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

[Angry_squirrel]

I didn't mock you; I joked about letting a politician drown. I ignored the question as a whole because a question nearly identical to it has already been asked and answered.

Alright, so I've looked over the past twelve pages to find your answer to this "nearly identical" question, and I'll respond to that instead:

I put value on my pet's life, my point is that unless the human drowning is a monster of some sort there is -no- contest here, but so many people would save an animal before a human.
Mr. Prager was right, and it sickens me to admit it. Even one person voting to save a dog over a human is something that should merit a facepalm, but the numbers are close to even.

That is all just your opinion. Different people have a different set of moral standards. Just because our beliefs are different to yours, doesn't make them wrong.

You're completely missing the point here. We're not talking about human lives compared to one another, we're talking about the life of an animal in comparison to the life of a human.

No, I'm not. In fact, I would argue that you are missing our point.
Your point, as I've quoted and put in a spoiler below, is that the human dying will have a greater negative impact on the world than the dog dying will.
<spoiler=Your point>You shouldn't care about the individual personally, you should save the human because the human dying will almost certainly cause a far more significant amount of suffering. Not only because the person herself would suffer, but because there are larger, longer lasting ripples that spread out from that death.[/spoiler]
My point; is that in my imaginary scenario (in a spoiler below, in case you've forgotten it), the death of a person who'll do great things for the world will have a greater negative impact on the world than someone close to you dying will. And yet despite this, you would most likely save the individual you love, rather than the more important one that you don't know. I think that is quite a reasonable parallel to draw.
<spoiler=The question I asked you>Person A is your mother/girlfriend/brother/someone else who you love and are close to, they're drowning.
So is person B; somebody who does the world a lot of good. This could be the founder of a charity, or a politician who is doing great things for his country. It doesn't really matter.
Who do you save?
It's clear to me that you feel very strongly about this OP, and I respect that, but debates don't work if you're not even going to consider the other side of the argument. It's not reasonable to declare us wrong, and call us "monstrous" simply for having a different opinion to yours

 

[AwesomeWunderbar]

I would most certainly save my pet. No doubt whatsoever, That person is a stranger, I don't know them, I don't care about them. However my pet is someone who has been with me for a long time and someone I love. So of course I'd save what I love over what I don't.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Just because our beliefs are different to yours, doesn't make them wrong.

Already covered this ground. You say morality is subjective. You're wrong.

but debates don't work if you're not even going to consider the other side of the argument.

I have considered and granted a few opposing points of view. Saying "I'd save my dog because he's lighter and more likely to survive" is a position I respect. "Fuck that lady, I love my dog" is not.

It's not reasonable to declare us wrong, and call us "monstrous" simply for having a different opinion to yours

Again, how far are you willing to stretch this notion that ethics are subjective? To use the example I used previously, is it wrong to call the Khmer Rouge monstrous? They thought they were doing the right thing. If ethics are all subjective they were no more or less evil than someone who gives to charity.

Note: Yes. It's an extreme example. No, letting one person die isn't that bad. I'm making the point that morality is not entirely subjective.

 

[PhiMed]

After further review of this thread all I can say is this is Liberal Logic 101.

I'm not even Conservitarded and I realize the value of something I know, love, and care for is far above and beyond the value of something I probably would never look twice at.

While i agree that this is true the thing that scares me is the arguement that "if i dont know someone i have zero reason to care if they suffer or i cause them to suffer". Which leads to things like "Would you take 100 dollars to bomb a building youve never heard of and kill 100s of people if you COULDNT get caught". Obviously with the logic "I dont care about people i dont know AT ALL" there isnt much of a reason not to, you get 100 dollars and things you care zero iotas about die. So why wouldnt you do it? People who admit they care about the human too but just care about the dog more make a decision i wouldnt agree with but is morally understandable. People who say they care zero about the human and would value almost anything more than it scare me.

Excuse me for butting in, but with all due respect, sir, that's not what these people are saying. They're not saying "I have no reason to care about these people, what's in it for me?" They're saying, "I have a lot GREATER reason to care about my pet than this person." They're not really saying they're mercs or something who would kill a bunch of people just for some monetary value. They're just saying if it's a choice between their pet, who they love and cherish, and a total stranger, who they've never met and never WILL meet again, they choose the thing they know. That's not really wrong, it's human nature. Every single time humanity has been confronted with a choice between something different and something they already know, the vast majority of people would choose the thing they know. In this case, that's a pet, with the different thing being a person.

And in case it hasn't been made abundantly clear, yes, I chose, and would choose, my pet.

Although, I suppose it's to be expected, seeing as how a lot of people who hang around this site seem to be angsty teens/young adults who think that it's super cool to be bitter and cynical.

I hope you're right and they grow out of it.

This dilemma seems to solely exist for you to propagate cynicism or to elevate your own opinion of yourself.

Not even close to true. I saw the same poll done by another person on MMO-Champion and was hoping if the same poll was conducted somewhere that isn't the asshole of the internet the results would be more.. sane. Didn't happen, clearly.

AND YOU, YOU SIR. You condemn people for choosing the life of their pets over a stranger? Why? Because a random human is more important than a cared for pet? And not only that, you say then people need a God to tell them right from wrong because they choose the pet? You condemn people for choosing what they know over what they don't, and make disparaging comments about their morality or sanity based on your own personal sense of justice? This isn't about what's right and wrong. There IS NO right and wrong. You wish to justify your decision and own self righteous opinion with "How could any person pick a PET, an ANIMAL, over a HUMAN BEING?! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE SUFFERING THIS WILL CAUSE TO THEIR FAMILY?! ARE YOU SO SELFISH?!" The selfish remark maybe warranted, but if you are surprised, then you know nothing about humanity. As for the suffering? What about it? You make remarks: "What if she was a mother of three kids?" How would you know that? She's a random stranger. You wouldn't know for it to influence your decision at all. You ask that people consider the possibility before jumping in to save them, or that they should just jump in and save the person without thinking? I would prefer not to go into speculation about you personally, sir, but to so blatantly refuse to even TRY and understand the opposing side of this debate, you yourself have clearly never cared about a pet. You claim that logic or simple morality would cause a person to easily choose the stranger over a pet? When have these things ever effected humanity historically? You are surprised humanity makes the selfish, emotional choice? Read a history book. Behold, the exact same pattern again and again and again and again. Why are you surprised, sir? Do you know so little about people? Is it truly ignorance for caring about a pet? Or is it just plain self righteousness? Elaborate, sir.

Because... if people do it over and over again throughout history that automatically makes it morally okay? That's kind of a weird argument. (SIR)

 

[PhiMed]

[SNIP] My pet should know better than to go swimming in a whirlpool with a complete stranger.

Haha.

Honestly? I'd save my cat. Its selfish and probably wrong but fuck i love my cat. Its probably ethicaly and moraly wrong but..
well.

Spoiler

EDIT:
Also this.

And people choosing their pets don't need to "grow up" and it's not sickening like you say. Some people get such a close attachment to animals, that they would do anything for them.

I would let the stranger drown so that I could go out of my way to murder that kitty. (kidding... I know jokes aren't allowed on this site anymore, but I couldn't resist)

 

[theblindedhunter]

So I hope people have discussed this whole "humans are inherently more worthy than animals" vibe, because it seems kind of crappy to me.
Though I think a few made a very good point earlier: you've got no relationship connecting you to the person, but you do have a relationship connecting you to your pet. Past loving them, you are their protector. To fail to try to save your animal who is presumably helpless in decisions they could have made to stop the event, which is something more murky for the undefined stranger, is a failure of your duty of protection.

 

[theultimateend]

Its a person... there isn't a choice here.

That was my thought was well. I was clearly wrong. I just hope people would grow up a bit if they ever actually run into this situation.

Kinda sad that Dennis Prager was right. A ridiculous amount of people would save a dog before a human.

It's more naive to think people could accurately assess this hypothetical without experiencing it than folks to say one way or the other.

Just because our beliefs are different to yours, doesn't make them wrong.

Already covered this ground. You say morality is subjective. You're wrong.

Thousands of years of written Human history labeled erroneous by "Pandabearparade".

I have stumbled upon an epic moment in time.

We should publish this and send it to colleges to get rid of those pesky Philosophy degrees.

 

[Basement Cat]

Just because our beliefs are different to yours, doesn't make them wrong.

Already covered this ground. You say morality is subjective. You're wrong.

but debates don't work if you're not even going to consider the other side of the argument.

I have considered and granted a few opposing points of view. Saying "I'd save my dog because he's lighter and more likely to survive" is a position I respect. "Fuck that lady, I love my dog" is not.

It's not reasonable to declare us wrong, and call us "monstrous" simply for having a different opinion to yours

Again, how far are you willing to stretch this notion that ethics are subjective? To use the example I used previously, is it wrong to call the Khmer Rouge monstrous? They thought they were doing the right thing. If ethics are all subjective they were no more or less evil than someone who gives to charity.

Note: Yes. It's an extreme example. No, letting one person die isn't that bad. I'm making the point that morality is not entirely subjective.

Morality is not subjective?

Captain Picard of Star Trek spoke against absolutism. But since I haven't seen that episode in years I'll give a more recent and far more mundane counter to your assertion.


During the Olympics National Public Radio did a story on people pirating BBC coverage of the Olympics because of the way NBC made it literally impossible for many people to see the events they wanted to see.

The NPR interviewer spoke to a professional ethicist and asked what the right/wrong call was.

The ethicist replied that if people were pirating BBC to avoid paying for the coverage then they were wrong.

He then said that if people were pirating BBC's coverage because that was the only way they could see the events because NBC's set up made it otherwise impossible then it was a matter of having good sense.

EDIT: He said they were being practical.

I haven't read all the postings, by the way. I'm not sure if you're asserting that there is zero moral subjectivity on this particular point or in general.

A question: Some people love their pets because their pets are, for some people, the only things in the world that they love and that love them. Some people are that alone and lonely. As a point of curiosity do you mean that people who think of or honestly love their pets as much or more than they do any human being are monstrous in seeking to save the only creature that exists that they love and/or loves them?

Remember that there are a LOT of people out there for whom there truly is no one there for them but their kitty cat or dog. Or gerbil. Or gold fish.

Heck, there are people out there who are so lonely they love and talk to their plants. AND they are clinically sane.

Pitiable, certainly, but sane.

 

[theblindedhunter]

[SNIP] My pet should know better than to go swimming in a whirlpool with a complete stranger.

Haha.

Honestly? I'd save my cat. Its selfish and probably wrong but fuck i love my cat. Its probably ethicaly and moraly wrong but..
well.

Spoiler

EDIT:
Also this.

And people choosing their pets don't need to "grow up" and it's not sickening like you say. Some people get such a close attachment to animals, that they would do anything for them.

I would also save your cat.
But it has to have fallen in with the Tardis. Bobbing and floating like a little boat. Looking just slightly offput.
The stranger would be hard pressed to be cuter.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I save the stranger. My pet is a fish so will manage just fine.

 

[theultimateend]

I save the stranger. My pet is a fish so will manage just fine.

You are my favorite in this entire thread.

 

[PhiMed]

It's not relevant, the scenario is about comparing the life of a dog (or cat) to the life of a human. You seem to think throwing a red herring is an airtight argument, but it's really not.

Who cares if it's relevant or not? Your poll suggests people think your view is shite so why even bother entertaining the scenario anymore? Next flavor, how much value do your loved ones have over strangers?

Did the OP completely miss the point, and dodge this question?

No, Dug's trolling.
To ask the question "do you care more about a single (human) loved one than a single random human?" is pointless. Loved one wins in every case. There is no morality that would say otherwise.
Dug doesn't like the fact that most systems of morality that have been put forth by philosophers who didn't eventually inspire oppressive dictatorships place the value of a single human over the value of a single non-human animal.
The only moral answer to this question is the stranger.
People don't always act morally, because no one's perfect, but the only moral answer is the stranger. Dug knows that, but he wants to magically conjure a reason why he should be allowed to act in an immoral fashion, so he's bullshitting.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Just because our beliefs are different to yours, doesn't make them wrong.

Already covered this ground. You say morality is subjective. You're wrong.

That's your opinion. I'm arguing that since we all have different opinions of what is good and what is bad, then in fact, morality is - to an extent - subjective.
How else do we define what is right and what is wrong? Who gets to decide?

but debates don't work if you're not even going to consider the other side of the argument.

I have considered and granted a few opposing points of view. Saying "I'd save my dog because he's lighter and more likely to survive" is a position I respect. "Fuck that lady, I love my dog" is not.

No, you haven't. You still haven't given me a direct answer to my original question, or to the guy who asked you a similar question.

It's not reasonable to declare us wrong, and call us "monstrous" simply for having a different opinion to yours

Again, how far are you willing to stretch this notion that ethics are subjective? To use the example I used previously, is it wrong to call the Khmer Rouge monstrous? They thought they were doing the right thing. If ethics are all subjective they were no more or less evil than someone who gives to charity.

Note: Yes. It's an extreme example. No, letting one person die isn't that bad. I'm making the point that morality is not entirely subjective.

Of course ethics aren't entirely subjective, otherwise a serial killer could argue that he's in the right simply because he believes so.
But I could equally argue that you are monstrous for not saving the pet that you love, over the person you don't know. How much would that annoy you? It certainly annoys me. (Just to be clear, I don't think you're monstrous for believing that)

But what makes the ethics you believe are right, the correct ones? How do we define "the correct" ethics? If the answer is popular opinion, than it certainly appears as though our ethics are the "right" ones. But I don't think that's true either. That is why I am arguing that ethics must be at least partially subjective.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, or that I'm right. Just that we have different opinions, and that I'd like you to respect ours.

 

[PhiMed]

So I hope people have discussed this whole "humans are inherently more worthy than animals" vibe, because it seems kind of crappy to me.

We are. It's okay. We can say it. Animals can't read. It won't hurt their feelings.

 

[theblindedhunter]

To ask the question "do you care more about a single (human) loved one than a single random human?" is pointless. Loved one wins in every case. There is no morality that would say otherwise.

I think the question was more "do you care more about the single (human) loved one than a single random human who could be a greater societal loss". And the point of the question presumably being that it isn't always a cut and dry "this option does more for society, so is automatically morally better". Greater good is one way to think about moral philosophy, but it isn't the cut and dry right way.

 

[The Elf Herself]

I'm unsure how to answer this. Which of them is closer to me? Which looks like they're going to drown FIRST? Do I magically have enough strength and wherewithal to actually help a person (and yet not have the ability to, you know, throw a sodding rope)? Is my asthma also mystically gone? Am I, in short, GUARANTEED to save one (and only one) of these beings before me? Because, honestly, the answers to these questions changes my answer to the OP's question.

Assuming my actual strength, swimming ability, and inability to keep air in my goddamned lungs... if any one of the three of us is drowning, it's probably me. Sure, I'd go out to save one or the other, but, frankly, it wouldn't matter. I'd be dead either way.

I guess that my answer is that it depends. If it's my 70-pound childhood dog vs. someone I could actually help, I'd help the person. If it's my 10-pound puppy or one of my cats vs. someone I would not be able to save, I'd save my pet. If it's one of the pets I can carry vs. someone I could actually help, it depends on who looks like they need me more and who is closer.

If I magically have the ability to save one (and only one) of these beings, and, either way, a life hangs in the balance? My first instinct would probably be my pet because we love each other and I have a responsibility to her, but I don't want to be responsible for someone's death either. I can't go and get another pet to exactly replace the one I lost, but there isn't exactly a shelter where a family can go adopt a new mother/father/sister/brother/etc. to at least help fill the void.

In that situation, which I think is what the OP was getting at, I'd go for the person. I adore my pets. I have four of them, total. But I've also been extremely lucky in not having lost any person who was really important to me. It comes down to the fact that I KNOW I can handle losing a cat; I had to last year. I'd rather break my own heart over again than break someone else's for their mother or father or child.

I'm sorry if I'm overthinking this, but if you want my actual answer to how I'd prioritize a loved companion and a stranger, this, as a liberal, atheist, college student, is it.

 

[RN7]

Personally I value the lives of other animals over the lives of humans so I'd probably save the pet. Unless it was an octopus because that would just be silly. Alternatively I'd probably find someone who can actually swim worth a damn, because if I was the one doing the rescue I'd probably nearly drown myself the minute I touched the water.

 

[TehCookie]

My pet, no hesitation. Give me one good reason I could care about a stranger, I seem to lack the instinct that I should care for people because were the same species rather than care for the ones I interact and are friends with.

 

[theblindedhunter]

So I hope people have discussed this whole "humans are inherently more worthy than animals" vibe, because it seems kind of crappy to me.

We are. It's okay. We can say it. Animals can't read. It won't hurt their feelings.

Um? Sure, it's a joke, but suggesting even in jest that I have the feelings I do because I'm worried others will feel bad if I don't is kind of dishonest.
I see personality, life, and worth in a lot of animals. Humans yes, but cats too, for example. To dismiss the worth of entire groups of life in a joke is exceedingly arrogant.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

No, Dug's trolling.
To ask the question "do you care more about a single (human) loved one than a single random human?" is pointless. Loved one wins in every case. There is no morality that would say otherwise.
Dug doesn't like the fact that most systems of morality that have been put forth by philosophers who didn't eventually inspire oppressive dictatorships place the value of a single human over the value of a single non-human animal.
The only moral answer to this question is the stranger.
People don't always act morally, because no one's perfect, but the only moral answer is the stranger. Dug knows that, but he wants to magically conjure a reason why he should be allowed to act in an immoral fashion, so he's bullshitting.

He's not trolling, he just has an opinion that you don't agree with. Also, I believe it's against the site rules to call someone a troll. Actually, I think your entire post is very insulting and narrow minded.
I'd like to point you to a question that I asked OP earlier, and ask you to consider our side of the argument, rather than dismissing our opinion as "wrong" and claiming that your answer is the only "moral" one, simply because you claim that it is so.
<spoiler=my question>Person A is your mother/girlfriend/brother/someone else who you love and are close to, they're drowning.

So is person B; somebody who does the world a lot of good. This could be the founder of a charity, or a politician who is doing great things for his country. It doesn't really matter.

Who do you save?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect you'd save the person you care about most. Even though person B is a more important person, who'll do the world a lot more good than the person you love, you choose the person you love over the person you don't know.