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

[Ramare]

Well, I was going to vote "save the human" because I'm not entirely a sociopath, but then I read that I would then be attempting to save them from a Goddamn whirlpool. I can swim, yes, but even a "whirlpool" that's just some water spinning enough for it to be noticeable would screw me over because I don't really swim fast. I have saved a little girl from drowning in a pool, but if I tried to save some woman from drowning in a whirlpool it would end in abject failure, end of story. So, yeah, I guess I would just pick secret option D and collapse in a depressed heap as I watch them both die in a terrifying way; walking away just that much more dead inside. And then I would probably buy a kitten and try to forget the whole thing. More than likely end up just another drunk, trying to drown my sorrows like my dog and that woman did that day.

So, did I put up a response more depressing than "save my pet"?

 

[Neksar]

I see your point, but I think the reason moral beliefs become ubiquitous (nice vocabulary by the way) in the first place is because there's an underlying rationality or logic to them that, while more abstract than say mathematical logic, is still valid and real.

Don't doubt the power of intuition.

If that's the case, then consider that your intuition could come from an underlying respect for other persons, or a tacit convention in which you save this other person out of the expectation that they would do the same in your shoes. Or you save your pet with the same expectation.

 

[Pandabearparade]

What about the happiness/sadness in a smaller community? What is better: 4 persons very happy or 5 persons mildly happy?
Also: Would rather take the longevity or the intensity of happiness into account, as you can't measure those against another? Or both equally? I'm really curious about that, because I heard utilitarians answer that in different ways.
I think longevity is more practical, although intensity already inherits longevity automatically in a way, so I'm not sure what I'd prefer if I were a utilitarian.

Well, it's unlikely to be very healthy for society if one of five people have to live in misery to make the other four very happy. The weight of the misery would throw the overall 'wellness' curve down hard. Or I suspect as much.

As for intense short term happiness or mild long term happiness, if the two are mutually exclusive the long term happiness is likely better. Sustainable happiness generally indicates fulfillment, where a short burst of intense happiness sounds like the sort of thing you get from a strong drug. Strong drugs generally aren't very good for being a happy, fulfilled person in my experience. Though I don't think it's an 'either or' proposition, the best possible world would likely have a constant, general feeling of contentment with sporadic bursts of happiness to contrast it.

I'll stop bugging you after this.

No trouble at all, really. Ask as much as you want.

 

[RedDeadFred]

snip

I am a utilitarian so I would endeavour to do the course of action that resulted in the greatest net good.

Most of what you have said are your opinions and I get that but this statement I just couldn't leave alone.

If you truly are going to choose the action that benefits the most people then yes you would sell your laptop (or at least downgrade to one with the bare minimum). You would then not buy anymore games and instead use that money to save lives. You won't do any of this because you value your comfort over the lives of many people.

It could be that in the long run being a participating part of a technological consumerist society IS the way to maximize utility.

Maybe but only if you're gonna be dedicating your life to changing the world. If you really are, then I applaud you and the world could use more people like you.

 

[legendp]

I'm not a fucking robot and I don't expect other people to be

YOU DON'T need to be a robot to consider the consequences of your actions, Have you ever loss someone close? had that emptiness, now imagine what that would be like for someone else loosing someone, Now I love my dog, I would give up my car, my computer and risk my life for the dog but you cannot compare the suffering from the loss of a dog to the loss of a human. Imagine this (ridiculous theory), imagine if your dog was dying and the only way to save them was by killing someone and stealing there organs would you do that, what if the person drowning was an 8 year old girl, would you still choose your dog, I mean they're a stranger.....right, you don't know them.....right, why should you care. Well Because regardless of age, race or gender they are a living person (who knows they could cure cancer), they still have many things to experience, I think people undervalue life too much, think about all your experiences you've had now imagine you never had them because you died because someone tried to save there pet.

I would consider someone who chose there dog over a human more of a robot, they chose the easier way to help themselves, out of there own desires, that sounds more robotic than someone who sacrificed something very dear to them in order to rescue a strangers life.

Now obviously this scenario would not happen and you can't accurately predict what you would do until something like this would happen. I mean like my dog is scared of water and how come the person cannot swim themselves out. on top of that I would try saving both, but if I couldn't save both at the same time I would rescue the person first and then the dog unless it looked like the person could easily stay afloat for another 5 mins and the dog was about to drown. then I would save the dog first and go back for the person, howvere if there was a chance that I couldn't rescue both I would choose the person and I hope you people would to

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

I dont care about the law, or risking my own safety. I cannot allow the death of a human being if there is a possibility that I may prevent it.

Is idealism a crime?

Um, no? I said you weren't required to do so - you may choose to do so, but by making that choice you wave responsibility.

And it's nice that you don't care about your own safety. However, just because you feel that way doesn't mean that anyone else is required to feel that way. You said inaction was a crime - it is not. Your choice to not allow the death of a human being is just that - your choice.

Also...

Are you a robot? * Your determined belief in saving others while risking yourself makes it sound like you've been programed with Asimov's laws. If I'm talking to an artificial intelligence, it would be the best to know that, as AI has different rules (Asimov's Laws) than humans do.

[sub][sub][sub]* In case it isn't obvious, I intend this as good-natured humor, not an insult. It is very honorable that you feel that way. I just find it a bit amusing that you are so determined to stick to a moral law that is so similar to Asimov's law.[/sub][/sub][/sub]

I assure you, I am not a robot. I am as real as any human being you've met. I simply hold my respect for human life higher than my respect for its value according to law.

Also, Have you seen this boy?

 

[J Tyran]

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.

I someone saved their pet instead of the person they did not cause the suffering they just didn't do anything to alleviate it.

 

[beastro]

Save pet.

I have more of an emotional investment in a pet, while a stranger is just that, someone I have no emotional invest in.

Saving the human being may be the moral choice, a human life certainly has more worth in my world view than that of an animals, but losing my pet would leave me emotionally devastated. While it would be traumatic and fill me with guilt knowing I failed to save someone's life, I don't know them and it would hurt me far less than if I chose their life over that of a creature who'd spent it's whole life with me.

 

[beastro]

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.

I someone saved their pet instead of the person they did not cause the suffering they just didn't do anything to alleviate it.

If you choose a pet over a person, you're not a sociopath so long as you're running on the surface emotions that this thread brings out.

You are emotionally invested in a pet, a stranger is somebody you have no invest in. It would hurt more to lose that pet than let the stranger die....

But all we're talking about here is emotions, which sociopaths don't run on, they run completely on cold, self-interest.

Now a sociopath may look on the matter and coldly think that the pet is worth more of him than then stranger and chose it, but they may not. Sociopath's are also very narcissistic. The sociopath may think that the praise and accolades from everyone else for saving the strangers life may but worth more to him than the life of his pet and chose that to stroke his ego.

In the end, the problem is with many sociopaths is that they do not look on animals in the same way they do fellow human beings. I know this from personal experience with my father and uncle. They do not care about anyone else and will abuse, cheat, steal or lie to get ahead, they are completely devoid of sympathy of any other emotion towards other people.... and yet they worry about animals.

My father was a animal lover, however badly he teased them while my uncle, for no reason at all, was worried sick when he was told to leave his house because of a nearby forest fire. All he could think of was the animals, especially the local bears, and how they would be able to escape the fire too if it got close.

My uncles reaction was the oddest since he was never an animal lover and had nothing to gain by feeling that way. On top of that, he'd never think that if you replaced "bears" with "neighbours", instead he'd be worried about how the forest fire would effect the value of his land and if he'd get less for it if buyers knew it was in a forest fire zone.

 

[Naqel]

You have two living beings in peril.

One you're attached to and consider a friend.
One that happens to be of the same species.

What sort of a colossal dick and racist would you have to be to abandon a friend in need only because some random fucker happens to be drowning at the same time?

 

[Tomeran]

As much as I love animals, and as little faith I have in humanity as a whole, I still value humans above animals. And I quite cant understand people that would willingly let a -person- drown ahead of a say, a cat or a dog. The fact that the person is a stranger should have -nothing- to do with it.

I thought the poll would reflect this but im outright shocked to see the results. I sure hope a lot of people are trolling, or that they're at least just posting idealistic "animal-friendly" oppinions without really realizing what they're actually saying, AND that it would not actually reflect on how they would handle the situation if it occured IRL.


It should also probably be added that most common pets know how to swim quite well, whereas(also as this thread has reflected) a lot of humans dont.

 

[Enizer]

You have two living beings in peril.

One you're attached to and consider a friend.
One that happens to be of the same species.

What sort of a colossal dick and racist would you have to be to abandon a friend in need only because some random fucker happens to be drowning at the same time?

this is my thinking as well, i dont look at my cat like some "property" i can just replace

he is my friend

to me, this is a matter of friend vs stranger, not "man vs animal"

i dont see animals as "inferior things, not deserving to be saved unless nothing else needs help"

 

[bauke67]

Another thing, for people who'd save their pet: if you owned, say, a hamster instead of something bigger like a dog or a cat, would your answer still be the same? Just curious.

No it wouldn't because I can't imagine ever forming the same emotional attachment to a hamster as I have to a dog.
But then that's also why I don't have hamsters as pets.

True, but that makes me wonder again:
Where do we draw the line?
At guinnnea pig(or however you sell that)?
Rabit?
Cat?
And why or why not at one or the other?

 

[Pandabearparade]

What sort of a colossal dick and racist

If you apply this logic evenly you'll have to concede that you'd save a familiar gerbil over a person, too. If not, you're clearly a racist.

 

[stormeris]

I cant swim

 

[Kirex]

YOU DON'T need to be a robot to consider the consequences of your actions, Have you ever loss someone close? had that emptiness, now imagine what that would be like for someone else loosing someone, Now I love my dog, I would give up my car, my computer and risk my life for the dog but you cannot compare the suffering from the loss of a dog to the loss of a human. Imagine this (ridiculous theory), imagine if your dog was dying and the only way to save them was by killing someone and stealing there organs would you do that, what if the person drowning was an 8 year old girl, would you still choose your dog, I mean they're a stranger...

I would consider someone who chose there dog over a human more of a robot, they chose the easier way to help themselves, out of there own desires, that sounds more robotic than someone who sacrificed something very dear to them in order to rescue a strangers life.

I think it's really bold to judge an action of others when they don't have nearly as much time to think about it as you. It's a short-term-emotional reaction, I'm talking about seconds here. How in gods name do you expect someone under pressure to act rationally? I think we've all done stupid things when having to decide quick. Of course, the consequences of this situation are much more severe, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the same basic problem. Is saving the pet egotistical? Yes, quite. But you still can't hold someone responsible for that. Sometimes people don't have time to overthink consequences and that's where emotions like that come in.

Also, what does the age matter when saving a person? You're basically saying that an 8-year-old is worth more than a woman in her late twenties,(because apparently imagining an 8-year-old as the human should change my opinion more easily now) which is pretty questionable if you ask me.

And no, a robot is made to evaluate things only logically, which is why he should always save the human. In almost no scenario would he save the puppy.

Well, it's unlikely to be very healthy for society if one of five people have to live in misery to make the other four very happy. The weight of the misery would throw the overall 'wellness' curve down hard. Or I suspect as much.

No negative consequences, I meant "everybody else on the planet stays the way they are and 5 people get to be mildly happy" against "everybody else on the planet stays the way they are and 4 people get to be very happy". The problem being "Is quantity more important than quality?".

Still, putting people into misery for the happiness of others is also an interesting problem. How far can you go to prevent a nuclear missile from being launched at another nation? Would you kill 10 people to achieve that goal(even if it only lowers the chance of the launch slightly)? I know that those are complex problems, taking the concept of chance into account always makes for some rather questionable answers, but I'm intrigued by that.

As for intense short term happiness or mild long term happiness, if the two are mutually exclusive the long term happiness is likely better. Sustainable happiness generally indicates fulfillment, where a short burst of intense happiness sounds like the sort of thing you get from a strong drug. Strong drugs generally aren't very good for being a happy, fulfilled person in my experience. Though I don't think it's an 'either or' proposition, the best possible world would likely have a constant, general feeling of contentment with sporadic bursts of happiness to contrast it.

Thanks for the answer, I find it really interesting to look into the philosophy and ethical evaluation of other people.

 

[lunavixen]

I'm not a strong swimmer, i can get myself out of trouble, but not other people at the same time. if there was something suitable i could anchor the other end of, i would throw it to the person, but other than that i'd have to call for help

 

[Caliostro]

A life is a life, it's all the same shit.

That's bullshit. There is a reason the millions of cells that die when you scratch your ass don't cause you moral concern, it's because not all lives are equal. Humans are more worthy of moral concern because they have a higher capacity for suffering than animals.

And what makes you think I have moral concern for the life of random people? I kill bacteria because otherwise they'd kill me. Or because they cause me significant discomfort. Plenty of people in this world I wouldn't bat an eye about eliminating for similar reasons.

Also, that statement is factually incorrect. Animals have just as much capacity for suffering. They have a central nervous system. Behaviour analysis shows they're more than capable of feeling and expressing grief. This is a scientific fact. It's also easily perceivable if you've ever owned a pet. The only difference is that they don't speak in a language you natively understand.

In fact, I often think animals are more intelligent than we are... I mean, they certainly seem to understand us better than we understand them.

Someone has never owned a cat or a goldfish. I can promise you neither would lift a paw/fin to help you.

A cat would actually. Plenty of evidence to it.

And a goldfish wouldn't actually remember you more than not want to help you. So basically he'd be on the same level of a random stranger. Also a goldfish would have a really though time drowning. In fact if a goldfish was drowning they would be far beyond my help.