stranger I have to ask myself several questions;

-Is it a girl? is she hot? What are my odds of sexual favours afterwards?

-Is it a Dude? is he fat? What are my odds of collecting a large sum of money for my heroism?

These questions and more, by the time I'm done assessing the stranger he/she likely would've drowned...

 

[DugMachine]

Just jumping back in to say that saving drowning people is no easy task and was pulled under once by a man drowning at the beach when I was the only life guard around. Scary stuff man.

 

[phylline]

Pet. I prefer animals most of the time anyways, and I'd have a personal attachment to the pet. None to the human.

I don't see why people are talking like it's a given that human life is more valuable than animal life though.

Although this is never going to happen (and if it did - which it really, really wouldn't - there's things to think about like "I'm not that strong a swimmer anyway, there's no point in us all dying"), so I don't get the outrage either.

 

[DRes82]

snip

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. Even though I disagree.

Its just hard to understand that normally reasonable, accepting people are driven to such vitriol and ill-will towards others based on a difference of opinions. As a rule, you can't judge someone inferior for the values they hold. THAT is what causes the trouble in this world, not apathy for total fucking strangers. Which is only natural.

 

[Xan Krieger]

I'd obviously save my pet, I hate people. People have treated me like crap my whole life but I know whenever I come home from work my 3 dogs will run to me tails wagging.

 

[Kirex]

I'd save my dog, and yes, in that case I'd be an egotistical dickbag. I would also save my friends over anyone else and I would never judge someone negatively who does the same. Emotions get the better of us and if I had to think fast in a situation like that I wouldn't have the time to reassess the situation and I'd just instinctively save what is more dear to me.
If I had the time to think, well... I honestly don't know yet. I have to think about it.

if they were set in stone, why are there still moral debates? why are we having this converstion? why do so many disagree with you?

Around the same number disagree with evolution and climate change. The truth isn't up for a vote.

By what is morality defined, then? Please tell me, because I honestly don't know. If you define "moral" as "utilitarianistic"(I think that's what you meant by your previous long post, what with "net suffering" etc.), okay, that's not the same thing, but I kind of see where you come from because it is at least a very practical standpoint in a social environment.

I still don't see any proof why utilitarianism should be the absolute truth as you claim it to be, but I won't give you any venom for that. It's - like I said - at least practical.

EDIT:

Hwat if I am a mute quadruple amputee?

Also, I had to laugh at that.

 

[Pandabearparade]

So, how long do you plan on using the "people have done horrible things in the past" argument to prove that your opinion, which is in the minority and is supported by people who are intolerant and insulting to anyone else who would disagree with them, is the right one?

You misunderstood my meaning.

Someone outright asserted that popular opinion equals morally correct. That's pretty obviously wrong, so I used an extreme example to prove the point. Again, and I've said this several times, I'm not suggesting the two (letting one person die vs. killing hundreds/thousand of people) are morally equivalent. This is why it's important to read the context of a statement.

Yes popular does not equal true,

Good. That's the point I was trying to make so clearly the argument doesn't apply to you.

but so far the only arguments you've provided are in support of that obvious statement

Untrue. I don't think you've read all my posts.

and insults toward your fellow man.

I've been insulted just as much. Though I have to concede that saying "Well they do it too!" is a bit of a cop out on my part. Fair point, I did insult people early in the thread and I should likely have been a bit more civil.

or the "luxury goods vs. starving people"

Not sure why you're bringing this up. I haven't commented on that once this thread, that I can remember. You may be thinking of something posted by someone else.

we should just ignore your endless stream of insults, ignorance, and repetition.

Now who is insulting people? Also, I love it when people ignore me with a wall of text.

If you make an argument in favor of your pet>stranger position I'll address it with the same level of civility you display posting it. Fair?

 

[legendp]

ARE PEOPLE SERUIS, sorry for the all caps rage, I have never said this but this is beginning to make me loose faith in at least some people in humanity (or atl east on the escapist). I love my pet but I fail to see how anyone can put there pets life over that of another human beings, like Pandabearparade said before, this person could have a family, a family depending on them, and I see people going "why should I care", there is selfish and then there is monstrous, and I kinda agree with Pandabearparade on this one.

I see responses like, why should I care, no wonder world poverty is such a big issue, people need to get perspective. How would you not be forever tormented by picking your pet over a human, at least if you pick the pet you can rationalize it, here is a question what if it was a choice between your best friend and your pet, because you never know you could become best friends with this person but you never gave them a chance, and there friends will loose them, this reminds me of the black box and how people pick money over a person

That could be you drowning, imagine if someone let you die to save there pet, Imagine if it was your mother or father, brother or sister, maybe your best friend that was left to die because of someone pet, how pissed would you be. And then come and tell me that you would save the pet instead. I would try and save both because I love my pet but picking the pet over a human being is ridiculous. people need to consider the consequences of there actions and stop being so selfish.

A little more off topic but I am really surprised at how many people cannot swim.

 

[The Event]

Another thing, for people who'd save their pet: if you owned, say, a hamster instead of something bigger like a dog or a cat, would your answer still be the same? Just curious.

No it wouldn't because I can't imagine ever forming the same emotional attachment to a hamster as I have to a dog.
But then that's also why I don't have hamsters as pets.

 

[pilf]

Out of the options, I'd try to get someone else to help. My dog is arguably a better swimmer than me so if he was in trouble, there's no way i'd jump in after the little bugger and I certainly wouldn't risk myself over someone I didn't know.

In fact, i think I'd be mildly content with just leaving them there. A rather heartless approach but I feel my lack of ability to help justifies it, or at least clear my conscience.

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

Well I would have a difficult time saving myself in the water, much less another being. I would try to get help. If I got in the water I would probably just create another victim.

 

[Neksar]

Panda was saying that the reason this is not a morally subjective situation is because logically, anything that causes less overall suffering is the ethically correct thing to do.

"Net" suffering is not the same as simply deciding in any given scenario what will be the best short-term result and choosing that outcome. There are long term ramifications one has to consider, in addition to rippling effects that the implication of saying "this is morally correct" have upon society at large.

Let's use the scenario of the dog and I'll skip the details and grant that in this specific instance of pet vs. human the pet's death would cause more short-term suffering than the death of the human. Is it still immoral to save Fido? Yes. A society in which it is socially and morally acceptable to save a dog over a person is going to have a great deal more net suffering than the society where Fido drowns, even if on the micro level the death of Fido is more acutely felt.

Why? Humans have a high capacity for suffering, and the death of a human will generally ripple through dozens, even hundreds of individuals who will all suffer in turn at comprehending the news that they have a friend or family members who drowned. Even if in one specific instance the short-term gain favors saving a dog, it's still not a good idea to set a societal standard where that is acceptable.

To give a different example I heard Sam Harris use, imagine you have four sick patients with no families in the emergency room, and by killing one you could save the other three. Is that a moral thing to do? No, even though the short term suffering arithmetic clearly favors killing one to save three, the long term consequences in living in a society where any minute someone might kill you to harvest your organs leaves a lot to be desired. Short term gain, long term failure.

I find utilitarianism to be a weird philosophical discipline. It's almost deterministic in its pursuit of ideals, since maximizing utility means that there's only one right choice in any given situation, and every action is put through the lens of whether or not you've achieved maximum utility. In a sense, you are constantly failing to live up to your own ethical principles unless you always and only act in the interest of maximum utility. I could never stomach that when it comes to ethical philosophies. It's valid; just not my cup of tea.

 

[Kirex]

That could be you drowning, imagine if someone let you die to save there pet, Imagine if it was your mother or father, brother or sister, maybe your best friend that was left to die because of someone pet, how pissed would you be.

I would be angry in the beginning, yes.
I would also recall some time later that I can't expect rational decisions from everyone at everytime and that the emotional factor weighs in pretty heavily in here. I'm not a fucking robot and I don't expect other people to be, as judgmental as I may be for a certain timespan. There is nothing to really "forgive" here, it's more like accepting.

Also, in a realistical situation, everybody with more than a shred of empathy would at least try saving both.

EDIT:
On the subject of utilitarianism:
How exactly do you "measure" suffering and/or happiness?

 

[Neksar]

I'm not a fucking robot

That's pretty much what I thought too. My answer was the stranger, but my heart said my dog. I don't expect a person to be able to make an informed decision in that sort of situation.

 

[Pandabearparade]

On the subject of utilitarianism:
How exactly do you "measure" suffering and/or happiness?

We can't, at present. At least not precisely. We also can't measure the number of rocks on Mars, but there is clearly a right answer to the question whether or not we have access to it.

Though in some cases the answer is obvious. What society is happier, England or Egypt? England by far, the answer is obvious even if we don't have a box that measures the "sob level" of a country.

Clearly access to quality healthcare for all citizens, good food, quality plumbing, and Ricky Gervais are all superior routes to happiness than basing a society on the Quran. If one can concede that much, we have established an objective standard of ethics and the rest is simply a matter of hammering out minutia.

 

[DeathsHands]

I think the Escapists are autistic, darling.

Don't agree with me = special needs

Stay classy, DeathsHands.

Aha! That is where you fall! I have Asperger's! I am special needs!

 

[Olas]

erm, considering morals are a completely man made thing, what is right IS decided by popular opinion

No.

Genghis Khan wiped out entire cities of far better people than he or his horde of horse riding fuckheads. Was it moral? No. Was it approved of? Yes. Everyone still alive after the Mongols sacked a city very enthusiastically approved of the Khan. Except for the women they kept alive to rape, but they were the minority and thus wrong by your logic.

yes.

morals are not set in stone. they are decided by whatever the community decides. if they were set in stone, why are there still moral debates? why are we having this converstion? why do so many disagree with you?

So you're saying murder and rape aren't morally wrong? They're just unpopular right now most of the developed world? Notice how as societies grow increasingly more civilized certain morals seem to become universally accepted like rules on theft and murder. Our sense of morality is guided by logic, and logic is absolute. If morality was really as subjective as you suggest why do so many people and even governments agree on certain things? Sure some complex issues are still debated, but that doesn't mean they have [a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/no-right-answer"]no right answer[/a] it just means that people haven't fully agreed on what that answer is yet.

 

[Winnosh]

For people asking "Why should I care about this person?"


BECAUSE IT'S A PERSON!!!

 

[BNguyen]

Well, since I'm an average swimmer, I'd first try to call for someone to help then I'd go after my pet because to me, my dog is not a pet but is a full member of my family, so the question would be to either let what I consider a family member to die or someone I don't know and probably couldn't help anyways to die.
I'm not trying to be mean but just about anybody who cares for a family member would save them first and if not then that person must have been a dick to you or you don't care.
The best option would be to call someone first, then take a floatation device and throw it towards the one you can't get to and get to the one you can save.

 

[Neksar]

So you're saying murder and rape aren't morally wrong? They're just unpopular right now most of the developed world? Notice how as societies grow increasingly more civilized certain morals seem to become universally accepted like rules on theft and murder. Our sense of morality is guided by logic, and logic is absolute. If morality was really as subjective as you suggest why do so many people and even governments agree on certain things? Sure some complex issues are still debated, but that doesn't mean they have no right answer it just means that people haven't fully agreed on what that answer is yet.

Morality isn't guided by logic until you have the luxury of indulging in philosophy. You just have an intuitive notion of what's right or wrong.

Have you considered that morality is relative, but that certain moral rights and wrongs are so ubiquitous as to seem objective?