Poll: Your Pet is Drowning, and so is a Stranger.
- Thread starter Pandabearparade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
DRes82 said:
I stand behind that firmly, and there is no hypocrisy at all. This is part of why I didn't want to open the can of worms in this thread, it's a topic that takes a lot of time to explain, and that's assuming I don't get hit with a "TL;DR". I'll try to be brief.
"Net" suffering is not the same as simply deciding in any given scenario what will be the best short-term result and choosing that outcome. There are long term ramifications one has to consider, in addition to rippling effects that the implication of saying "this is morally correct" have upon society at large.
Let's use the scenario of the dog and I'll skip the details and grant that in this specific instance of pet vs. human the pet's death would cause more short-term suffering than the death of the human. Is it still immoral to save Fido? Yes. A society in which it is socially and morally acceptable to save a dog over a person is going to have a great deal more net suffering than the society where Fido drowns, even if on the micro level the death of Fido is more acutely felt.
Why? Humans have a high capacity for suffering, and the death of a human will generally ripple through dozens, even hundreds of individuals who will all suffer in turn at comprehending the news that they have a friend or family members who drowned. Even if in one specific instance the short-term gain favors saving a dog, it's still not a good idea to set a societal standard where that is acceptable.
To give a different example I heard Sam Harris use, imagine you have four sick patients with no families in the emergency room, and by killing one you could save the other three. Is that a moral thing to do? No, even though the short term suffering arithmetic clearly favors killing one to save three, the long term consequences in living in a society where any minute someone might kill you to harvest your organs leaves a lot to be desired. Short term gain, long term failure.
Wow, quite the anger storm going around. Anyway, I shall take a few minutes to throw in my choice as well.
I chose the person. Which is oddly at a lesser percentage than the pet right now. Now, I could throw in real world factors such as a thrashing person (who I would promptly knock out before attempted to swim with them out) or that a whirlpool is mostly like to kill me during the rescue attempt, but that isn't the point of the post, it is a moral conundrum. So I chose the person because I value human life over my pets. Some people value pets as family. Fine fine. I love my cat dearly, and I would be greatly hurt by her being gone. She has been a friend and companion for...almost ten years now. But she is still an animal. I couldn't sacrifice another human life just for a few more years with my pet. And it isn't because people are more valuable (Not even sure if I would say that for sure, since in truth I don't most people, most complete strangers) But it is because I could not bring that sense of loss to this stranger's family and friends. I have lost people close to me, and I could not bring that feeling to someone else. I know I shouldn't judge the people that voted for their pet,but I would like to ask them to not bring their pets to the beach so I have a better chance of being saved.
I chose the person. Which is oddly at a lesser percentage than the pet right now. Now, I could throw in real world factors such as a thrashing person (who I would promptly knock out before attempted to swim with them out) or that a whirlpool is mostly like to kill me during the rescue attempt, but that isn't the point of the post, it is a moral conundrum. So I chose the person because I value human life over my pets. Some people value pets as family. Fine fine. I love my cat dearly, and I would be greatly hurt by her being gone. She has been a friend and companion for...almost ten years now. But she is still an animal. I couldn't sacrifice another human life just for a few more years with my pet. And it isn't because people are more valuable (Not even sure if I would say that for sure, since in truth I don't most people, most complete strangers) But it is because I could not bring that sense of loss to this stranger's family and friends. I have lost people close to me, and I could not bring that feeling to someone else. I know I shouldn't judge the people that voted for their pet,but I would like to ask them to not bring their pets to the beach so I have a better chance of being saved.
Green armor fits just as well. Of all the parties in America it's the only one I view as left-of-center, and I'd vote for them every time if they had even a tiny, tiny chance of winning.DRes82 said:
I would scream for help. I can swim well enough to keep myself alive but probably not well enough to keep some thrashing person/animal above water as well.
That said, if I could swim well enough to do so then I would save the stranger. This is primarily because, while I love my dog dearly, I simply can not justify sacrificing a person and causing immeasurable pain to their friends and family just to save myself some grief.
That said, if I could swim well enough to do so then I would save the stranger. This is primarily because, while I love my dog dearly, I simply can not justify sacrificing a person and causing immeasurable pain to their friends and family just to save myself some grief.
I fear we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. He's no Rush Limbaugh, but he's still a completely disingenuous douche (in my opinion).TheMann said:
Oh thank God. I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Not sure how this conversation goes on for so long in a world where you can be better off not rendering assistance to an accident victim because of possible legal liabilities. We can be cynical fucks, that's how it is and it shouldn't surprise anybody.
I love how nerds talk about having "no faith in humanity" and then would rather save a pet than an actual human being. I find it completely disgusting and another reason I should probably stop coming here. I mean, fuck me, the poll results are nearly even right now, and we're 25 pages in, I can't even wrap my head around this. In truth, I can't swim well, but I feel that poll option is a bit of a cop-out because its supposed to be a moral "dilemma".
As for political leanings, I'm a liberal, and I love my cat, but humans have more worth than animals, simple truth.
As for political leanings, I'm a liberal, and I love my cat, but humans have more worth than animals, simple truth.
i find it odd that, according to this poll, something that the majority of us would do is somehow immoral
You know anyone can chastise anyone right? It's not like some privilege you have to earn or something.Slayer_2 said:
I'm a little insulted that you think I'd only save someone because I'm pressured by society to do so. Look, if your only concern is how things affect you, the rest of the universe be damned, fine; but call it what it is. It's not "practicality", it's selfishness. You are putting that which matters to you before that which matters to others.Slayer_2 said:
And people with your mindset are bad for humanity as a whole.
Not that you'd care about that.
What is right is not decided by popular opinion. If it was, the Na-Fodder Aplenty said:
No, bad Panda!
Anyway, argumentum ad populum fallacy. Popular does not equal true.
erm, considering morals are a completely man made thing, what is right IS decided by popular opinionPandabearparade said:
No.Fodder Aplenty said:
Genghis Khan wiped out entire cities of far better people than he or his horde of horse riding fuckheads. Was it moral? No. Was it approved of? Yes. Everyone still alive after the Mongols sacked a city very enthusiastically approved of the Khan. Except for the women they kept alive to rape, but they were the minority and thus wrong by your logic.
yes.Pandabearparade said:
morals are not set in stone. they are decided by whatever the community decides. if they were set in stone, why are there still moral debates? why are we having this converstion? why do so many disagree with you?
Around the same number disagree with evolution and climate change. The truth isn't up for a vote.Fodder Aplenty said:
i didn't know that you could scientifically determine what is morally correct. the cannibalist alien species of azhnarfians will be horrfied to learn that they have been proved by science to be evil.Pandabearparade said: