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

[Pandabearparade]

your cat is not a child, when it dies you will be incredibly sad bit no where near as sad as someone who has lost a friend or brother or mother.

But so long as it's a stranger, who cares? Their pet needs a couple more years a lot more than those other people need their relative.

...I'm still in awe that some people actually think this is a defensible position.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Again, the presence of such moral self-importance and arrogance here is astounding.

Saving a dog over a person is astounding. People are being arrogant because it's pretty obviously selfish and immoral to pick your attachment to an animal over the attachment of a family to their relative.

 

[legendp]

Huh. There do indeed seem to be more people concerned with puppies than with people. Who'd've thought it.

Human. First. Always.

I really don't understand this point of view. Surely, turning on a member of your own tribe, human or not, is the greater betrayal. I'm not phrasing that as a question, I'm just saying it.

I owe nothing to another human being by virtue of the fact that they are human. What the hell kind of reason is that to betray a loved one? I'm a disciplined man. I almost drowned once off the coast of cornwall because the water was cold and I was skinny and unfit. Even remembering that, I reject the selfishness involved in hoping that others will (in general) turn on their own for me. They shouldn't.

Either people who would are as cold as vipers (unlikely given the tone of most of these responses), OR they have an ambient love for other people that I just have no concept of; as though they're able to see another colour and think it's just the most natural thing in the world.

Well I don't see whatever it is that you see. You're in the minority, actually.

Tribe. First. Always.

My reasoning is simple: Human life is worth infinitely more than animal/plant life. No matter what close relation you may feel for your pet, the drowning person is a person. That is an overriding factor in the decision.

I think you've summed up everything I wanted to say in just a few short words. You win 5 internetz

Then you draw a distinction I don't between people and animals. I haven't seen the hand-held scanner that gives a different "value" reading when you hover it over a person than it does when you hover it over a dog. Until somebody shows me something THAT concrete as proof that human beings are more valuable than anything else, I'll go on making no distinction.

The value of anything to me is in direct proportion to the quality of its relationship with me (or its value to others who are connected to me). If you're not of my tribe and the OP's scenario is afoot, you're just plain out of luck.

So if it is a choice between a million people and your pet you will still choose the pet right because those people are not part of your "tribe", Like I said many times before I love my dog and would risk my life for it, but does your pet have aspirations like going to school, university. and many other things, do you think your dog is worth more than your own life, do you think there emotions and feelings are more complex and valuable than yours. pets can love and care people and they should not be ignored but at the same time they cannot be compared to the life and experiences of a person. even if I have to break it down to mathematics, human life 40+ more years, pets life maybe 10+ years if you need solid measurable equations, as sad as it is to break it down that way. A person will go out and meet other people, they could potential deeply affect 100s of people in there life, your pet will probaly just sleep in your back yard enjoying your company, now thats not a bad thing but cannot be compared to a person

Edit 1 (also on next page)
I would like to add

Is a fly as valuable as a dog
Is a fish as valuable as a dolphin
Is bacteria as valuable as a bird

The answer is a no, just the same as a dog life is not as valuable as a person, and if you think otherwise than (imo considring people will complain if I don't say that) you are being selfish and immoral, and just as you are allowed to argue your opinion I am allowed to argue mine and point out flaws in yours. If you don't want that to happen than don't post . And before someone ses that it is just different values I'm sure a murderer could say the same thing, there was that guy recently who killed dozens of people in hitlers name recently. Now I am not saying you people are murderers but you need to consider the consequences of you actions. There is a reason why saving your pet over a human would be frowned on, because that was not the right cause of action

 

[DRes82]

Again, the presence of such moral self-importance and arrogance here is astounding.

Saving a dog over a person is astounding. People are being arrogant because it's pretty obviously selfish and immoral to pick your attachment to an animal over the attachment of a family to their relative.

Not getting into it with you again, Panda. I'm not even irritated about the topic at hand, and you know that. What bothers me is the intolerance of differing values.

 

[Spartan Altego]

You know, I'm just a little speechless at the poll results.

Although, I suppose it's to be expected, seeing as how a lot of people who hang around this site seem to be angsty teens/young adults who think that it's super cool to be a bitter and cynical "misanthrope".

Oh, generalizations and assumptions made by those who come across as having a smug sense of superiority. How I love thee. Thanks for not actually putting any input in for the thread.

On topic: Hell yes, I'm going to save my cat/dog/whatever. It has significantly more value to me than any stranger has to me. If I had time to make a decision, my sense of morality would likely push me towards saving the stranger. (Although I'm going to seriously berate them for not knowing how to fucking swim.) In a split-second decision though, the pet always wins out.

Call me a monster or sociopath or whatever you feel like calling me. I chose something I cared about over something I don't care about. It's that simple and anything else is simply you trying to demonize me for making a choice. You can argue that human life is more sacred and valuable than animal life but I'm sure the animals would disagree. Life is life. It only has as much value as you put on it. (Cue the cries of "Burn him! Burn the demon!")

Granted if I was the one drowning and another person saved their cat, of course I'd be pissed. But I can be hypocrite. So there.

your cat is not a child, when it dies you will be incredibly sad bit no where near as sad as someone who has lost a friend or brother or mother.

But so long as it's a stranger, who cares? Their pet needs a couple more years a lot more than those other people need their relative.

...I'm still in awe that some people actually think this is a defensible position.

It's called having a difference in values. Of course it's defensible. And I'm not getting into one of those "My sense of morality is superior," debates some of the posters are fond of having. Because's that's just pointless.

 

[Slayer_2]

The presumptuousness and self-righteousness has reached a new high in this thread with this post. Just based on the fact that you attribute the poll results to the possibility that "there are a lot of mentally challenged people' that have participated lets me safely assume that I, at least, have much more life experience and social ability than you.

I'm not going to go over my thoughts on this ridiculous topic again, but if you're interested, there are quite a few posts I've made here that summarize how I feel (which you should be, because my values are absolute and if you don't agree with them, you're mentally disabled). If not, suffice it to say, that I completely disagree with you. Again, the presence of such moral self-importance and arrogance here is astounding.

edit: I should grade you on your debating skills, Slayer. I doubt you would even get the 3 out of 15 that you gave to your opponent.

Nice work twisting my words and making vague assumptions. Would you like a medal? I'd like you to point out where exactly I said that if you chose the dog you are mentally challenged? I said it's probable that there are more mentally challenged people (such as aspergers, autism, etc). Your hasty response of "lets me safely assume that I, at least, have much more life experience and social ability than you" does nothing to help your case, but in fact damages it further. You know nothing about me, and your assumptions are baseless, as is your stance.

How dare I act like a human's life is worth more than a dog! I should be shot, no, drawn and quartered! I think I know who I believe is the monster here, as do you. Of course I sound self-righteous, people who would choose the dog are people who deserve to drown, in my opinion. The world is better without scum like that. It's hard not to sound like I'm on a high horse when I'm talking with a bunch of borderline murderers. This argument is futile, and I suggest we waste no more time with it. Clearly you want to stick to your ideas of right and wrong and me to mine. Nothing will change. I have zero tolerance for this kind of thought, that an animal should be granted equal or better rights than a human, call me what you will.

I agree that I would choose my mother over my dog. That doesn't mean that I would choose someone else's mother over my dog. If you would choose a family member over a stranger, it seems perfectly reasonable to choose what I consider a close family member over a stranger. I don't know what relationship you have with your pets, or even if you have pets at all, so I'd appreciate if you didn't assume to know what my relationship with my pet is like.

You missed the point. Your dog is NOT A FAMILY MEMBER. Yes it lives in your home. Yes you see it almost every day. No you will not be nearly as effected if it dies (which it will in 10 years or so no matter what), no it does not share any blood with you. No it is not legally a family member. Terming it a family member makes people think that it's death will hit the same as a real member of your family, which (and let me assume this) is completely false.

Who says you have to donate your money to a charity? If you sold off all your luxury goods you could probably afford to go to some shithole in Africa and use your money to directly help them. And even if you do donate to a charity, wouldn't paying overhead costs mean that money that's not going to overhead thanks to you is now going where it needs to? While I will agree that it is generally a direct/indirect thing, that doesn't mean that the direct suddenly has magnitudes of importance over the indirect. If sacrificing most of your luxury goods to save someone from starving to death is extreme, why do you consider sacrificing a living thing that happens to be considered a family member by some and apparently a luxury good by others such an easy decision?

Really, and what "shithole in Africa" would you choose? Just pick a map up and throw a dart at it? Fact is, you couldn't do much to help directly. Neither could I. If they aren't already managing to eke out an existence, I'd give you a few days till you died or ran home. You might be able to improve living conditions, but the likelihood of you doing any good is minimal, more likely you're a burden.

As for donating to a charity, we're only human, we can't all be Jesus. Unless a person is faced with the result of their actions (or lack thereof), they are less motivated. I still donate, but I'm not gonna sell everything I own and donate it to the Red Cross. Be realistic. It's not black and white, you don't either have to be an evil human-killing dog saver, or a freaking white Gandhi, there are many shades between. Acting like it's either black or white is unrealistic and not too mature, either.

While the first half is assuming a bit much, I'll accept that it's incredibly probable most people would save the stranger over their pet. And again, my feelings about my pet are obviously different to yours. Since drowning is not a peaceful way to go, why is the pet's drowning such an easy thing to just gloss over? I've admitted that I would feel guilty after making my choice to let the stranger die; I made the selfish choice and I shouldn't feel good about that. But you know what helps to get over your guilt, your pet. What's gonna help you get over your pet violently drowning, the gratitude of the stranger, his family, and maybe the community for a relatively short time? And as for killing a dog, I'd probably feel worse than you about it, but killing a person would likely bring out more emotion from me. The thing is, that only applies if it's just some random dog. Here, we're talking about my dog.

Either way, I think you can agree that a poll of under 1,500 people from one tight-knit internet community is hardly indicative of the world as a whole. Plus I have a feeling that outside of 1st world countries (where pets are most common), you'd get much different answers.

Do you eat meat? Have you ever worn leather? Chances are you've consumed some animal products in your life. Now, have you been in a slaughterhouse before? Animals die all the time for us, yes they aren't your animal, but animals tend to have far, far less value to us than people. As they should. If your dog drowned, I think it'd be bad, but you WOULD recover in a few weeks, maybe even get a new one in a month or two. I'm sure the gratitude of humans would help ease the pain till it passes.

Say you backed over your dog, would you feel worse about that or if you ran your car into a stranger and pinned them against a telephone pole killing them minutes later.

Have you ever seen a human die? I hope not, you don't want to. You will NEVER get it out of your mind until you lose your memory from Alzheimers or die. I didn't even directly or indirectly cause a human death and it haunted me for years. If I'd let someone drown, even indirectly to save my dog... I'd shoot myself. You wouldn't sleep properly for months, years maybe, every few hours it'd pop into your mind and ruin your whole day. Nothing would be as enjoyable again. Even thinking about it now is bad enough, and it's been 6 years. It's easy to sterilize it, trivialize it, say it happens every day. But those words won't stop your nightmares.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

Sad fact of the matter is my dog as much as I love him is getting up there in age and he wont be around too much longer. No matter how I shake it losing him is gonna be tragic and terribly depressing either way, but instinctively I know I'd dive in and try to save the stranger. All in all though im not the best swimmer so I might end up drowning in the process.

 

[Someperson307]

I feel like the OP just made this thread because he knew people would have views that didn't line up with his, and he wanted a reason to ***** about that.

 

[Slayer_2]

But you know intimate details about each one of us and everything you said that seemed an awful lot like an assumption was just you gifting us with the absolute truth we were unable to realize about ourselves.

Really, when did I say I knew intimate details about anyone? I just said that it is likely that there are less social people, which is a fair assumption given the location. Oh, and I assumed your dog is less important than your mother, that was really a long stretch. If I was wrong about that, then arguing with you would be pointless.

I believe you're confusing your side of the argument with ours. We haven't labeled our opponents monsters, immature, (possibly) mentally retarded, scum, and so on.

You haven't done so only because you are the monsters. Hard to label someone inhumane for supporting saving human life. Also, I didn't say mentally retarded, stop twisting my words. I said mentally challenged, mostly referring to disorders which would effect social ability and cause a stronger bond to form with their animal (since that requires no social skills).

So... where's the gray when disagreeing with you earns us all a lot in the inhuman scum slot on the morality scale?

The grey would be you saving the human but feeling terrible about the dog. Or saving the human and being a horrible person otherwise. Or saving the dog but blowing your brains out due to guilt a few weeks later. And I don't care about you disagreeing with me, feel free to do that till the cows come home. But if you save the dog and let the human die, you deserve the same fate. "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself".

I don't know if you just consider assumptions based upon your personal experience and feelings as fact, but they're not. You may not be traumatized by killing your own dog, but maybe I would be and I may be completely calm and unaffected by seeing someone die. Hell me and my brothers were joking about the oldest's flip flops and lack of a belt at my father's funeral, as people gave eulogies, because we didn't care. I know that doesn't equate to being calm in the face of death, but your personal experience doesn't equate to everyone else's either.

I'm interested as to how much "fact" you think there is in a discussion completely about morals and feelings. I'm also interested as to what facts you can present for either side of the argument. Of course it is just my opinions, and if you don't like them, screw off, see if I care. The only fact I see is that this thread has revealed a lot about inhabitants of these forums.

I'm gonna make another danged assumption and assume you didn't kill your father. Joking at a funeral doesn't equal killing someone, in fact, I've done the latter. Killing another human is inexcusable, not only in my eyes, but in the eyes of MOST of society (if that is the barometer of "rightness" you choose to go by). Letting a human die to save your dog is practically murder, just for a reason you consider good. If you honestly could feel calm and unaffected by seeing a human die, you scare me. And you are exactly the kind of person who I am against.

Either way, I think the one thing we can agree on is that this is going nowhere. I don't think you're gonna change your stance, nor am I. Is it worth it to you to continue?

 

[Slade Sieger]

I'd save my dog...

I know it makes me sound terrible, but to be fair, she saved me from a bear while I was taking a walk up north. I owe her one.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Most of the time an overuse of big words is a sure sign of a bad argument and/or arguing skills.

You know what the sign of "arguing skills" is? Actually having an argument. Let's proceed, shall we?

Instead of presenting a logical point, the person resorts to trying to sound intelligent by acting like a human thesaurus, but really comes across as senseless (or stuck up) to anyone who can see through it (this is debating 101, come on).

Is that the official term from debating 101? Stuck up and senseless? I assume you're familiar with the term ad hominem attack, as you're clearly a keen student of the art of the debate. I imagine, being familiar with that term, you understand why name calling is not a substitute for an argument.

However, I am not intimidated by your attempt to sound smart, rather I find it quite amusing, I've met more than a few of your type.

Or maybe you don't.

This isn't a legal document, it's an internet forum. For the fun of it, I've given your "rebuttals" gradings from 0 to 5. Higher is better.

I'm sorry, sir. I just finished reading your accusation about the proper presentation of logical points, and now you're off on a tangent about how this isn't a legal document so we don't need to be held to any kind of standard. I would recommend choosing a course and sticking with it, but I guess at the end it's up to you.

My argument appeals 100% to emotion? Are you kidding, we're talking about people who value their pets over other humans and ***** about the state of humanity. I'd point out that this topic is 100% based on human perceptions of what is right and wrong, which could be termed emotional, since it's rather hard to back up with facts (unless you count the ten commandments).

You're right, it's completely impossible to back up with facts. It's an illogical, emotional tirade. It's an attempt by one body of people to impose their values on another. Unless, of course, you're arguing that "right and wrong" are objective concepts, and that you and those who think like you get to be the arbiters of what constitutes "right and wrong".

Don't like it? Get lost, go find a geology debate instead. Grade: 2/5, at least you acknowledge that your first reply was laughable.

Who said I had an issue with the fact there cannot be an argument here? My entire argument from moment one is that YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Nice job putting words in my mouth, since I never once claimed that I care about the common good, or the price of inaction.

Pretty much, there aren't many things more annoying than a hypocrite. You know, except for someone who would practically commit murder to save an animal.

Oh I'M sorry, how did the hypothetical individual in this scenario "practically commit murder" if not through inaction? Were they shooting at the drowning man from the shoreline? It's good you don't care about the common good, then. Which includes, say, the lives of strangers. So we can move along now, that we've established this.

So my valid point that "murder is bad" is moral forced upon us by society is "stupid semantic nitpicking"?

Valid to what? Valid to this argument? There's absolutely no relation whatsoever to murder, and to the question posed by this thread. You're attempting to draw a connection because that's what an appeal to emotion is. You know all about appeal to emotion though, as you're clearly a fan of proper debating form, so I can only assume you're using it on a lark.

Really, this is pathetic, you straw man like no other and are a hypocrite to boot.

And more ad hominem attacks. Have no argument? Attack the person. I do invite you to point out my straw men, though.

You have yet to provide a single point or counterpoint that doesn't rely on sarcasm, extreme exaggeration or trying to demean me with your humorously aggrandized vocabulary (c wat i did thar)?

Yes, I know. Vocabulary. Such a sin. How dare I? HOW DARE I USE WORDS THAT MEAN THINGS.

I have indeed been EXTREMELY sarcastic though, you have me there. As for counterpoints...counterpoints to what? You have no argument.

Out of curiosity, if I told you I want a mass murderer who enjoyed raping little kids on the side, would you withhold judgement and accept my world view on morality? I'm curious where the line is for you, or if you have one at all.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

With a little more effort you'll be at Godwin's Law. Come on man. You KNOW you want to go there, so just go there. It's waiting for you. A fat, juicy Nazi analogy is waiting for you. I want to hear about how the guy saving his drowning dog is now an analogue for Hitler, because we're already at mass murdering kiddie rapist, so it's only a small step away.

All done now? Got that out of your system? You continue to have no argument, guy. I really don't know what to tell you. All you have is moral outrage. That's something, at least. A lot of very fiery orators have made a good living off moral outrage.

LOW VOCABULARY VERSION: U no have argument. U still no understand wat I saying. U tilt at windmills. U no understand good use of analogy. U bad argument make. Stop make argument.

 

[Slayer_2]

TL;DR

Never thought I'd use that, but keeping it under two pages would have been nice. You still presented no points in the minute-worth I skimmed, and therefore bring nothing to the table. Let me take one from your book and say "you have no argument". Bye bye.

 

[legendp]

Huh. There do indeed seem to be more people concerned with puppies than with people. Who'd've thought it.

Human. First. Always.

I really don't understand this point of view. Surely, turning on a member of your own tribe, human or not, is the greater betrayal. I'm not phrasing that as a question, I'm just saying it.

I owe nothing to another human being by virtue of the fact that they are human. What the hell kind of reason is that to betray a loved one? I'm a disciplined man. I almost drowned once off the coast of cornwall because the water was cold and I was skinny and unfit. Even remembering that, I reject the selfishness involved in hoping that others will (in general) turn on their own for me. They shouldn't.

Either people who would are as cold as vipers (unlikely given the tone of most of these responses), OR they have an ambient love for other people that I just have no concept of; as though they're able to see another colour and think it's just the most natural thing in the world.

Well I don't see whatever it is that you see. You're in the minority, actually.

Tribe. First. Always.

My reasoning is simple: Human life is worth infinitely more than animal/plant life. No matter what close relation you may feel for your pet, the drowning person is a person. That is an overriding factor in the decision.

I think you've summed up everything I wanted to say in just a few short words. You win 5 internetz

Then you draw a distinction I don't between people and animals. I haven't seen the hand-held scanner that gives a different "value" reading when you hover it over a person than it does when you hover it over a dog. Until somebody shows me something THAT concrete as proof that human beings are more valuable than anything else, I'll go on making no distinction.

The value of anything to me is in direct proportion to the quality of its relationship with me (or its value to others who are connected to me). If you're not of my tribe and the OP's scenario is afoot, you're just plain out of luck.

So if it is a choice between a million people and your pet you will still choose the pet right because those people are not part of your "tribe", Like I said many times before I love my dog and would risk my life for it, but does your pet have aspirations like going to school, university. and many other things, do you think your dog is worth more than your own life, do you think there emotions and feelings are more complex and valuable than yours. pets can love and care people and they should not be ignored but at the same time they cannot be compared to the life and experiences of a person. even if I have to break it down to mathematics, human life 40+ more years, pets life maybe 10+ years if you need solid measurable equations, as sad as it is to break it down that way. A person will go out and meet other people, they could potential deeply affect 100s of people in there life, your pet will probaly just sleep in your back yard enjoying your company, now thats not a bad thing but cannot be compared to a person

I know there is an edit button but my post is now several hours old so no one is likely to view it. but I would like to add
Is a fly as valuable as a dog
Is a fish as valuable as a dolphin
Is bacteria as valuable as a bird

The answer is a no, just the same as a dog life is not as valuable as a person, and if you think otherwise than (imo considring people will complain if I don't say that) you are being selfish and immoral, and just as you are allowed to argue your opinion I am allowed to argue mine and point out flaws in yours. If you don't want that to happen than don't post . And before someone ses that it is just different values I'm sure a murderer could say the same thing, there was that guy recently who killed dozens of people in hitlers name recently. Now I am not saying you people are murderers but you need to consider the consequences of you actions. There is a reason why saving your pet over a human would be frowned on, because that was not the right cause of action

 

[legendp]

You know what, I actually don't mind the people too much that are saying that they would save there pets and are a bit selfish and don't consider the consequences of there actions (I strongly disagree that they should save a pet over a human but they don't bug me too much). The people on this thread that are really bugging me are not the ones saying they would save there pets, they are the ones saying it was right or ethical/moral to save there pets over a human and that it is just a difference in values. I already have multiple post (like the one above explaining why).

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Well, this thread sure is fun to read.
Chips and White Russians anyone?

 

[bojackx]

Hmm, I hate these contrived dilemmas. And they always are "can only save one" is contrived as nothing is so absolute, especially something like drowning. You should always consider and balance who can stand waiting longer.

And if you get to the point of absolute certainties like "evil guy kidnaps your family, makes you chose which to live" is no real choice. it's like choosing to have your right or left leg amputated with a chainsaw I LIKE BOTH MY LEGS!!! Or something else trite like lose your hand or have your nose chopped off.

There is no right answer.

I'll tell you what I'd do, I'd save FIRST whichever would maximise the chances of the most people being saved. Generally I'd save the stranger first as dogs are generally naturally good swimmers, I've never heard of a dog needing a swimming lesson but generally humans who haven't been explicitly taught to swim drown as soon as they land in water deeper than their nose height.

That's not a valid answer for this question. The point is that you have to make a choice, not that there's a level of problem solving to it, and so the smartest of us can find a way of saving both. The actual part about the way they are going to die isn't really important for the question. He could have said there's two trains; one heading for the stranger and the other heading for your pet, and both of them are unable to move out of the way without your help, but there's only enough time to save one. The idea that you have to choice to save one is still there, but I guess in this one there's fewer ways to poke holes.

It really annoys me when people take apart hypothetical questions and poke holes in them because they can't just make a choice.

Well even as a hypothetical it's awful - as I mentioned - it's like postulating if a psychopath was threatening to saw off your leg and you had to pick which one or else he'd saw them both off, which would you chose?

What's there to discuss in such grizzly matters in choosing between two awful alternatives? Either way it's catastrophic but worse if you make no decision. It's just macabre indulgence in taking unwilling part in horrific circumstance.

The point is you can't possibly NOT try to think of a way out of this dilemma, this is not the way people's brains work, were one of the the few animals on this planet that thinks outside the box. We didn't take the best of two bad options we made a ideal third option and we CONSTANTLY think about that.

Of course in the actual situation, we would try to find a way to save both, but in this scenario you assume it can't be done. I'm not entirely sure I see your whole "What's there to discuss in such grizzly matters in choosing between two awful alternatives?" point. Are you saying people shouldn't talk about depressing things? Because that kinda happens a lot on these forums.

I guess a much better question would be "what's more important to you: the life of your pet or the life of a random woman aged about 30?". At least that one can't possibly have any alternatives to think about.

 

[Treblaine]

Of course in the actual situation, we would try to find a way to save both, but in this scenario you assume it can't be done. I'm not entirely sure I see your whole "What's there to discuss in such grizzly matters in choosing between two awful alternatives?" point. Are you saying people shouldn't talk about depressing things? Because that kinda happens a lot on these forums.

I guess a much better question would be "what's more important to you: the life of your pet or the life of a random woman aged about 30?". At least that one can't possibly have any alternatives to think about.

That's pointlessly macabre trying to rank the worth of life, it's bordering of fascism to take such relative worth of lives when we should care about both of these.

This discussion can never serve to solidify our love for one, only harden us to the suffering of the other.

THAT is what I would rather discuss, how we are so willing to think one life is more important than the other. THAT is important as THAT is going to save more lives. Far more likely than the "really can save only one" is the "it's harder to save both, easy to convince yourself you can only save one".

Indulging in the selfish idea of so easily abandoning "less important" life only serves the latter.

It's grizzly, barbaric, illiberal and has no place in modern egalitarian society.

Why should I have to choose? You wouldn't force a parent to chose which of their children to the slaughter? Not with logic like:

"Are you saying people shouldn't talk about depressing things?"

Yes. Talking about which one you'd rather let die is sick and macabre.

A stranger and my pet may not be the same as my offspring but do I not love them? Would I not be horrified to see them suffer?

 

[DRes82]

snip

That was pretty great. Well said.

Bye bye.

Understandable. His rebuttals were pretty airtight. I don't think that you'll be winning the election after this debate, Mr. Slayer.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

THAT is what I would rather discuss, how we are so willing to think one life is more important than the other. THAT is important as THAT is going to save more lives. Far more likely than the "really can save only one" is the "it's harder to save both, easy to convince yourself you can only save one".

It's garden variety anthropocentrism. It's a central conceit to the mythology that mankind is above/separate/unique, that we have souls where other mammals do not, that we have a divine destiny/right to hold dominion over the earth, etc, etc, etc. There really isn't a RATIONAL argument to be made as to why human life is automatically worth more, unless you're making a profoundly utilitarian argument about the propagation of the species, and I don't think anyone is pushing that particular point (granted, I've not read all 30 odd pages).

Save a drowning animal, save a drowning human. Both are altruistic gestures and worthy of commendation. There's actually an argument to be made that the former is more inherently "noble" because there's no biological drive to preserve your own species at work, but that's not really an argument I'm prepared to endorse because it would just set off a shit storm with the resident brigade of zealots.

Ultimately the majority of people will act in a way that provides the maximum amount of personal harm reduction, as usual. And there's really nothing wrong with that.

Er...in case it wasn't clear I'm generally agreeing with the point you were making there, in a very rambling fashion.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Again, the presence of such moral self-importance and arrogance here is astounding.

Saving a dog over a person is astounding. People are being arrogant because it's pretty obviously selfish and immoral to pick your attachment to an animal over the attachment of a family to their relative.

your cat is not a child, when it dies you will be incredibly sad bit no where near as sad as someone who has lost a friend or brother or mother.

But so long as it's a stranger, who cares? Their pet needs a couple more years a lot more than those other people need their relative.

...I'm still in awe that some people actually think this is a defensible position.

It's more that I need my cat more than I need the knowledge that some other person has their relative. That cat helps me deal with my depression every single day. She makes my world less dark and hopeless. And despite what some people in this thread will tell you, you can't just go "buy another one". Animals do have personalities, and there will never be another cat quite like her.

To save some person I don't know and will never see again, I'd have to turn my back on a friend. The stranger doesn't hop into my bed and cuddle with me when I wake up in the middle of the night crying. The stranger won't keep me from feeling alone when no one else has time for me. My cat is actively saving my life in little ways every single day. No way I'd abandon her when she needs me. Both for my own quality of life, and for the unspeakable betrayal I would be committing, that is as unthinkable as any action I could ever imagine.