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

[MANIFESTER]

*snip*

an interesting way to think of this also, is: i read the poll as "WOULD", in this situation, i will save my cat without hesitation, SHOULD i do that? no, i SHOULD save the human, none the less, i wont lie to sound like a better person
the truth is, ethical or not, i WILL save my cat

it's easy to simply state that one would do the optimal ethical thing in every situation,
it's easy to make excuses really
admitting to yourself that you sometimes will make the "wrong" choice, is a LOT harder

I am not sure I would consider it a lot harder. From a different perspective, it could be viewed as an easy way out. I would consider it a lot harder depending on how much time people get into thinking about the dilemma. Carefully weighing the benefits, all that stuff. This is just a judgement about the people who vote in internet forum polls, but I am doubting most people did that. I bet most people who voted didn't spend more than a minute thinking about it and decided based on the color filter they are currently seeing the world through at the moment (Jade is common, it seems).

 

[Enizer]

*snip*

*snip*

I am not sure I would consider it a lot harder. From a different perspective, it could be viewed as an easy way out. I would consider it a lot harder depending on how much time people get into thinking about the dilemma. Carefully weighing the benefits, all that stuff. This is just a judgement about the people who vote in internet forum polls, but I am doubting most people did that. I bet most people who voted didn't spend more than a minute thinking about it and decided based on the color filter they are currently seeing the world through at the moment (Jade is common, it seems).

well, for some, for most though, saying what they believe the socially acceptable answer, is easyer then telling the truth
if i was not depressed, jaded, and if i actually liked other people: i would NOT have told the truth, i would be siding with the people who say the pet should be left behind

i told the truth only because i'm exhausted trying to fit in, and i no longer really give a shit what other people think

if i cared even a little bit about fitting in, i would have lied in this poll

edit:

you are right though, i bet most people who voted did not think this through

 

[Emperor Nat]

I would call for help, as I'm an extremely poor swimmer.

Putting that aside, I would always choose the life of a human over that of an animal.

Sorry Muffin, but if I see someone drowning you can save yo' own fluffy hamster ass.

 

[Rynozeros]

My dog. No questions asked. Unless it is a kid. All life is precious and of value. A person is of no more value than a pet. Something that is loyal and loving and source of complete joy. I made a promise to protect my friend. I owe nothing to the person.

I don't care if people think it's selfish or evil or immature.

 

[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.