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

[SveeNOR]

You guys are forgetting the fact that this is an immediate decision that you have to take, you don't have time to weigh morals and feelings. It is save one or the other. Personally I am pretty sure after weighing the moral values I have and my general opinions about humans and animals. However if this is the same decision I will take if I was put into the actual moment, I honestly do not know what I would do.
I've already confronted a similar problem since a very, very large part of my Red Cross training was to be psychologically prepared to take a decision where I would save one person at the sacrifice of the other by saving the one with the highest chance of survival and irregardless of the person was someone i knew, a child, a criminal or etc.
And I have used a lot of time to try to prepare myself for such a scenario and I think that I would take the "right choice" (for me, which is saving the person), however unless confronted with the actual scenario I would not know the outcome.

My point is that people are way to certain in their decision in this forum, it is either x or y, there is no middle way it seems. However it is very hard to knowingly let an animal you love die, however people should also understand that letting a human die due to their own decision is a very hard choice to take.

Edit: removed quotes since i didn't get it to work...

 

[Frankster]

Human comes first, as hearbreaking as it is to me as I do love my cats.

I guess in the heat of the moment I wouldn't think it was either one or the other, my cats are fit and in shape so I would trust them to hold on until I save the human first, I'm a good enough swimmer to aspire to save both.

 

[Candidus]

Huh. There do indeed seem to be more people concerned with puppies than with people. Who'd've thought it.

Human. First. Always.

I really don't understand this point of view. Surely, turning on a member of your own tribe, human or not, is the greater betrayal. I'm not phrasing that as a question, I'm just saying it.

I owe nothing to another human being by virtue of the fact that they are human. What the hell kind of reason is that to betray a loved one? I'm a disciplined man. I almost drowned once off the coast of cornwall because the water was cold and I was skinny and unfit. Even remembering that, I reject the selfishness involved in hoping that others will (in general) turn on their own for me. They shouldn't.

Either people who would are as cold as vipers (unlikely given the tone of most of these responses), OR they have an ambient love for other people that I just have no concept of; as though they're able to see another colour and think it's just the most natural thing in the world.

Well I don't see whatever it is that you see. You're in the minority, actually.

Tribe. First. Always.

 

[Treblaine]

Hmm, I hate these contrived dilemmas. And they always are "can only save one" is contrived as nothing is so absolute, especially something like drowning. You should always consider and balance who can stand waiting longer.

And if you get to the point of absolute certainties like "evil guy kidnaps your family, makes you chose which to live" is no real choice. it's like choosing to have your right or left leg amputated with a chainsaw I LIKE BOTH MY LEGS!!! Or something else trite like lose your hand or have your nose chopped off.

There is no right answer.

I'll tell you what I'd do, I'd save FIRST whichever would maximise the chances of the most people being saved. Generally I'd save the stranger first as dogs are generally naturally good swimmers, I've never heard of a dog needing a swimming lesson but generally humans who haven't been explicitly taught to swim drown as soon as they land in water deeper than their nose height.

That's not a valid answer for this question. The point is that you have to make a choice, not that there's a level of problem solving to it, and so the smartest of us can find a way of saving both. The actual part about the way they are going to die isn't really important for the question. He could have said there's two trains; one heading for the stranger and the other heading for your pet, and both of them are unable to move out of the way without your help, but there's only enough time to save one. The idea that you have to choice to save one is still there, but I guess in this one there's fewer ways to poke holes.

It really annoys me when people take apart hypothetical questions and poke holes in them because they can't just make a choice.

Well even as a hypothetical it's awful - as I mentioned - it's like postulating if a psychopath was threatening to saw off your leg and you had to pick which one or else he'd saw them both off, which would you chose?

What's there to discuss in such grizzly matters in choosing between two awful alternatives? Either way it's catastrophic but worse if you make no decision. It's just macabre indulgence in taking unwilling part in horrific circumstance.

The point is you can't possibly NOT try to think of a way out of this dilemma, this is not the way people's brains work, were one of the the few animals on this planet that thinks outside the box. We didn't take the best of two bad options we made a ideal third option and we CONSTANTLY think about that.

 

[Slayer_2]

You sir said what my mind was thinking, and unfortunately from now on every time I see someone on their high horse posting "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" I will instantly think of this thread

Pretty much, there aren't many things more annoying than a hypocrite. You know, except for someone who would practically commit murder to save an animal. This thread has been a real eye-opener about what kind of people inhabit here.

Agreed. Often when I find myself thinking "I don't want to live on this planet any more" it's because I don't want to share it with a platoon of moralizing prats who continually presume that their values must necessarily be shared by everyone, and that those who don't are ethically bankrupt. I'll let people decide for themselves what's most important to them, as I would expect the same courtesy to be extended to me. Maybe I'm just crazy that way.

Oh yes, how dare we hope that a person would show some decent human traits, especially after they likely posted at least one rant about the state of society these days, even though they are the biggest part of the problem? By golly do I feel like a preaching douchebag for thinking less of murders and rapists, too. They didn't ask for my high-horse morals to be forced upon them, or my horrible preaching about basic humanity. I think we've both had our fill of scathing sarcasm, no?

You do realize, of course, that simple things like "don't murder", "don't rape", and "don't steal" are just moral values forced upon us by society, right? Does that make them bad? Apparently, according to you. If I was arrested for murder and told the judge "I let people decide for themselves what's most important to them, I expect the same courtesy to be extended to me. Maybe I'm just crazy that way" I'm sure he'd let me off scot-free... Or just throw me in the looney bin, since I'd be a murdering psychopath. And don't try claiming it's an extreme example, choosing the dog in this hypothetical scenario is akin to murder by inaction, since we assume that hypothetically you wouldn't drown in the attempt to save the dog or human, hence no danger to you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Oh yes, how dare we hope that a person would show some decent human traits, especially after they likely posted at least one rant about the state of society these days, even though they are the biggest part of the problem? By golly do I feel like a preaching douchebag for thinking less of murders and rapists, too. They didn't ask for my high-horse morals to be forced upon them, or my horrible preaching about basic humanity. I think we've both had our fill of scathing sarcasm, no?

You do realize, of course, that simple things like "don't murder", "don't rape", and "don't steal" are just moral values forced upon us by society, right? Does that make them bad? Apparently, according to you. If I was arrested for murder and told the judge "I let people decide for themselves what's most important to them, I expect the same courtesy to be extended to me. Maybe I'm just crazy that way" I'm sure he'd let me off scot-free... Or just throw me in the looney bin, since I'd be a murdering psychopath. And don't try claiming it's an extreme example, choosing the dog in this hypothetical scenario is akin to murder by inaction, since we assume that hypothetically you wouldn't drown in the attempt to save the dog or human, hence no danger to you.

I often find when my own arguments are logically bankrupt that I too rely on hyperbole to try and browbeat people into submission, so I can't really fault you for doing the same I suppose.

 

[texanarob]

I save my pet because I wouldn't be able to help the stranger. I can swim but I couldn't conjure the strength to actually recuse them. I'm assuming the pet is smaller than the person >.>. If I could save the person? I would flip a coin or something similar. All life is precious and equal and the only way to put that into practice is by putting it to chance.

Hello 2-Face.

All life is not equal. A human life is infinitely more valuable than that of an animal. That's why you don't lose any sleep over the millions of flys swatted on windshields, stepped on snails, eaten cattle or victims of birdstrike, yet events such as 9/11 or natural disasters make global news.

1 human > 500 dogs, regardless of how much I like the dog or how terrible a person it may be.

 

[omicron1]

Huh. There do indeed seem to be more people concerned with puppies than with people. Who'd've thought it.

Human. First. Always.

I really don't understand this point of view. Surely, turning on a member of your own tribe, human or not, is the greater betrayal. I'm not phrasing that as a question, I'm just saying it.

I owe nothing to another human being by virtue of the fact that they are human. What the hell kind of reason is that to betray a loved one? I'm a disciplined man. I almost drowned once off the coast of cornwall because the water was cold and I was skinny and unfit. Even remembering that, I reject the selfishness involved in hoping that others will (in general) turn on their own for me. They shouldn't.

Either people who would are as cold as vipers (unlikely given the tone of most of these responses), OR they have an ambient love for other people that I just have no concept of; as though they're able to see another colour and think it's just the most natural thing in the world.

Well I don't see whatever it is that you see. You're in the minority, actually.

Tribe. First. Always.

My reasoning is simple: Human life is worth infinitely more than animal/plant life. No matter what close relation you may feel for your pet, the drowning person is a person. That is an overriding factor in the decision.

 

[clippen05]

Huh. There do indeed seem to be more people concerned with puppies than with people. Who'd've thought it.

Human. First. Always.

I really don't understand this point of view. Surely, turning on a member of your own tribe, human or not, is the greater betrayal. I'm not phrasing that as a question, I'm just saying it.

I owe nothing to another human being by virtue of the fact that they are human. What the hell kind of reason is that to betray a loved one? I'm a disciplined man. I almost drowned once off the coast of cornwall because the water was cold and I was skinny and unfit. Even remembering that, I reject the selfishness involved in hoping that others will (in general) turn on their own for me. They shouldn't.

Either people who would are as cold as vipers (unlikely given the tone of most of these responses), OR they have an ambient love for other people that I just have no concept of; as though they're able to see another colour and think it's just the most natural thing in the world.

Well I don't see whatever it is that you see. You're in the minority, actually.

Tribe. First. Always.

My reasoning is simple: Human life is worth infinitely more than animal/plant life. No matter what close relation you may feel for your pet, the drowning person is a person. That is an overriding factor in the decision.

I think you've summed up everything I wanted to say in just a few short words. You win 5 internetz

 

[Slayer_2]

I often find when my own arguments are logically bankrupt that I too rely on hyperbole to try and browbeat people into submission, so I can't really fault you for doing the same I suppose.

Cute; big words, no substance and completely ignoring all my points. How unoriginal and childish. Don't confuse fancy words with an intelligent response. Next time, you might just want to say "I'm right, you're wrong", that would be about the same, and save you key presses.

Never thought I'd want to post that Futurama meme, but now is a time when I feel it is actually justified. I've also never said this, but I fear for humanity. If people like this are a majority, we are gonna have a rough time of it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Cute; big words, no substance and completely ignoring all my points. How unoriginal and childish. Don't confuse fancy words with an intelligent response. Next time, you might just want to say "I'm right, you're wrong", that would be about the same, and save you key presses.

Never thought I'd want to post that Futurama meme, but now is a time when I feel it is actually justified. I've also never said this, but I fear for humanity. If people like this are a majority, we are gonna have a rough time of it.

Ooh, scary, big words.

When you make an argument that is not 100% appeal to emotion, sloppy hyperbole, lazy and senseless analogies and moral crusading, I'll give you more than a hand wave as a response. However, we both know you can't, because there isn't one to make.

We can do this though. Since you're so concerned about the common good and the price of inaction, you need to do this. Got a car? Get rid of it. Eat a lot food? Stop, immediately. Use a lot of electricity? Stop. Eat meat, or anything that leaves a large carbon footprint? Stop. Planning on having kids? Don't. Your 1st world existence is causing harm. Simply by existing, you selfishly cause harm every minute you're on the planet.

Don't like that kind of stupid semantic nitpicking? Neither do I.

 

[Slayer_2]

Ooh, scary, big words.

Most of the time an overuse of big words is a sure sign of a bad argument and/or arguing skills. Instead of presenting a logical point, the person resorts to trying to sound intelligent by acting like a human thesaurus, but really comes across as senseless (or stuck up) to anyone who can see through it (this is debating 101, come on). However, I am not intimidated by your attempt to sound smart, rather I find it quite amusing, I've met more than a few of your type. This isn't a legal document, it's an internet forum. For the fun of it, I've given your "rebuttals" gradings from 0 to 5. Higher is better.

When you make an argument that is not 100% appeal to emotion, sloppy hyperbole, lazy and senseless analogies and moral crusading, I'll give you more than a hand wave as a response. However, we both know you can't, because there isn't one to make.

My argument appeals 100% to emotion? Are you kidding, we're talking about people who value their pets over other humans and ***** about the state of humanity. I'd point out that this topic is 100% based on human perceptions of what is right and wrong, which could be termed emotional, since it's rather hard to back up with facts (unless you count the ten commandments). Don't like it? Get lost, go find a geology debate instead. Grade: 2/5, at least you acknowledge that your first reply was laughable.

We can do this though. Since you're so concerned about the common good and the price of inaction, you need to do this. Got a car? Get rid of it. Eat a lot food? Stop, immediately. Use a lot of electricity? Stop. Eat meat, or anything that leaves a large carbon footprint? Stop. Planning on having kids? Don't. Your 1st world existence is causing harm. Simply by existing, you selfishly cause harm every minute you're on the planet.

Nice job putting words in my mouth, since I never once claimed that I care about the common good, or the price of inaction. Grade: 1/5, completely off topic, putting words in opponents mouth, no real purpose but exaggeration for the hell of it.

Don't like that kind of stupid semantic nitpicking? Neither do I.

So my valid point that "murder is bad" is moral forced upon us by society is "stupid semantic nitpicking"? Really, this is pathetic, you strawman like no other and are a hypocrite to boot. You have yet to provide a single point or counterpoint that doesn't rely on sarcasm, extreme exaggeration or trying to demean me with your humorously aggrandized vocabulary (c wat i did thar)? Try harder or take a seat. Grade 0/5, a beautiful straw man, too bad the crows love him.

Out of curiosity, if I told you I want a mass murderer who enjoyed raping little kids on the side, would you withhold judgement and accept my world view on morality? I'm curious where the line is for you, or if you have one at all.

Overall: 3/15, don't join a debate club any time soon.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Overall: 3/15, don't join a debate club any time soon.

Do I have your permission to join a debate club, Slayer?

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I save the stranger, and spend a couple weeks deeply mourning my pet.

It'd be hard, obviously, but when you get down to the heart of the matter, a pet isn't human. Unless you were to tell me that I happen to know that this stranger is a total asshole and actually doesn't deserve to be saved, I'd save him.

A fourth option is needed, methinks. I think I'd try my best but end up dying along with them.

 

[legendp]

YOU DON'T need to be a robot to consider the consequences of your actions, Have you ever loss someone close? had that emptiness, now imagine what that would be like for someone else loosing someone, Now I love my dog, I would give up my car, my computer and risk my life for the dog but you cannot compare the suffering from the loss of a dog to the loss of a human. Imagine this (ridiculous theory), imagine if your dog was dying and the only way to save them was by killing someone and stealing there organs would you do that, what if the person drowning was an 8 year old girl, would you still choose your dog, I mean they're a stranger...

I would consider someone who chose there dog over a human more of a robot, they chose the easier way to help themselves, out of there own desires, that sounds more robotic than someone who sacrificed something very dear to them in order to rescue a strangers life.

I think it's really bold to judge an action of others when they don't have nearly as much time to think about it as you. It's a short-term-emotional reaction, I'm talking about seconds here. How in gods name do you expect someone under pressure to act rationally? I think we've all done stupid things when having to decide quick. Of course, the consequences of this situation are much more severe, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the same basic problem. Is saving the pet egotistical? Yes, quite. But you still can't hold someone responsible for that. Sometimes people don't have time to overthink consequences and that's where emotions like that come in.

Also, what does the age matter when saving a person? You're basically saying that an 8-year-old is worth more than a woman in her late twenties,(because apparently imagining an 8-year-old as the human should change my opinion more easily now) which is pretty questionable if you ask me.

And no, a robot is made to evaluate things only logically, which is why he should always save the human. In almost no scenario would he save the puppy.

Did you purposely not quote my whole paragraph to twist my words, after I finished the sentence about the 8 year old girl I said the age shouldn't matter. I was saying the same as you but making the point that if the poll had asked between your dog and an 8 year old girl than I think the poll would read differently. I managed to come up with these thoughts in 20 seconds, (the time it would take you to swim towards them), this is more than enough time to consider what you are about to do and how it will affect others as long as you keep your head screwed on straight and don't freak out, which shouldn't be hard to do. Like I said I love my pet but I would pick the stranger, It could be you out there drowning after all

In terms of the Robot, I was saying because the robot was choosing the option that benefited itself, The robot would choose the efficient easy way because it has no emotions and does not care about consequences of it's actions, The human would choose the painful sad option but ultimately right (I would hope), save the human. because a Human is capable of understanding there actions and emotional consequences on others, A robot is not.

 

[legendp]

Huh. There do indeed seem to be more people concerned with puppies than with people. Who'd've thought it.

Human. First. Always.

I really don't understand this point of view. Surely, turning on a member of your own tribe, human or not, is the greater betrayal. I'm not phrasing that as a question, I'm just saying it.

I owe nothing to another human being by virtue of the fact that they are human. What the hell kind of reason is that to betray a loved one? I'm a disciplined man. I almost drowned once off the coast of cornwall because the water was cold and I was skinny and unfit. Even remembering that, I reject the selfishness involved in hoping that others will (in general) turn on their own for me. They shouldn't.

Either people who would are as cold as vipers (unlikely given the tone of most of these responses), OR they have an ambient love for other people that I just have no concept of; as though they're able to see another colour and think it's just the most natural thing in the world.

Well I don't see whatever it is that you see. You're in the minority, actually.

Tribe. First. Always.

My reasoning is simple: Human life is worth infinitely more than animal/plant life. No matter what close relation you may feel for your pet, the drowning person is a person. That is an overriding factor in the decision.

I think you've summed up everything I wanted to say in just a few short words. You win 5 internetz

You can another 5 internetz on there, the life and experiences, the things a human being will do in there life, the emotions they have and people they care about is worth more as hard as it can be to admit, you should choose the person.

 

[Slayer_2]

Do I have your permission to join a debate club, Slayer?

NO!... Kidding, but only if we see a bit of improvement with your walking-thesaurus skills

Would you prefer that he just repeat the arguments other people have made, again?

Honestly, yes. Better than a "I'm right, you're wrong" answer with fancy wording. Or he could just say "read the other arguments", or even quote them, if time permits. Or just ignore me, if he must.

In case you haven't noticed, people have provided actual arguments in support of the pet option only to be coutnered with remarks about how your own species should always take precedence (except, of course, when it comes to all those fun video games and such that we buy instead of food for the starving.)

That's all great, but I believe I've addressed most of those points earlier on. In case you missed it, let me answer them again.

So, which argument would you like to respond to?

All of them, thank you.

1. Some of us view pets as family members and strangers as well, strangers. Since most people would choose their mother or brother or sister over a stranger, why is choosing what we consider a family member morally wrong?

I respond with another hypothetical scenario. A wacko breaks into your home, he has a gun with one round and a suicide vest. He threatens to shoot either your dog or your, say, mother (or any other family member you love and respect). If you do not choose, he will set off a suicide vest and kill all of you. The one you choose will be shot in the brain, and he will flee the scene. What do you choose? The answer should be obvious. The problem with this argument is that it does not take the degree of attachment you might have to a "family member". If your dog dies, you might be sad a week or two, but you'll recover quickly, and likely buy a new dog soon. No matter what the pro-pet group may say, your dog does not really have as much value as a family member. If your mother is shot, you can't just grieve a few days and then go buy a new one a month later.

2. If saving my pet is so inhumanly selfish that it means that all of humanities problems are my fault, why is buying video games, movies, and all other sorts of luxury goods instead of buying food for the poor so acceptable?

This argument is flawed because of the different scenarios (indirect vs. direct). Donating all your money to charities MAY help someone, or it may go to pay charities overhead costs. There is also the fact that you are likely never going to see the benefits of your help, where as I'm sure most people would be very grateful for you saving them, and express it to your face. Also, with no entertainment of any kind, many humans would become depressed and possibly kill themselves or cause injury to themselves intentionally. Think I'm exaggerating, imagine if I took anything fun out of your life that costs even a cent, would you really want you keep living? I'm not saying don't donate, I'm saying if you're gonna do it, you don't need to give away everything you own. You don't need to be so extreme, you can have fun and still help the world at the same time, it's not black or white. Also, you CAN save this guy from drowning, you can NOT fix the entire world. Hell, you can't even put a dent in our problems, but does that mean you shouldn't try to some extent?

3. Your morality isn't the one universal truth. Since you can't claim the majority, you can't claim that your morals are representative of the whole of human morality. And no, claiming that morality is subjective does not mean that I believe that rapists and murderers are acceptable because they also don't have the majority.

No it is not, and I don't usually enjoy preaching it. But this has made me feel physically ill, and the fact that most of the people here have complained about "the state of humanity these days" doesn't help. I'd also like to point out that a poll with less than 1500 voters is a small, small demographic. And although there is no nice way to say this, it is possible there are a lot of mentally challenged people, and people with a less than average amount of friends and social skills, hence they may relate to and love a pet more than the average person, while disliking strangers more. If you're obsessed with the majority, it is likely that most people would save the human, although you'd have to do a polling of a wider demographic to get a better scope of things. No matter how much you may love your pet, do you really think watching someone drown (and not helping them) is going to be easily forgotten? Drowning is NOT a peaceful way to go, you will remember the event for decades to come and you WILL find your nightmares haunted by the images of it, if you have any semblance of a conscious. Where as if I ran over a dog in my car, I'd feel bad, but not for long, and I doubt I'd have more than a few dreams about it. And that's me directly killing it, not just letting it drown. How would you feel if you ran over a human?

 

[Candidus]

Huh. There do indeed seem to be more people concerned with puppies than with people. Who'd've thought it.

Human. First. Always.

I really don't understand this point of view. Surely, turning on a member of your own tribe, human or not, is the greater betrayal. I'm not phrasing that as a question, I'm just saying it.

I owe nothing to another human being by virtue of the fact that they are human. What the hell kind of reason is that to betray a loved one? I'm a disciplined man. I almost drowned once off the coast of cornwall because the water was cold and I was skinny and unfit. Even remembering that, I reject the selfishness involved in hoping that others will (in general) turn on their own for me. They shouldn't.

Either people who would are as cold as vipers (unlikely given the tone of most of these responses), OR they have an ambient love for other people that I just have no concept of; as though they're able to see another colour and think it's just the most natural thing in the world.

Well I don't see whatever it is that you see. You're in the minority, actually.

Tribe. First. Always.

My reasoning is simple: Human life is worth infinitely more than animal/plant life. No matter what close relation you may feel for your pet, the drowning person is a person. That is an overriding factor in the decision.

I think you've summed up everything I wanted to say in just a few short words. You win 5 internetz

Then you draw a distinction I don't between people and animals. I haven't seen the hand-held scanner that gives a different "value" reading when you hover it over a person than it does when you hover it over a dog. Until somebody shows me something THAT concrete as proof that human beings are more valuable than anything else, I'll go on making no distinction.

The value of anything to me is in direct proportion to the quality of its relationship with me (or its value to others who are connected to me). If you're not of my tribe and the OP's scenario is afoot, you're just plain out of luck.

 

[legendp]

i think i just realized something, this is a debate between animal lovers, like me, who instinctively see pets as their children, i know i treat and think of my cat, as if he were my son.
is that good or bad? i have no clue, i do not get to choose my instincts though...

and on the other side, are people not AS attached to their pets, or people who dont have pets, and therefore dont understand the feelings pet lovers have towards their pets

the two groups will likely never understand each other, as the deciding factor is an experience that is not shared by both sides

No it's not a debate between pet lovers and other people, you are making a huge assumption there that is wrong (as far as I am concerned). I love my pet a lot, and would be very sad and mournful, but I relies as much as it will hurt for my pet to die that a human life is worth more, No mater how much I love my pet or wish that they didn't die. I would try to save both though (as a have already said on page 23 through to page 26 somewhere), however if I had to choose It would be the human

The results like these make me wonder if all those ridiculous news shows have a point, are we being desensitized and not caring about people anymore, placing human life so lowly, think of all your experiences and remember other people have had experiences just like you, think if you where you out there. your cat is not a child, when it dies you will be incredibly sad bit no where near as sad as someone who has lost a friend or brother or mother.

 

[DRes82]

snip

The presumptuousness and self-righteousness has reached a new high in this thread with this post. Just based on the fact that you attribute the poll results to the possibility that "there are a lot of mentally challenged people' that have participated lets me safely assume that I, at least, have much more life experience and social ability than you.

I'm not going to go over my thoughts on this ridiculous topic again, but if you're interested, there are quite a few posts I've made here that summarize how I feel (which you should be, because my values are absolute and if you don't agree with them, you're mentally disabled). If not, suffice it to say, that I completely disagree with you. Again, the presence of such moral self-importance and arrogance here is astounding.

edit: I should grade you on your debate skills, Slayer. I doubt you would even get the 3 out of 15 that you gave to your opponent.