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

[Techno Squidgy]

Hard to say. Someone I don't even know, compared to a companion that has given me comfort and a little slice of happiness for a long time.

If we then consider the fact that it's a freakin' whirlpool, I'll go for my cat. I'm a fairly strong swimmer but I don't like my chances of saving a full-grown man or woman by myself in a whirlpool. If I had help, then the stranger. If there were two people helping, they can grab the stranger and I'll grab my kitty.

 

[wintercoat]

Simple, I'd tell the idiot flailing about in the water to get my pet out. When they don't, I'd dive in to get it myself. It's stupid to think a person can't swim.

If it was a kid, that might change things a lot.

I'm 26 and never learned how to swim.

OT: As I can't swim, I'd call for help.

 

[sethisjimmy]

Something interesting to take into account is that a human who is drowning is capable of pulling you under while flailing about because they are panicked and won't let go of you. That isn't really a factor for me though, just something interesting.

Ignoring the fact that in real life, a situation would never be this black and white clear-cut, I'd go for my dog.

I don't think I consider a difference in value of life between human and animal, and in this case, I know and love my dog, and I don't know this stranger, so the choice is pretty clear. Not saying I'm some cold-hearted badass or something, I'd be very upset about the stranger, but that's something I'd have to live with.

The question that this poll is really asking is, do you think humans are better than all other animals, or do you consider all life equal?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I've saved a puppy that fell into a well couple years back on xmas eve. Incidentally, there were no people drowning there at that time.

Suuuuure there weren't. You just 'happened' to stumble into a real life situation that wasn't a hypothetical moral conundrum, I suppose? Maybe we should look into missing persons reports filed in your area around the time of this non-moral-crisis puppy rescue.

(this is a joke, for people what don't understand.)

 

[Sneezeburger]

As cheesy as it may sound I promised my cat a life of luxury and leisure after I almost intentionally killed him when he was tiny... so I save my cat.

I think that even were I not beholden to my word that I would still save my pet because I don't know this guy. What if he turns out to be a killer just playing around fishing, as it were, for victims?

I've got to ask. Haha.

 

[Thistlehart]

I don't care about random strangers. However, I am also not a murderer. I won't intentionally kill someone. That's the inherent difference between your hypothetical and the original. One requires intentionally harming someone, the other requires simply valuing your pet more than the stranger.

Please read my post:

"If someone went "Well i care about the person but i care about the dog more" id understand. Thats perfectly reasonable and it explains why they wouldnt pick the 10 dollars. When someone goes "I dont care at all about random people and id save the dog" i think wait a minute. If you dont care about random people at all then youd care about any material possession more right? So if given the choice between a life and some money youd pick the money, caring about one but not the other?"

If you choose the dog that says nothing about you really. Nothing special.

However if you choose the dog and say "I choose the dog because the stranger has ZERO value to me, not because i value both and the dog means more" it shows that you would value ANYTHING (even 10 dollars) above a random human.

If you place zero value on a human life and 10 dollars of value on a 10 dollar bill why would you ever pick the worthless human life over the worthwhile money? Youve just admitted that your value system places objects higher than random people. Therefor if you had to make a choice between material goods and people youd pick material goods.

The answer to the question in the OP means little. The motivation reveals a lot.

So a person has to couch their response in language so specific that you don't have to try to read between the lines to reckon they wouldn't Merc out at the slightest opportunity?

Sir, you are either being deliberately disingenuous or lazy.

To say that one cares little about a stranger is not the same as saying one values material gain over said stranger (whatever the number of either).

What is more, your rather egregious example fails to reconcile a major factor that would influence a person's decision were they given this rather suspect opportunity to Merc Out. That is to say, you forget that people think.

Possible thoughts:
"Wow, this is all very convenient."
"Can I trust this person?"
"Who are these people, and why is it so important that I'm the one that pushes the button?"
"Why is it so important that they die, or that they suffer so?"
"Why me?"
"Who profits from this?"
"Who's acutally going to get blamed, if not me?"
"While there will be no immediate rammifications, what will this be setting in motion?"
"This can't be right."
"This person is lying to me."
"Get the hell out, now."
"Is this person going to kill me if I refuse? They set this whole unsavory thing up. Why wouldn't they?"

Please note, none of these thoughts are granting any inherent, personal value to the people being killed.

Were people as simple as you claim. The world would be so easy to deal with.

 

[Mikejames]

Dear lord, more people would choose to save their bloody dog than another human being?
That's genuinely unsettling if you people are serious.

 

[Byere]

I can't speak for anyone else, but obviously I disgust you OP.

Frankly, I love my pets and if I had the ability to save my pet or a stranger, I'd save my pet straight off. Like you said, they're a stranger. I'm not going to give a bullshit reason like what you quoted (he/she might be a bad person, one way or the other), but quite frankly, I couldn't care less about them.

EDIT: As the poll already shows, there's a higher percent of people who would choose a pet over a stranger

 

[Stasisesque]

Dear lord, more people would choose to save their bloody dog than another human being?
That's genuinely unsettling if you people are serious.

It relates more, I think, to the fact we know our pets; we know they're not capable of harm, we know they've never caused someone pain, emotional or physical. A stranger could be anyone from Mother Teresa to Hitler; we might jump in to save the former, but most people would let the latter drown. It has little to do with the value we place on human life, but more the value we place on the goodness of strangers.

If I jumped into a whirlpool to attempt to save anyone, all three of us would drown. I'd like to think I'd save the stranger, but it is a surprisingly hard choice to make.

 

[ecoho]

My dog. why? because i hate peopel in general and my dog wont try to drwon me when i resuce him, but to be fair assuming i actualy liked people id still go for my dog because i dont know that person but i know my dog is like my child (if you havent had a dog you would not understand this) and i will do everything in my power to keep him safe.

 

[Tiger Sora]

My pet. The obvious choice for me. I love the fluff ball to death and I can't handle anymore tragedy in my family.

The stranger..... f they're still alive I'll try to save them. Rescue who you love more.

 

[Signa]

Simple, I'd tell the idiot flailing about in the water to get my pet out. When they don't, I'd dive in to get it myself. It's stupid to think a person can't swim.

If it was a kid, that might change things a lot.

I'm 26 and never learned how to swim.

OT: As I can't swim, I'd call for help.

Well, OBVIOUSLY I'd save you. I kinda know you. Kinda.

Ok, maybe I'd still save my pet, but it would be more of a dilemma than before. Maybe I'd get you to hold onto my pet while I drag you to safety.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

So a person has to couch their response in language so specific that you don't have to try to read between the lines to reckon they wouldn't Merc out at the slightest opportunity?

Sir, you are either being deliberately disingenuous or lazy.

If someone says "I place no value on the lives of people i dont know" and then defends that claim then its obvious that that is what they meant. If the person had instantly clarified with context or a "Well what i actually meant was..." id have apologized and retracted all claims.

To say that one cares little about a stranger is not the same as saying one values material gain over said stranger (whatever the number of either).

To say that one cares nothing about a stranger is the same as saying they value anything that they care about even the tiniest bit over that stranger. Because something is greater than nothing no matter how small the number of somethings the value of the material good just needs to be existent to be greater than the value of valueless human lives.

What is more, your rather egregious example fails to reconcile a major factor that would influence a person's decision were they given this rather suspect opportunity to Merc Out. That is to say, you forget that people think.

Please note, none of these thoughts are granting any inherent, personal value to the people being killed.

Were people as simple as you claim. The world would be so easy to deal with.

Granted, there are many outside reasons why someone wouldnt do this in real life. In my hypothetical they are exonerated from being caught or punished or from being tricked by me. I think the ending clause "If they could" would be appropriate. If given opportunity to merc out with no consequences other than material gain, if the statement human life is worthless is true, they should.

And if he put no value on human life, the mother of three dying wouldn't suck for him, meaning you jumped on the second half of the post and decided to remove all context and intent from his words. You know, semantics.

If it was simply a case of me misunderstanding the intent why, when challenged, did he continue to defend the idea that he didnt care about people rather than clairfy which would have led to me apologizing and feeling rather sheepish. Heres the quotes where he repeated the statement in a different context:

"Just because I have no reason to care for them doesn't mean I would prefer death over 10 dollars."

"I'm going to pick the former because I have no reason to care for those I don't even know."

Its also impossible for something to "suck to you" if you dont care about it. It if affects you emotionally for something to happen that, by definition, is caring. The statement is contradictory "I wouldnt care if you killed my family but it would suck if it happened" doesnt make sense. If it "sucks" it means you care about the action taking place therefor you DO care.

 

[Mikejames]

It relates more, I think, to the fact we know our pets; we know they're not capable of harm, we know they've never caused someone pain, emotional or physical. A stranger could be anyone from Mother Teresa to Hitler; we might jump in to save the former, but most people would let the latter drown. It has little to do with the value we place on human life, but more the value we place on the goodness of strangers.

If I jumped into a whirlpool to attempt to save anyone, all three of us would drown. I'd like to think I'd save the stranger, but it is a surprisingly hard choice to make.

Personally knowing the person isn't the point.

People here are comparing the pain of burying their cat to letting someone bury their child.

 

[Durgiun]

The stranger and then I'd kill myself for letting my pet down.

 

[The Tibballs]

Well I think the reason people would save their pet before a stranger is because they see their pet as a member of the family, so the question could also be interpreted as "who would you save, a stranger or a family member?" I know that's how I see it and I'm sure others do to.
If it was a random animal or a stranger then I'd pick the stranger, but if it came down to family or a stranger, I'd almost always pick family.