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

Recommended Videos

Wynaro

New member
Aug 28, 2012
3
0
0
Let me counter your argument with a similar scenario. Your parents died when you were young, only you and your younger sister are alive, you've both become socially awkward, so neither of you really have any friends, it's just the two of you alone in the world. Your sister is drowning, and so is a dog that you've never seen before, but can PLAINLY see is wearing a colorful collar. Who do you save? If you save your sister, you're selfish right? Saving her only benefits yourself, and keeps you from depression. Saving the dog will benefit it's owners, however many their might be, the owner's friends who will no longer have to go through trying to help the person through the period of depression they would otherwise be facing. The families of the friends, who get to spend more time with that loved one due to the fact that less time is spent away from home trying to help the owner.

If the ethical thing is that which benefits the majority, rather than the few, isn't it best to save the dog in this situation?

I absolutely agree that if a stranger and a stray dog you have no association with are drowning, the human comes first. But when it comes to something you've known for years, and something you've never met, the one you're connected to has EARNED the right to be saved by you. Whether it's a human, a dog, a cat, or any other animal that can show clear signs of an emotional connection, it deserves to be saved for all the things you've done for it, and all the things it's done for you. People die all the time, Dogs die all the time, we're all just animals struggling to survive. The connections we have and the efforts we put in are all in order to survive. Saying a dog who puts JUST as much effort into forming these bonds as a human might have doesn't deserve to LIVE simply because it's a dog is as disgusting as saying a man doesn't deserve a job he worked his ass off for, just because he's black, or that a woman who works twice as hard as any man around her deserves less pay, simply because she's a woman. It's wrong, and if you can't see that, you're the monster.

EVERYONE has their opinion. You can't insult a person just because they have a different opinion than you do in some poll you made because you were angry. If you wanted someone to agree with you, you should have found a friend who you could vent to without their comments on the subject. The stranger and the dog have EQUAL right to survive, because they're both animals, nothing more, nothing less. Humans can be some of the most terrible animals, dogs can be some of the most loving animals. And Vice Versa. You have NO right to call a person a MONSTER of DISGUSTING over the fact that they feel saving the animal that they've formed a lasting bond with over the animal they've never even seen before. You can disagree with it all you want, and they can disagree all they want. But you do NOT make a thread on a forum saying to pick A or B, then insult and degrade every person who picks B.
 

kickyourass

New member
Apr 17, 2010
1,427
0
0
Well if I were literally the only person there, we'd probably all die, thing is I'm a shit swimmer and have pretty below average upper body strength, and knowing me I'd probably try and drag both out of the water leading to all three of us drowning.

So yeah there you go, my answer is: everyone dies.
 

theblindedhunter

New member
Jul 8, 2012
143
0
0
Treblaine said:
Better question, you have been abducted by aliens in the middle of a local flood you've been caught in but they are friendly and won't hurt you they are trying to follow objective values of morality to avoid war between planets.



The aliens point out to you two organism below that have survived the flood, a random person holding your pet in the slowly encroaching flood. The aliens have one last teleport zap before they leave that can only take one organism but very soon both will fall into the churning flood and die. It is technically totally impossible for the aliens to rescue any other discrete organism, so no debate there.

The aliens didn't want to teleport you up in the first place, now you have to convince them to save one, or the other in terms even these aliens would accept. You cannot appeal to "it's another human" or "it's MY pet" they are completely neutral, in the most extreme sense, they have no vested interest other than not to be deliberately malicious.



What could you possibly say to convince them?
The person was apparently trying to save the pet, so to save them for the pet to die would be a meaningless waste of effort. They already seemed interested in saving the pet and, while that is wonderful, why stop them now?
Additionally, there is the idea of it being my duty to save the pet, and I would very much like them to help me do that.

That good at all?
 

Pandabearparade

New member
Mar 23, 2011
962
0
0
Angry_squirrel said:
How else do we define what is right and what is wrong? Who gets to decide?
That's a fairly complex question, but I do have an answer. It's not really a debate I care to start in this thread.

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.
1. I did answer. Of course I'd save my mother.
2. It's off-point. The question just is not relevant to this discussion in any real way. I try to respond to as many people as possible, but this thread is 18 pages long now. I'm just not going to waste time on a question that smells of flame bait.

But what makes the ethics you believe are right, the correct ones?
Again, big topic. I would have to give you a long, long reply to do the topic justice.

How do we define "the correct" ethics?
Again, that's a short question with a really, -really- long answer.

To condense it: Net total suffering. A worldview that produces more net suffering is objectively worse ethically than a worldview that produces less net suffering.

If the answer is popular opinion,
It's not.

That is why I am arguing that ethics must be at least partially subjective.
In some areas I'm inclined to agree. On the question of a dog vs. a human? Not a chance.

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.
I politely decline. I'm not disrespecting you as a person, but this position you hold is worthy of not one ounce of my respect.

I'm going to assume you're a liberal. I think that's a fair assumption considering the content of your posts, but correct me if I'm wrong. Do you respect the beliefs of the conservatives who want to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens?
 

Monkfish Acc.

New member
May 7, 2008
4,101
0
0
you don't really know until you go there honestly do you
like it's very easy to say probably this or that based on a hypothetical but everything changes when shit actually goes down

chances are you'd space out and fail to save anything or drown trying to save both
i say that projecting only slightly
 

Angry_squirrel

New member
Mar 26, 2011
334
0
0
Wynaro said:
EVERYONE has their opinion. You can't insult a person just because they have a different opinion than you do in some poll you made because you were angry
[/thread]
Bravo on an impressive first post my friend :)
 

kickyourass

New member
Apr 17, 2010
1,427
0
0
Wynaro said:
Let me counter your argument with a similar scenario. Your parents died when you were young, only you and your younger sister are alive, you've both become socially awkward, so neither of you really have any friends, it's just the two of you alone in the world. Your sister is drowning, and so is a dog that you've never seen before, but can PLAINLY see is wearing a colorful collar. Who do you save? If you save your sister, you're selfish right? Saving her only benefits yourself, and keeps you from depression. Saving the dog will benefit it's owners, however many their might be, the owner's friends who will no longer have to go through trying to help the person through the period of depression they would otherwise be facing. The families of the friends, who get to spend more time with that loved one due to the fact that less time is spent away from home trying to help the owner.

If the ethical thing is that which benefits the majority, rather than the few, isn't it best to save the dog in this situation?

I absolutely agree that if a stranger and a stray dog you have no association with are drowning, the human comes first. But when it comes to something you've known for years, and something you've never met, the one you're connected to has EARNED the right to be saved by you. Whether it's a human, a dog, a cat, or any other animal that can show clear signs of an emotional connection, it deserves to be saved for all the things you've done for it, and all the things it's done for you. People die all the time, Dogs die all the time, we're all just animals struggling to survive. The connections we have and the efforts we put in are all in order to survive. Saying a dog who puts JUST as much effort into forming these bonds as a human might have doesn't deserve to LIVE simply because it's a dog is as disgusting as saying a man doesn't deserve a job he worked his ass off for, just because he's black, or that a woman who works twice as hard as any man around her deserves less pay, simply because she's a woman. It's wrong, and if you can't see that, you're the monster.

EVERYONE has their opinion. You can't insult a person just because they have a different opinion than you do in some poll you made because you were angry. If you wanted someone to agree with you, you should have found a friend who you could vent to without their comments on the subject. The stranger and the dog have EQUAL right to survive, because they're both animals, nothing more, nothing less. Humans can be some of the most terrible animals, dogs can be some of the most loving animals. And Vice Versa. You have NO right to call a person a MONSTER of DISGUSTING over the fact that they feel saving the animal that they've formed a lasting bond with over the animal they've never even seen before. You can disagree with it all you want, and they can disagree all they want. But you do NOT make a thread on a forum saying to pick A or B, then insult and degrade every person who picks B.
I most heartily welcome you to The Escapist sir, you are a good addition to this site. I honestly wish I could applaude someone over the internet.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
theblindedhunter said:
PhiMed said:
theblindedhunter said:
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.
Priorities of life:
Humans > other sentient races (if they exist) > trainable non-sentient species > non-trainable species > plants.

Sorry, dude. Dogs and cats aren't sentient, don't possess language, and really have no affect on the world as a whole. One person can change the world. One dog can... not.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
theblindedhunter said:
PhiMed said:
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.
That wasn't the question. The question was random human vs loved one. The very nature of the question implies an unknown value to society. If you question is "loved one vs someone of value", then ask that. Potential value is unknown, so therefore it cannot and should not factor into decision-making, whether spur-of-the-moment or carefully considered.
 

Ashadowpie

New member
Feb 3, 2012
315
0
0
i'd save my pet first, then once my baby was safe then i'd help the stranger. pets are more important to me than a total stranger. this question would be the same as " would you save your child or a stranger first?" of course you'd save your child first. right?

thats how i feel anyways.
 

theblindedhunter

New member
Jul 8, 2012
143
0
0
PhiMed said:
theblindedhunter said:
PhiMed said:
theblindedhunter said:
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.
Priorities of life:
Humans > other sentient races (if they exist) > trainable non-sentient species > non-trainable species > plants.

Sorry, dude. Dogs and cats aren't sentient, don't possess language, and really have no affect on the world as a whole. One person can change the world. One dog can... not.
Ability to alter the world is a bit of an odd position from which to claim superiority grounded in morality. What makes the ability to alter the world, for better or worse (not to mention the ability to have total apathy), morally good? And what in the world makes an animal you can effectively train better than one you cannot? A dog is superior to a wolf because...?

By the way, animals are sentient. Sapient is probably the word you want, and a pretty murky one at that. It doesn't help that you're using automatically biased language to decree what ought to happen to animals.
But to make my feelings more clear, suppose a person is lacking in a great deal of higher cognitive function. Effectively, their mind is more akin to that of an animal. Perhaps even less so. If it is them and another person in the water, are you going to claim that saving the other person is the morally superior act because the one person just doesn't cut it?

No, I see no reason to consider humanity inherently superior to other animals. We are on equal ground, and the decision for me is the social contract I have with those around me. People are important, but I have a duty to my pet to protect them. Strangers are important, but I'm sure you can understand your duty to your family to save them first. Or the social agreement to protect children over others.
 

Wynaro

New member
Aug 28, 2012
3
0
0
TO:
Angry_squirrel said:
&
kickyourass said:
Thanks for the compliments, A friend showed me this poll and at first I just figured whatever, and let the guy have his opinion. But when I saw him badmouthing everyone who disagreed (Which I believe is against the rules of this site) It sorta set me off... I don't really hate people like that, they just... disappoint me.
 

Jaythulhu

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,745
0
0
I'd save my pet. Sorry if that seems wrong to some of the bleeding hearts here, but my cat and I have been through a lot of shit together, and his life is far more important to me than a random stranger.

If'n I could do something to save the person after my pet was safe, cool. If not, oh well, I guess the drive to work just became a little less crowded.
 

Reaper195

New member
Jul 5, 2009
2,054
0
0
A woman in her late twenties or early thirties? I'll save my pet of any length of time any day of the week. Personal connection beats stranger of anything any day of the week.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
Angry_squirrel said:
PhiMed said:
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.
No. He's trolling. It's not that I disagree with his viewpoint. It's that he's attempting to derail the thread by starting arguments at the periphery.
As for your question: Founder of a charity? Well, depends on what the charity is, how much the person has to do with the actual workings of it, etc. Most contemporary charities are, by their very nature, bullshit.
And as for a politician, there is no politician, in any country, who does their country any good. Ever. I'm not being facetious.
So I guess if I look at your two examples, then yes. You'd be correct. I'd pick my loved one.
If it was someone that I thought actually added value to the world, then I might reconsider.
But this isn't your thread, and that's not the question the OP asked. If you're interested in people's answer to that question, then perhaps you should make a thread along those lines. Otherwise, answering his question with an essentially unrelated question looks an awful lot like an attempt to derail the thread.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
theblindedhunter said:
PhiMed said:
theblindedhunter said:
PhiMed said:
theblindedhunter said:
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.
Priorities of life:
Humans > other sentient races (if they exist) > trainable non-sentient species > non-trainable species > plants.

Sorry, dude. Dogs and cats aren't sentient, don't possess language, and really have no affect on the world as a whole. One person can change the world. One dog can... not.
Ability to alter the world is a bit of an odd position from which to claim superiority grounded in morality. What makes the ability to alter the world, for better or worse (not to mention the ability to have total apathy), morally good? And what in the world makes an animal you can effectively train better than one you cannot? A dog is superior to a wolf because...?

By the way, animals are sentient. Sapient is probably the word you want, and a pretty murky one at that. It doesn't help that you're using automatically biased language to decree what ought to happen to animals.
But to make my feelings more clear, suppose a person is lacking in a great deal of higher cognitive function. Effectively, their mind is more akin to that of an animal. Perhaps even less so. If it is them and another person in the water, are you going to claim that saving the other person is the morally superior act because the one person just doesn't cut it?

No, I see no reason to consider humanity inherently superior to other animals. We are on equal ground, and the decision for me is the social contract I have with those around me. People are important, but I have a duty to my pet to protect them. Strangers are important, but I'm sure you can understand your duty to your family to save them first. Or the social agreement to protect children over others.
You can train a wolf.
When I said "untrainable" I was saying that dogs are better than worms and cnidarians.
Animals are not sentient. Look it up.
 

Marcus Kehoe

New member
Mar 18, 2011
757
0
0
I just see no option where the pet is not he greediest choice, It's sad letting the animal die but to pass by a fellow human being is sick. Even if I could go back bring back my dog buddy, the best dog I ever had I would still pick the stranger.

I am really disappointed that more people would save there animal over another human being. honestly put yourself in the person's position and thing of how much of an fuckass you are to the drowning person in his last moment's. just think of the horror and rage that person would feel right before his death as you save so weird dog he doesn't know over him.
 

Angry_squirrel

New member
Mar 26, 2011
334
0
0
Pandabearparade said:
That's a fairly complex question, but I do have an answer. It's not really a debate I care to start in this thread.
Again, that's a short question with a really, -really- long answer.
[/quote]
But if we are to have a debate about what is right and wrong, than surely we need to agree on what right and wrong are?
I agree though, it is too long a debate to start. I'm tired too, it's 6 a.m. over here.
To condense it: Net total suffering. A worldview that produces more net suffering is objectively worse ethically than a worldview that produces less net suffering.
This is why I asked you the question about saving your mother, or a stranger who will do the world a great deal of good. Because to save the stranger, will reduce "net total suffering". Despite this, you say you'd save your mother.
I'm going to assume you're a liberal. I think that's a fair assumption considering the content of your posts, but correct me if I'm wrong. Do you respect the beliefs of the conservatives who want to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens?
A fair assumption, and a very valid point. Yes, I'm liberal. No, I don't respect homophobic beliefs.

If we had time, or if I knew you in person, I'd love to have a lengthy debate about this.
However, that's not the case, so I don't think there is any point continuing this argument any further, as it's clear to me that neither of us are going to convince the other.

I will ask you not to call us "monstrous" though, even if you believe we are. It's not a reasonable argument tactic. You've been very polite in your recent posts though, thank you for that.
 

Basement Cat

Keeping the Peace is Relaxing
Jul 26, 2012
2,379
0
0
PhiMed said:
Angry_squirrel said:
PhiMed said:
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.
No. He's trolling. It's not that I disagree with his viewpoint. It's that he's attempting to derail the thread by starting arguments at the periphery.
As for your question: Founder of a charity? Well, depends on what the charity is, how much the person has to do with the actual workings of it, etc. Most contemporary charities are, by their very nature, bullshit.
And as for a politician, there is no politician, in any country, who does their country any good. Ever. I'm not being facetious.
So I guess if I look at your two examples, then yes. You'd be correct. I'd pick my loved one.
If it was someone that I thought actually added value to the world, then I might reconsider.
But this isn't your thread, and that's not the question the OP asked. If you're interested in people's answer to that question, then perhaps you should make a thread along those lines. Otherwise, answering his question with an essentially unrelated question looks an awful lot like an attempt to derail the thread.


You'd better check your posting guidelines 'toot-sweet'. I just did because someone mentioned that calling someone else a troll is against the rules. In fact it's #1 under "Don't be a Jerk"

I don't know if that includes saying someone is trolling, but if someone flags you it could give you grief.

Just trying to help.
 

theblindedhunter

New member
Jul 8, 2012
143
0
0
PhiMed said:
You can train a wolf.
When I said "untrainable" I was saying that dogs are better than worms and cnidarians.
Animals are not sentient. Look it up.
"Able to perceive or feel things: 'sentient life forms'."
"Having the power of perception by the senses; conscious."
"Responsive to or conscious of sense impressions."
Pretty sure all of these apply to animals. Those are definitions 3 major sources.

And yes, wolves can be trained, but it is far more difficult to train them than a dog, and they are much more likely to break training even when you manage to. So if you are using training as a metric, it seems reasonable to conclude that "better at being trained" makes them better by that metric.
The same question can be made about dogs vs cats. Cats are worse because you can't train them like you can a dog?