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

[SpAc3man]

I would like to say I would save my pet. Although in the end I would most likely end up saving the person.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Correct, I mean I don't condone killing them or hurting them unnecessarily, but I'd shoot a hundred kittens to save one beggar from the same fate. I wouldn't enjoy it, but I've probably been indirectly responsible for more animal deaths in my life so far, just because I didn't pull the trigger doesn't make me exempt. However, if you eat any meat, or use animal products, you probably withhold from judging. Why is your animal better than a cow?

That's an interesting viewpoint. Purely out of interest, where do you draw the line? When does a creatures life gain value to you? There is a gorrila that can speak in sign language, and communicate well with a team of scientists, does that life have value? What if - hypothetically speaking - we met aliens of equal intelligence to us. Does their life have worth?

I'm a strict vegetarian, and the only animal products I buy are free range. But that's not the point. Animals are bred to be eaten, so you could argue that if they weren't going to be eaten, they wouldn't even be alive in the first place. There's nothing wrong with eating meat.

You can still eat meat while thinking an animals life has value. Hell, I think most people do. This poll certainly suggests so too. Anyway, we're not talking about just any animal. We're talking about your pet. An animal you love and care for.

Assuming I somehow know all this and have time (and I don't panic), I'd probably go for the loved one, placing value on human lives is hard. Yes the politician is a person too, but so is my significant other. This is where the comparison falls apart. Your animal of choice is not a person. I'm not doing this to save the world, or for something like that. Like I said, I'd save the crack addict who contributes nothing, and could well be a small time crook. Besides which, you can't say that my significant other or the crack addict won't do something great for humanity in the future, where as I can guarantee your animal will never do anything but what I listed earlier.
No, but you're supposedly doing it because the stranger's life has more value than that of the animal, presumably because the stranger dying will have a greater negative impact on the world than the animal dying (correct me if I'm wrong here, that's the impression I got). The reason I used that parallel is because a family member dying will likely have less negative impact on the world than someone who does great things, but you'd save the family member anyway.

You might not be saying animal life has a higher value than human life, but your hypothetical actions speak for themselves. Can you blame me for being a bit depressed about the majority of votes being for saving an animal?

Here is a question for you, a REAL member of your family, whom you love and respect greatly, is in the same drowning pool, along with your furry friend. Again, you can only save one.

That's ridiculous. Of course I'd save the life of my brother or mother, or any other family member, over my dog.
And if it was a dog I didn't know and a stranger I didn't know drowning, I'd save the stranger. But it's not, it's my dog, to whom I'm attached to.
I'm really confused by why you're having so much trouble getting this. My dog, is an animal, a sentient creature with a consciousness, that I've grown close too over my life. Just as you might with a friend. Only with an animal instead. The fact that a friend is a human and my pet is an animal really makes no difference. This isn't just me either, the vast majority of pet owners feel this way.

 

[Spambot 3000]

This is the worst thread ever created. Apparently all the fucking white-knights of saving society and dedicating their life to solve world hunger say I'm not allowed to prioritise myself over someone else, because you know, we're all a race of fucking angels and we better act like it too.

 

[prophecy2514]

save the stranger. A humans life is infinitely worth much more than an animals life, even if that life is my pets life.

I have a cat and two dogs though, both dogs being very strong swimmers, having taken them to play fetch the tennis ball in the surf or river on countless occasion.

my cat would not ever be found near water in any case, unless he intends to drown in the bath while some random stranger is drowning...in the shower. dont think that will happen.

 

[mooncalf]

Choosing to save either a human or an animal? If you don't save the human, you're the animal.

 

[Olas]

snip

Chillax, I wasn't calling everyone who would save the dog a misanthrope. I'm not one to make bold generalizations about people. I was simply acknowledging that there is a very real presence here on the escapist that thinks humanity is the worst species on earth. They're in the minority but they exist and I'vs argued with some of them before.
Even outside of the misanthropes I feel that there's an attitude that humanity is overrated or that we aren't somehow special at all. Has a duck ever written a poem? Do dogs create charity organizations for other dogs. I love animals but I'm not blind to the ways in which we differ from them.

As far as the whole starving Africans charity thing goes I fully support that and if I actually had money to spare as opposed to being super in debt I'd happily support any such charities that showed they could make a real difference. I'm not perfect but don't make me out to be some kind of selfish bastard either. If I won the lottery I'd give most of it away, partially because I think material wealth is highly overrated.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Why should I care?

Well, if you're a sociopath with no regard for suffering you've caused there is nothing one can say that can 'make' you care.

Though for purely pragmatic reasons it makes sense to -pretend- you have a conscience and save the human. Saving a dog over a human would likely make it to big news outlets and make you a social outcast for the rest of your life.

Sorry but if you're really gonna jump on the high horse here I expect that you'd better be living in almost poverty with the amount of money you've donated to charities. Everyday, thousands of people die who's deaths could be prevented if everyone wasn't so incredibly greedy.

In your scenario, you have a chance to save something of a varying degree of importance to you (I love my dog very much so I picked her) or a complete stranger.

Yet everyday, you continue to not give money away to people who are starving. You could save many more than just one stranger. Don't tell me you can't afford to do such a thing. You have access to a computer obviously. Maybe you have a car, maybe even a house. Maybe you pay for education so you can make more money. Bottom line is, you're doing this all for yourself while you could be saving many lives.

Don't feel bad. Almost everyone does this. I do it too. But don't put yourself above everyone else and tell us to grow up because you're exactly the same.

Also, think of it this way. I doubt you have any emotional attachment to your money yet you don't give it away to help people. Yet you're telling people who do have emotional attachments to their pets (other living things btw, not inanimate objects like money) that they should just kill them to save a stranger. Your logic doesn't work.

 

[Womplord]

It's amazing how many people are they would save the person because otherwise they will be frowned upon. I mean, can you stop thinking of yourself for just one second please?

 

[Doom-Slayer]

It's a nonsensical question. Assuming that you have the swimming skills and body strength required to carry an adult human from water, then clearly you'd be able to do so with your pet as well.

A lot of people like you bring this up, but thats basically not the point. Its a hypothetical situation. So assume you are able to swim and save one, and that situations prevent you from saving both, then try and answer it. Trying to pick apart a hypothetical question isnt really the point.

Why not? If you're going to construct a hypothetical scenario in order to either demonstrate something, or to determine people's reactions to it, then you better make sure that your scenario makes sense, otherwise, there's quite literally no point to it. If the circumstances in the OP's scenario don't matter, then why bother creating a hypothetical scenario to begin with?

If OP is asking you to choose between 2 actions to test your moral view of the situation, it is assumed you can physically do them(in fact it is irrelevant if you can physically do them, as it is a hypothetical situation), and its kind of obvious that the question means you can pick only one option.

If I ask you if you to pick between Red and Blue, you don't turn around and choose Red Blue, asking you to choose between 2 options kind of indicates you know...a choice.

You're simply complicating the situation for its own sake, and well if these basic intuitions are beyond you, then I am happy to have enlightened you.

Don't feel bad. Almost everyone does this. I do it too. But don't put yourself above everyone else and tell us to grow up because you're exactly the same.

QTF. Otherwise called the starving orphans and well fed cats problem of morality if Im remembering rightly.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Apparently all the fucking white-knights

Us horrible white knights that call you immoral for picking the life of a dog over the life of a person?

Sure. I'm a white knight, complete with lance and shiny armor.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I would like to hear why choosing your pet over a stranger is the "monstrous" or "immature" choice to make.

Because it just is... or at least according to the OP anyway. Seriously, he's calling half the people in this thread (myself included) monsters and basically the scum of the Earth. How is he not at least getting a warning for this is a better question IMO.

 

[Pebblig]

I voted for pet, which is probably a slight dick move, but considering I have a cat I don't think it would ever get itself into a position of being stuck in a whirlpool, therefore I would only have to save the stranger!

You only ever hear of dogs chasing rabbits of cliffs, off waterfalls etc, so I like to think that my cat would never get itself in such a position =p

In truth, I would probably save the stranger, however I would probably hate myself for it as I get way, way too attached to pets, where I treat them as a person and am absolutly devastated when they die ):

It's a nonsensical question. Assuming that you have the swimming skills and body strength required to carry an adult human from water, then clearly you'd be able to do so with your pet as well.

Not if you have a pet elephant, hurr hurr hurr.

 

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

Why should I care?

Well, if you're a sociopath with no regard for suffering you've caused there is nothing one can say that can 'make' you care.

Though for purely pragmatic reasons it makes sense to -pretend- you have a conscience and save the human. Saving a dog over a human would likely make it to big news outlets and make you a social outcast for the rest of your life.

Sorry but if you're really gonna jump on the high horse here I expect that you'd better be living in almost poverty with the amount of money you've donated to charities. Everyday, thousands of people die who's deaths could be prevented if everyone wasn't so incredibly greedy.

In your scenario, you have a chance to save something of a varying degree of importance to you (I love my dog very much so I picked her) or a complete stranger.

Yet everyday, you continue to not give money away to people who are starving. You could save many more than just one stranger. Don't tell me you can't afford to do such a thing. You have access to a computer obviously. Maybe you have a car, maybe even a house. Maybe you pay for education so you can make more money. Bottom line is, you're doing this all for yourself while you could be saving many lives.

Don't feel bad. Almost everyone does this. I do it too. But don't put yourself above everyone else and tell us to grow up because you're exactly the same.

Also, think of it this way. I doubt you have any emotional attachment to your money yet you don't give it away to help people. Yet you're telling people who do have emotional attachments to their pets (other living things btw, not inanimate objects like money) that they should just kill them to save a stranger. Your logic doesn't work.

You sir are a legend. PandaBearParade, everyone is selfish but only a few can accept that. You could be a doctor who saved 10 people in a burning house but you'd still be selfish in some aspects of life, unless you're fucking Ghandi (Which you aren't seeing as how you bought a computer rather than giving that money to charity). It's nothing to be ashamed about though, it's human nature.

OT: I'd save my pet seeing as people suck >

Edit: Also, why are you saying a human life is more valuable than a pets life. Pfft, specist.

 

[RedDeadFred]

To an extent, you are the problem.

And so are you. I'm sure you have plenty of luxury items that you could sell and then with that money, buy a bunch of food for starving children around the world. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you're a bigger "problem" than me. I've actually given numerous times to charity and am even helping sponsor a child in need. Don't get me wrong though, I still have plenty of luxury items so I'm really not a good person either. Almost no one in our society can say that they are a good person when they have the knowledge that they can save thousands of lives at any time if they simply chose to live in less comfortable conditions.

 

[suitepee7]

i voted for the rational option, but the more i read the more i want to change my vote to saving my pet. if news were to get out, that means there were other people around who could have saved them.

 

[karloss01]

I'm not going to read through 21 pages of replies and witch burning of pet lovers but I haven't seen the third (fourth) option: both. I attempt to save both because that is who I am, even if I trade places with the other two I would be content with the decision.

but since people are going to say "YOU CAN'T CHOOSE BOTH!" I'm going with Pet, not only because I'm emotionally attached to my pet like I am with a family member but because he's lighter then a full grown woman and given the situation it would be a lot harder to pull her out and would cost all three lives instead of just one. though going back to the previous statement I would dive in a second time to help, so I wouldn't just outright abandon her. just getting the easiest one out of the way first.

I can also guarantee that at least half the people who chose stranger are lying just to make them feel better. humans are inherently selfish, every decision we make is always about us, even the replies reflect that.

"I'd save the person because I don't want to be labelled a monster."
^ selfish right there, no matter which way you cut it.

once you start factoring yourself into the situation it becomes selfish, if you can't take yourself out of the picture you can't save everyone. that is how I see it, and because of that logic I had saved a three year old's life five years ago (well 8 year old now).

 

[BathorysGraveland]

So this thread has told me I am both an animal and a monster. I wonder what else I am? This is all very exciting!

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

ah, gotta love the angry people yelling at how its better to be an 'honest' dickhead than a hypocritical do-gooder.

Its not. If you don't at least pretend to value goodness that you can make good things happen. If we stop pretending we're better than we are, we wont make the situation better than it is.

a rebuttal to the specific analogy of donating all your worldly goods. This is in fact impracticable. It is the equivalent of seeing 100 people in a ditch, and climbing in the ditch yourself. Once you have donated everything, you are no longer in a position to A. help people in need, or B. change the system which causes want and inequality and indeed become a problem yourself. Over a lifetime it is far better to, say, give 15% of your income or to actively work and use your talents and resources to alleviating suffering. One does not need to suffer to be a good person.


Please don't pretend that someone not being perfect all the time is equal to someone deliberately choosing an action they recognise as selfish and the greater evil in a given scenario. It is wholly disingenuous.

edit;

I'd also like to say that I don't actually think many of you would save your pet. We are genetically primed to value humans, and your instincts will make it very difficult for you to ignore a human in distress calling for your help, especially if it a child or potential mate. Objectively you may say you value the pet more, but when the adrenaline is flowing we look out for our own.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

As an EMT I have been trained/told not to enter water to save people. Someone in distress will flail about and unless you have been specifically trained for water rescue and are a strong swimmer, they will more likely than not drag you down and drown you as well.

Or for the answer to your riddle if I magically become a muscular lifeguard. I choose for the 'pet' to be a fish therefore allowing me to choose to save the person while allowing both to live, as fish do not drown.

Thread defeated. gg no re

 

[Slayer_2]

That's an interesting viewpoint. Purely out of interest, where do you draw the line? When does a creatures life gain value to you? There is a gorrila that can speak in sign language, and communicate well with a team of scientists, does that life have value? What if - hypothetically speaking - we met aliens of equal intelligence to us. Does their life have worth?

A creature's life never has as much value as a member of my own species (excluding horrible humans). Even if an alien race far smarter than us showed up, I'd still stick with my own species. Also, I believe that gorilla could only learn 2000 words, I think it had the intelligence of a 3 year old human or something like that, so not quite on the same level as a sentient alien race or adult human. That being said, I won't kill a creature for no reason, it either has to be attacking me or needed for my comfort or survival.

I'm a strict vegetarian, and the only animal products I buy are free range. But that's not the point. Animals are bred to be eaten, so you could argue that if they weren't going to be eaten, they wouldn't even be alive in the first place. There's nothing wrong with eating meat.

That's good of you, at least you aren't preachy about it, quite the breath of fresh air.

You can still eat meat while thinking an animals life has value. Hell, I think most people do. This poll certainly suggests so too. Anyway, we're not talking about just any animal. We're talking about your pet. An animal you love and care for.

I suppose I just don't see the plus of owning an animal, I guess. I mean I like dogs and pigs are rather cute, but owning an animal that just rings up huge vet bills, keeps me awake/wakes me up, eats, and craps/pisses in my house doesn't have much appeal to me. Sure it might recognize and react positively to the hand that feeds and pets it, but that's likely all you are to the simplistic mind of the animal. Replaceable and forgotten in a matter of months, if that.

No, but you're supposedly doing it because the stranger's life has more value than that of the animal, presumably because the stranger dying will have a greater negative impact on the world than the animal dying (correct me if I'm wrong here, that's the impression I got). The reason I used that parallel is because a family member dying will likely have less negative impact on the world than someone who does great things, but you'd save the family member anyway.

For me, it's the simple fact that in order of importance, human > animal until proven otherwise. It's not about how it'll affect the world. I'm not really assigning prices to life forms based off of impact on the world or intelligence, it's just in a heat of the moment situation, if you see your pet and a human being in danger, you should hopefully assist the person first, then the animal, if time permits.

That's ridiculous. Of course I'd save the life of my brother or mother, or any other family member, over my dog.

Question, how likely is it that the stranger drowning has no family, no friends, and no one who will be torn up by his death for years, if not decades? Could you live with letting him die for your pet? Even if all he did was work at McDonalds and try to scrounge a living for his girlfriend and baby son. Does that make his life less valuable than your pet? The fact that some people not only considered it, but decided they would is crazy. The fact that they are a majority here scares me.

And if it was a dog I didn't know and a stranger I didn't know drowning, I'd save the stranger. But it's not, it's my dog, to whom I'm attached to.

I'm really confused by why you're having so much trouble getting this. My dog, is an animal, a sentient creature with a consciousness, that I've grown close too over my life. Just as you might with a friend. Only with an animal instead. The fact that a friend is a human and my pet is an animal really makes no difference. This isn't just me either, the vast majority of pet owners feel this way.

Order of importance. I still believe that a fundamental part of being human is that first priority should be our own kind until such a time that it's proven that the human cannot coexist peacefully with other humans. Regardless of the amount of attachment, that should be a secondary way to determine whom to save. The fact that anyone would place ANY animal life over a human bothers me immensely.