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

[Drejer43]

I guess that is the way it goes, and I can see that it is me who is on the high horse right now, I guess the shock of this thread is making me say stupid things. But it is just that even though I try to get in the mindset of the other side, it is just so fundamentally wrong to me, that I can't even understand it. So yes I probably am moralizing, sorry for being one of "those" people, but at this particular topic my eyes only see it in black and white.

You're being an uncommonly good sport, so please don't take this as me piling on. The key word here is "fundamentally". I've always had an issue with fundamentalism of ANY stripe. I understand it can be very difficult to disengage ourselves from our emotional reactions to things, and your values are your values, and I certainly don't disrespect them. I think it is very important, though, that we remember that our values are just that...OUR values. Not a blueprint for righteous behavior that others must follow lest they be damned. I'm sure we don't need to sit here and comb through history to find all the incidences where that kind of thinking lead to Bad Things happening.

So if someone was fundamentally against Nazism, you'd think they were wrong yeah?

Edit ninjaed

 

[maxben]

You can be as disgusted as you like.

Trust me, I am. Though I didn't need your permission first, just so you know.

Frankly I didn't think this was something that had to be debated on the escapist. I am extremely disappointed

As am I. I thought the Escapist was one of the better internet communities out there, comprised of upstanding, decent people.

Hah. Well, at least the ratio of morally lacking individuals and decent humans isn't 2:1, like on MMO-Champion.

Hey man, I just have a thought. Its crazy that this thread has gone on for 27 pages, but you should take a deep breathe and try to understand what is going on here. The two perspectives on any one of these kinds of scenarios are about objective or subjective value. In certain scenarios you will be able to make an objective calculation: pet or human. In others you will not: your mom or a man supporting not just his immediate family but his extended family back home in x country. Other times its more grey: A new mother or your grandmother when she is old and frail and is likely to die soon. But different people answer differently. The reason it sounds crazy that pet-lovers would save their pets is because pet-lovers are a smaller population of the world. So the people who bond and value their pets highly and closer to human relations like mothers seem crazy to the rest of us. Now if the question was turned to a more grey area like "if your pet was extremely frail and on death's door and the human is a new mother", im sure the percentage would skew heavily towards the new mother.

Now Im not an animal person in general, so I dont really understand them either, but they must consider their pets something akin to blood relations (which makes sense because of how involved they are in the pet's life). Therefore your question about some random person who could be a criminal for all they know and have no emotional bond to to a healthy loving and loyal pet that they feel related to, maybe even as a parent to, would sound crazy to them. And Im sure thats how they framed it, while you framed it as some animal that eats and shits and a human with a family (even though he could have been a homeless person or a rapist or a thief as much as a mother, a responsible father, or newly-wed). Hell, maybe he was dying from a terrible disease and you "saved" him from an easy death and now he is going to sufer for another 5 years before dying?

Edit: and I'm sure most people who answered pet arent like the guy talking about how he is selfish as a moral system. That will always be a tiny population, and Ayn Rand was a fad and not a long-lasting impression on the world for a reason.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No, this is the bid when you quote unrelated wiki links to avoid answering the question, I guess.

Unrelated now, is it? Do you know what unrelated means? I could post a dictionary definition of the word, but I expect you'd consider it unrelated.

I'm not really interested in having a pointless discussion about semantic bullshit, no. "Oh, are you FUNDAMENTALLY opposed to fundamentalism?" or "How can you judge someone for being judgmental!" or any other dithering nonsense that does nothing but obfuscate meaningful communication for the purpose of attempting to win a debate through pure intransigence.

But I'll give you this. If you can find a meaningful corollary between the subject being debated in this thread and the murder of millions of people then I will grant you your hilarious and entirely predictable Nazi analogy.

 

[the December King]

You can be as disgusted as you like.

Trust me, I am. Though I didn't need your permission first, just so you know.

Frankly I didn't think this was something that had to be debated on the escapist. I am extremely disappointed

As am I. I thought the Escapist was one of the better internet communities out there, comprised of upstanding, decent people.

Hah. Well, at least the ratio of morally lacking individuals and decent humans isn't 2:1, like on MMO-Champion.

Hey man, I just have a thought. Its crazy that this thread has gone on for 27 pages, but you should take a deep breathe and try to understand what is going on here. The two perspectives on any one of these kinds of scenarios are about objective or subjective value. In certain scenarios you will be able to make an objective calculation: pet or human. In others you will not: your mom or a man supporting not just his immediate family but his extended family back home in x country. Other times its more grey: A new mother or your grandmother when she is old and frail and is likely to die soon. But different people answer differently. The reason it sounds crazy that pet-lovers would save their pets is because pet-lovers are a smaller population of the world. So the people who bond and value their pets highly and closer to human relations like mothers seem crazy to the rest of us. Now if the question was turned to a more grey area like "if your pet was extremely frail and on death's door and the human is a new mother", im sure the percentage would skew heavily towards the new mother.

Now Im not an animal person in general, so I dont really understand them either, but they must consider their pets something akin to blood relations (which makes sense because of how involved they are in the pet's life). Therefore your question about some random person who could be a criminal for all they know and have no emotional bond to to a healthy loving and loyal pet that they feel related to, maybe even as a parent to, would sound crazy to them. And Im sure thats how they framed it, while you framed it as some animal that eats and shits and a human with a family (even though he could have been a homeless person or a rapist or a thief as much as a mother, a responsible father, or newly-wed). Hell, maybe he was dying from a terrible disease and you "saved" him from an easy death and now he is going to sufer for another 5 years before dying?

Edit: and I'm sure most people who answered pet arent like the guy talking about how he is selfish as a moral system. That will always be a tiny population, and Ayn Rand was a fad and not a long-lasting impression on the world for a reason.

Wow- I totally appreciate your trying to understand how this might actually look to the other side of the debate. Good on you... more open-minded than the OP, that's for sure.

 

[Drejer43]

Hey man, I just have a thought. Its crazy that this thread has gone on for 27 pages, but you should take a deep breathe and try to understand what is going on here. The two perspectives on any one of these kinds of scenarios are about objective or subjective value. In certain scenarios you will be able to make an objective calculation: pet or human. In others you will not: your mom or a man supporting not just his immediate family but his extended family back home in x country. Other times its more grey: A new mother or your grandmother when she is old and frail and is likely to die soon. But different people answer differently. The reason it sounds crazy that pet-lovers would save their pets is because pet-lovers are a smaller population of the world. So the people who bond and value their pets highly and closer to human relations like mothers seem crazy to the rest of us. Now if the question was turned to a more grey area like "if your pet was extremely frail and on death's door and the human is a new mother", im sure the percentage would skew heavily towards the new mother.

Now Im not an animal person in general, so I dont really understand them either, but they must consider their pets something akin to blood relations (which makes sense because of how involved they are in the pet's life). Therefore your question about some random person who could be a criminal for all they know and have no emotional bond to to a healthy loving and loyal pet that they feel related to, maybe even as a parent to, would sound crazy to them. And Im sure thats how they framed it, while you framed it as some animal that eats and shits and a human with a family (even though he could have been a homeless person or a rapist or a thief as much as a mother, a responsible father, or newly-wed). Hell, maybe he was dying from a terrible disease and you "saved" him from an easy death and now he is going to sufer for another 5 years before dying?

Fair enough fair enough, . But one thing that really bugs me though, is that the people who use the argument, "well he could be a rapist or a murderer" is the people who would happily allow executions, which is another can of worms I guess.
(sigh) Instead of going in circles maybe it's best to let this thread die now.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I can see I have annoyed you, sorry about that, I was a tad glib.

In, a retrospectively admittedly cack handed way, I was trying to point many people on here are hypothetically murdering humans (through lack of action) to save animals. This seems to be form of animal rights fundamentalism.

The chap above was extremely annoyed by it. It is hard to combat fundamentalism without meeting it head on with a complete rejection of it. Indeed the expression and spread of fundamentalist views is the one time it's extremely dangerous not to meet opposing views with an unswerving negative. I felt at this time the views are so abhorent they should be refuted with a certain degree of vigour.

I mean letting people die to save animals is pretty much as a mad as choosing a random section of the population to kill. No?

If your thinking is basically anthropocentric, which I accept is the case for many of us due to a priori biological drives, then yes, I understand why such a thing would be viewed as abhorrent. I'm perfectly cognizant of why someone might value the life of a pet they've known/loved for many years over the life of a stranger, though. You're not saying the stranger's life has NO meaning, as you would if you actively chose to murder them. You're saying it has less meaning to you. You're being forced into a decision between two unpleasant alternatives.

What's happening here is people are attempting to attach a moral imperative to anthropocentric thinking, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Do we also attach a moral imperative to sleeping, fucking and eating?

 

[Dorn1245]

This is a very interesting poll. I have saved countless strangers due to my job, so personally I would definitely save the human. I don't understand putting a pet before a person, so I will not go into that. It' still very interesting to see how people think on stuff like this.

 

[Enizer]

i think i just realized something, this is a debate between animal lovers, like me, who instinctively see pets as their children, i know i treat and think of my cat, as if he were my son.
is that good or bad? i have no clue, i do not get to choose my instincts though...

and on the other side, are people not AS attached to their pets, or people who dont have pets, and therefore dont understand the feelings pet lovers have towards their pets

the two groups will likely never understand each other, as the deciding factor is an experience that is not shared by both sides

 

[Pifflestick]

I'd save the stranger of course, its a human life over that of an animal. I can buy a new fucking animal, I can't buy a new human to make up for the one that I didn't save.

 

[albear]

but...what if my pets a fish?


i voted pet because theyre part of my family

 

[Tomeran]

Im not quite sure I get this "pet lovers vs human lovers" debate part of this. Personally, I love animals. I had a cat once that I cherished more then most other things in the world, and I cried more then it died then when some close family members died.

But this scenario presented is so way beyond "feeling close to your pet", it is activly -condemning a human being to a painful DEATH-(lets say death, because I think that's the point here, despite the "drowning does not neccecerily mean death!"-argument) and save this pet of yours instead! It isnt just morally flawed, it is absurdly so. I say that as a person that absolutly loves animals. If I was in that same situation with my cat or that stranger, of course I'd save the human being! The tendency of letting some poor sod drown because you dont want to loose your favourite snuggle-hamster or fluffy-bunny is probably among the most bizarre poll results I've ever seen on these community forums.

The only excuse I'd partially buy that people have presented here is instinct and acting under the stress of the situation. But I only say partially, because I only believe that people acting under instinct will do so in the beginning. This isnt a scenario where you do something in a flash. You may act under instict as you -start- to swim towards your pet, but this descicion takes effort, and time. Even if you are under stress, your brain will work and you will eventuelly pull together enough working braincells to realize what you're doing and what your options are.

 

[SveeNOR]

I don't think this discussion serves any good anymore, it was interesting as along as people explained why they differed in opinions, the last pages have (mainly) been group A saying "I can't believe that group B don't wanna save the person and is therefore the spawn of the devil with no moral (vastly exaggerated) and group B going: I view my pet as family I save my family and you are redneck idiots, who support Nazism and Assad (vastly exaggerated).

The thing is, I would save the stranger, it goes with my morals, what I have been thought from I was young, my religion (I am very non-religious, but as most Norwegians I am tied up to the FORMER state church), my hobbies (have been active Red Cross member, still there, but no rescue missions anymore) and my life defining reason: "All HUMANS are equal". I am not for animal cruelty, I am not for not treating animals as your family, I did have a cat I loved and I thought of it as family, but I would still save the human.

Still, people are entitled to their own opinions, if you think you would save the animal over the humans, please do so, I won't judge you. I am rather curious how you would deal with it psychological afterwards (do not take this as something negative, I am just general curious how people deal with trauma and decision making)

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

My pet, as much as I adore her, is old. The human has more potential for life.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

I find these resaults disturbing...

 

[Enizer]

I don't think this discussion serves any good anymore, it was interesting as along as people explained why they differed in opinions, the last pages have (mainly) been group A saying "I can't believe that group B don't wanna save the person and is therefore the spawn of the devil with no moral (vastly exaggerated) and group B going: I view my pet as family I save my family and you are redneck idiots, who support Nazism and Assad (vastly exaggerated).

The thing is, I would save the stranger, it goes with my morals, what I have been thought from I was young, my religion (I am very non-religious, but as most Norwegians I am tied up to the FORMER state church), my hobbies (have been active Red Cross member, still there, but no rescue missions anymore) and my life defining reason: "All HUMANS are equal". I am not for animal cruelty, I am not for not treating animals as your family, I did have a cat I loved and I thought of it as family, but I would still save the human.

Still, people are entitled to their own opinions, if you think you would save the animal over the humans, please do so, I won't judge you. I am rather curious how you would deal with it psychological afterwards (do not take this as something negative, I am just general curious how people deal with trauma and decision making)

an interesting way to think of this also, is: i read the poll as "WOULD", in this situation, i will save my cat without hesitation, SHOULD i do that? no, i SHOULD save the human, none the less, i wont lie to sound like a better person
the truth is, ethical or not, i WILL save my cat

it's easy to simply state that one would do the optimal ethical thing in every situation,
it's easy to make excuses really
admitting to yourself that you sometimes will make the "wrong" choice, is a LOT harder

 

[Delicious Anathema]

My pet. I just couldn't live with myself if I let it die, whereas a stranger is nothing to me and plus they have the ability to learn how to swim. I'd rather not hear the end of it from the family than enduring the thought of one of my cats drowning.

Even if I chose the stranger, we would both drown probably, drowning victims tend to cling to their savior in such a way that it's difficult to make a rescue.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Well my pets got maybe 5 years to live so I save the stranger. Besides I can always get a new dog. Dogs don't have unique personalities, people do (well okay not actually unique but the point is you cant replace them.)

 

[AngloDoom]

I'd hesitate for a moment, but I'd go for the person in the end. I may have an emotional connection to my pet, but that person has a lifetime of forming bonds and would be sorely missed by many, while the death of my pet would really only be a bit of a semi-sad event for my family alone.

A person is worth more than an animal, but I'd still feel sad at seeing a fluffy friend die.