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

[flaviok79]

Look, one of the benefits of aging and years of therapy (7 and counting) is that we get to accept the things about ourselves that we cannot change. I chose to save the pet, because I value its life, I love my two pets and they are special to me. Human beings, there are 7 billion of us. I don't know you, or your family. I know I would be wrecked if I had the chance to save my beloved pets, lifeforms that I vowed to care for as my own children, and didn't take it.

Perhaps if this was not a hypothetical situation, if the scenery presented itself, I would search my feelings and chose otherwise. Things standing as they are, hypothetical, I chose the pet 100% of the times.


I am no monster, no nazi, no beast. I am who I am, and I respect the oppinions of those who would chose to save the person.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Even though I can swim, I don't think jumping into a whirlpool that is already trying to claim two lives is the smartest thing to do. I'm not an action hero. Chances are, all three of us would probably drown.

 

[NotALiberal]

SNIP

No no no no no. Asians, Whites, Blacks are all HUMAN. Period. Which is why "racism" is stupid in the first place. Trying to equivocate Racism with Speciesism, is frankly, insulting and intellectually dishonest. The fact that Richard Hawkins tried to draw this comparison does not make it any less stupid, it just highlights his irrationality.

To answer your question, if a species of alien that were of equal intelligence were to land on our planet, we should treat them as equals, until such a time when a distinction must be made for "us" vs them", because at the end of the day, as a species of HUMAN, you side with your own species. That is all it comes down to.

 

[DRes82]

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.

You're still on this about how horribly monstrous people who don't agree with you are? More like an intolerant, self-righteous green knight, complete with oversized sense of importance and wooden armor of sanctimoniousness. I don't know why green, it just seems fitting.

Why don't you answer this guy here? He has an excellent hypothetical scenario for you to consider. Especially if the only reason you would save the human is because it would net less suffering in the end which, of course, is completely subjective and situational.

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.

Well said, Wynaro. Welcome to the Escapist.

 

[Wayneguard]

Pet no question.

 

[NotALiberal]

SNIP

That hypothetical scenario is stupid. Let me point out why. A human, is always (ALWAYS) worth more than an animal. That is all it comes down to. They are not "equal". This scenario would be more fair if both of the things drowning were people, then it would be a moral dilemma. In this case however, it would be justified in choosing your sister, because THEN and only then, are they both equal in saving, and if they are both of equal importance, then you choose the person who is of more value you to.

That is ALL it comes down to. Please stop trying to draw intellectually dishonest comparisons like some sort of checkmate.

Not well said Wynaro, your logic could use some work.

 

[tkioz]

If I had time to think about it? My pet. He's worth more then any 10 random humans, at least to me.

But I'd likely save the human first, that would be my instinctual reaction. I've actually done it before, some people freeze, some scream for help, some jump in fully clothed and pull a kid out, you never know what you'll do until it happens.

Of course being a child I imagine the instinctual reaction was heightened, but I honestly can't remember thinking anything before diving in when I saw a 4 year old fall off the pier into deep water, I just moved.

 

[NotALiberal]

If I had time to think about it? My pet. He's worth more then any 10 random humans, at least to me.

But I'd likely save the human first, that would be my instinctual reaction. I've actually done it before, some people freeze, some scream for help, some jump in fully clothed and pull a kid out, you never know what you'll do until it happens.

Of course being a child I imagine the instinctual reaction was heightened, but I honestly can't remember thinking anything before diving in when I saw a 4 year old fall off the pier into deep water, I just moved.

Look, it'd be pretty heartbreaking to watch a dog drown. It'd yelp and struggle and whip its head around in a vain attempt to breathe before the current sucked it under. I'd hate to have to see that, but as bad as that sounds, watching a person drown would much, much, much worse. For one, it'd most likely be more prolonged, even if someone can't swim they'll still have better control in water because our hands and feet have more surface area. Oh, and you know what else a human can do that your pet can't? They can beg for their lives. So, all you pet savers on here, I want you to visualize this hard. This person, female, late 20s-early 30s, according to the OP, would be screaming her head off, something along the lines "Please help, I have kids, I have a family!", or maybe "Help me out of the water, I can't swim!", but most likely it'd be something as simple as "PLEASE, PLEASE HELP ME! I DON'T WANT TO DIE!!!" And you would watch this woman, plead, beg and sob, while you swam out and grabbed your pet instead? Are you fucking kidding me?!

All things considered, I don't think anyone but the most hardhearted sociopath could ignore a rational, sentient humans cries for help.

 

[Arcobalen]

Hm, I don't care for other people. So I'd save my pet.

 

[the December King]

Also has the potential to be a worthless sack of shit so what's your point? If you can be optimistic about the person and whatever it is they do we can be equally pessimistic and assume they're hitler.

I live by the general rule "Expect the best, but prepare for the worst." That way, I don't seem like a judgmental prick but am still rarely caught off guard when things go wrong.

A pet is stuck being a pet. It can never become anything more a non-sapient animal, a slave to its instincts.
It will never found and run it's own company because it can't.
It will never make great breakthroughs in science or medicine because it can't.
A pet can't help change the world.
A pet could also become a murderer. Dogs, for example, have killed many humans in the past.
They can also become a leeching slob. Providing no enjoyment to you and taking your resources and money.

However, a human CAN change the world.
A human CAN become a great scientist, a great engineer, a great philosopher.
A human can reach the stars on his own.


Sure they could also become a leeching slob or a murderer, just like the dog could, but the fact of the matter is that a human with a working human brain will always have more potential than a dog with a working dog brain.

Saving the human would be the most logical thing to do. Saving the pet would be an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Now, If I had to choose between saving my friend or saving a stranger?
The playing fields are level. I have more stake in my friend.
Of course I would save my friend.

/thread

Anyone who chose a fucking slobbering beast monster over a rational thinking human being can no longer be taken seriously.

Wow- as long as you take the time to consider both sides of the argument, I suppose! And capping the thread, like a boss- I'm sure we're all glad you did that.

 

[tkioz]

If I had time to think about it? My pet. He's worth more then any 10 random humans, at least to me.

But I'd likely save the human first, that would be my instinctual reaction. I've actually done it before, some people freeze, some scream for help, some jump in fully clothed and pull a kid out, you never know what you'll do until it happens.

Of course being a child I imagine the instinctual reaction was heightened, but I honestly can't remember thinking anything before diving in when I saw a 4 year old fall off the pier into deep water, I just moved.

Look, it'd be pretty heartbreaking to watch a dog drown. It'd yelp and struggle and whip its head around in a vain attempt to breathe before the current sucked it under. I'd hate to have to see that, but as bad as that sounds, watching a person drown would much, much, much worse. For one, it'd most likely be more prolonged, even if someone can't swim they'll still have better control in water because our hands and feet have more surface area. Oh, and you know what else a human can do that your pet can't? They can beg for their lives. So, all you pet savers on here, I want you to visualize this hard. This person, female, late 20s-early 30s, according to the OP, would be screaming her head off, something along the lines "Please help, I have kids, I have a family!", or maybe "Help me out of the water, I can't swim!", but most likely it'd be something as simple as "PLEASE, PLEASE HELP ME! I DON'T WANT TO DIE!!!" And you would watch this woman, plead, beg and sob, while you swam out and grabbed your pet instead? Are you fucking kidding me?!

All things considered, I don't think anyone but the most hardhearted sociopath could ignore a rational, sentient humans cries for help.

Note my "If I had time to think"... that means if I have time to sit down, do the mental math, work out if I could live with myself, maybe have a coffee, etc.

 

[DRes82]

SNIP

That hypothetical scenario is stupid. Let me point out why. A human, is always (ALWAYS) worth more than an animal. That is all it comes down to. They are not "equal". This scenario would be more fair if both of the things drowning were people, then it would be a moral dilemma. In this case however, it would be justified in choosing your sister, because THEN and only then, are they both equal in saving, and if they are both of equal importance, then you choose the person who is of more value you to.

That is ALL it comes down to. Please stop trying to draw intellectually dishonest comparisons like some sort of checkmate.

Not well said Wynaro, your logic could use some work.

You're missing the point. Panda was saying that the reason this is not a morally subjective situation is because logically, anything that causes less overall suffering is the ethically correct thing to do. In Wynaro's situation, less suffering would be caused by rescuing the dog and so that would be the ethical thing to do, according to OP. Its hypocritical.

Also, saying that a human is always worth more than a pet (we won't use the word 'animal, since a human is an animal as well) is completely subjective. Its not misanthropic to choose a family member over a complete stranger. That is what many people consider their pets to be.

Intellectually dishonest? Its really getting sickening how you all are acting as though you're somehow superior to people who hold differing ideals. Get over yourselves. You talk about logic and then condemn another sacred human being as somehow inferior because of differing views. How is that logical?

 

[the December King]

Look, it'd be pretty heartbreaking to watch a dog drown. It'd yelp and struggle and whip its head around in a vain attempt to breathe before the current sucked it under. I'd hate to have to see that, but as bad as that sounds, watching a person drown would much, much, much worse. For one, it'd most likely be more prolonged, even if someone can't swim they'll still have better control in water because our hands and feet have more surface area. Oh, and you know what else a human can do that your pet can't? They can beg for their lives. So, all you pet savers on here, I want you to visualize this hard. This person, female, late 20s-early 30s, according to the OP, would be screaming her head off, something along the lines "Please help, I have kids, I have a family!", or maybe "Help me out of the water, I can't swim!", but most likely it'd be something as simple as "PLEASE, PLEASE HELP ME! I DON'T WANT TO DIE!!!" And you would watch this woman, plead, beg and sob, while you swam out and grabbed your pet instead? Are you fucking kidding me?!

This is some little story you've got going here! Oh, the drama, thrashing in the arcing fans of unstoppable water... Her breathy cries of "Oh, the humanity- will someone PLEASE think of the children! Buy local! I'm a tax- payer, for God's sake!" as our heroine slips under to a watery grave...

I took this scenario to be one where both go down, you know, to where pleas of mercy and patriotism can't be heard- the whole 'lungs are actually filling with water and the victim is drowning' bit. There is a need to jump in immediately to save one or the other, correct?

Well, I'm still not sure how I'd react in that situation. But I sure as hell am not acting in your drama.

 

[the December King]

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.

Well said, sir! Articulate and calm, and a great overview of the entire poll.

 

[quysspe]

I don't know you. I love my cat.

Also, I hear that a human's panic-flailing and grabbing can often result in dragging you under as often as not. Swimming to and grabbing someone is a good way to drown yourself. A flailing cat on the other hand doesn't have the mass to do that. It would be smarter to go for the goal that's less likely to kill you.

 

[the December King]

snip

>implying this argumentation is anyway shape or form logical

Yeah, I think I'm done with this thread. Filled with entitled selfish assholes. That's most of humanity I suppose, but considering the majority of this forum is filled with self righteous liberals of the worst kind, it's just hilarious to see this.

Awww, what a shame, and you were such a compelling debater- I sure do know now, that calling people assholes and sociopaths is a sure way to point out other frames of reference in an engaging manner.

 

[Cactoos]

I find it ironic that even the people who claim they'd save the person instead of their pet, reason this by saying that otherwise they wouldn't be able to live with themselves.

So... yes, you are saving a person over a dog, but you're still doing it for selfish reasons. There really is no escaping the fact that we, as in all living things, are egoists.

By the way, there really is no way of truthfully answering this question. If someone with a gun gave me a choice between killing my dog and killing a random person, I'd say shoot the pooch. But somehow the idea of my pet drowning is so much worse. Very irrational, I know, but what can you do. If when the drowning situation came up I had time to think (which I wouldn't, obviously), then I'd save the woman. But since I'd need to act on the spot then I... don't know what I'd do.

 

[DRes82]

snip

>implying this argumentation is anyway shape or form logical

Yeah, I think I'm done with this thread. Filled with entitled selfish assholes. That's most of humanity I suppose, but considering the majority of this forum is filled with self righteous liberals of the worst kind, it's just hilarious to see this.

Yeah, go. Flat out intolerance and stubbornness isn't going to get you far in any argument. Especially here. Although I do think its hilarious that you call us entitled and selfish. I was thinking the same thing of you guys. Self-righteous, presumptuous, narrow-minded are a few descriptors that I feel are adequate.

Its just hard to understand that normally reasonable, accepting people are driven to such vitriol and ill-will towards others based on a difference of opinions. As a rule, you can't judge someone inferior for the values they hold. THAT is what causes the trouble in this world, not apathy for total fucking strangers. Which is only natural.

 

[leirbag]

I'd save my pet, and the original poster is being as bad as the conservative asswad he criticized if he uses this completely hypotetical online poll scenario to judge other people.

 

[Bassik]

I'd save my pet rat. I love that little guy, fuck the drowning person, does he wash my hair? No. Does he sneak in my cupboard? No. Does he kill vermin and then eat it skin and bones? No.

My little rat. I love him so. ^^