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

legendp

New member
Jul 9, 2010
311
0
0
legendp said:
Candidus said:
clippen05 said:
omicron1 said:
Candidus said:
omicron1 said:
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

New member
Jul 9, 2010
311
0
0
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).
 

bojackx

New member
Nov 14, 2010
807
0
0
Treblaine said:
bojackx said:
Treblaine said:
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

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
bojackx said:
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?
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Treblaine said:
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

New member
Oct 6, 2010
2,353
0
0
Pandabearparade said:
DRes82 said:
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.
Pandabearparade said:
legendp said:
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.
 

Spartan Altego

New member
Aug 7, 2012
79
0
0
Slayer_2 said:
BloatedGuppy said:
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.
Well that was a pathetic way to say, "I'm done arguing with you because I can't defend my position anymore so I'm just gonna parrot your statement back at you and leave! But I'm still morally superior. So there!"

I guess sometimes immaturity and self-righteousness go hand in hand. Not implying anything that would reflect badly on you of course. Because that would be rude.
 

bojackx

New member
Nov 14, 2010
807
0
0
Treblaine said:
bojackx said:
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?
Sure, there's no way to state that one life is more valuable than any other as fact, but of course some people are going to be more important to you than random strangers. It's not barbaric to value different people different amounts, everyone does it and it'd be weird if we didn't value loved ones over strangers. That's like you calling it barbaric when people on the forums ask "who do you prefer, your mother or father?" because you're stating one is better than the other.

In the question, you're hardly "abandoning" the one you don't save. If there's no conceivable way to save both, saving one is really the best you can do.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Treblaine said:
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.
I think a rational argument can be made on a broader front, if one insect pregnant with larvae is found in your crops, if allowed to breed it will destroy your crop that hundreds of humans depend on the avoid famine. Is one insect - that can live for no more than a year in a simple life cycle of eating, reproducing and eating more - worth more than the lives of many more humans that explore and discover about the universe?

But that's an insect, this is not a black and white issue putting your pet dog on the same level as insects but there is a grey gradient, this just illustrates that we don't necessarily have to treat all life equally or we will end up crippled like Jainism extremists who dare not sit down for they might crush a microscopically small animal thinking it's as bad as killing their sister. Dogs kept as pets are not as worthless as pest insects but there is rational consideration that they aren't indistinguishable from human people.

(I don't see the point in "people" necessarily being for humans, our extinct hominid ancestors were very likely people yet not human, and many of the great apes fit definitions of "people". But I can say with confidence an amoeba is not a person, and I don't have to filter my water for fear of murdering millions of people per gulp.)

What I don't like about this hypothetical is it is asking to accept callous abandonment in extreme circumstances when I think the only rational response is "I refuse to answer the question".

It's like a moralistic equivalent of "are you still beating your wife, yes or no" it's a *gotcha* question designed to make people look bad by forcing them to choose between two awful alternatives.

So I refuse to accept this question. As a free thinking being I refuse to submit to such confined circumstances and I won't give the binary response of "Yes, I've stopped beating my wife" or "No, I'm still beating her" but the rational answer that is not arbitrarily confined by the framer "I've never beaten my wife" and

"Regardless of the relative worth of lives, I'll try to save BOTH, and FUCK YOU if you say I can't, I'll drown TRYING!"
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Treblaine said:
I think a rational argument can be made on a broader front, if one insect pregnant with larvae is found in your crops, if allowed to breed it will destroy your crop that hundreds of humans depend on the avoid famine. Is one insect - that can live for no more than a year in a simple life cycle of eating, reproducing and eating more - worth more than the lives of many more humans that explore and discover about the universe?

But that's an insect, this is not a black and white issue putting your pet dog on the same level as insects but there is a grey gradient, this just illustrates that we don't necessarily have to treat all life equally or we will end up crippled like Jainism extremists who dare not sit down for they might crush a microscopically small animal thinking it's as bad as killing their sister. Dogs kept as pets are not as worthless as pest insects but there is rational consideration that they aren't indistinguishable from human people.

(I don't see the point in "people" necessarily being for humans, our extinct hominid ancestors were very likely people yet not human, and many of the great apes fit definitions of "people". But I can say with confidence an amoeba is not a person, and I don't have to filter my water for fear of murdering millions of people per gulp.)

What I don't like about this hypothetical is it is asking to accept callous abandonment in extreme circumstances when I think the only rational response is "I refuse to answer the question".

It's like a moralistic equivalent of "are you still beating your wife, yes or no" it's a *gotcha* question designed to make people look bad by forcing them to choose between two awful alternatives.

So I refuse to accept this question. As a free thinking being I refuse to submit to such confined circumstances and I won't give the binary response of "Yes, I've stopped beating my wife" or "No, I'm still beating her" but the rational answer that is not arbitrarily confined by the framer "I've never beaten my wife" and

"Regardless of the relative worth of lives, I'll try to save BOTH, and FUCK YOU if you say I can't, I'll drown TRYING!"
Totally. I would never suggest that we don't stratify the value of life, we totally do. It's inevitable. As you say, to do otherwise would be utterly paralyzing. By existing, you're going to cause death. I can certainly understand why someone might value a companion animal over a stranger human, though. I don't believe that the stratification of life necessarily entails that humans always come out on top regardless of the individual in question. There's really no reasonable argument (again, beyond the extremely utilitarian/pragmatic one) to be made why they should. Other than "They're a human, of course they should", as though that in and of itself was sufficient evidence of our superiority as a life form. We don't apply a priori biological instincts to other ethical dilemmas, so I'm not certain why there is this presumption on the part of some that they must automatically apply to this one.

I expect 99.9% of respondents on this forum would, in an ideal circumstance, choose to save both. Which is why the notion of "choosing one is actively endorsing the murder of the other" is such a ridiculous one. Now I can't swim, so in attempting to save either I would simply create a third victim that needed rescue, but that's beside the point. =P
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
bojackx said:
Sure, there's no way to state that one life is more valuable than any other as fact, but of course some people are going to be more important to you than random strangers. It's not barbaric to value different people different amounts, everyone does it and it'd be weird if we didn't value loved ones over strangers. That's like you calling it barbaric when people on the forums ask "who do you prefer, your mother or father?" because you're stating one is better than the other.

In the question, you're hardly "abandoning" the one you don't save. If there's no conceivable way to save both, saving one is really the best you can do.
That's not the barbarism I'm talking about, it's barbaric to casually accept with forethought to intend to let others die.

It's not disputable and quite obvious that people value certain lives over others, it's barbaric to indulge in circumstances of callous abandonment of less valued individuals. It's close enough to abandonment, it would certainly feel like that for them. The differing values isn't barbaric, it's the disingenuous indulgence in "lifeboat morality" of contrived circumstance that sees *necessity* over-rule ethics that they know are the right things to do.

It's like asking what you'd do in situation where a poor black African refugee and your own neighbour waiting to board the last place a rescue chopper out of the killing fields, it's barbaric to indulge in circumstances that makes you chose one life over another. What does that serve other than harden and accept the suffering of those more distant from us.

Far better effort is spent in trying to figure out how to save lives, not which lives we are willing to be lost.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
I expect 99.9% of respondents on this forum would, in an ideal circumstance, choose to save both. Which is why the notion of "choosing one is actively endorsing the murder of the other" is such a ridiculous one. Now I can't swim, so in attempting to save either I would simply create a third victim that needed rescue, but that's beside the point. =P
I'm training as a life-guard and I take this seriously.

By my problem is the very idea of accepting such macabre circumstances doesn't make us better human beings. It makes us more fascist, no matter which we decide to save/abandon.

This is where the likes of Heinlien and Roddenberry differ, Heinlien saw such dilemmas as an opportunity to harden and justify the prejudices of characters, Roddenberry saw such dilemma to drive human endeavour for progress.

Throughout human history, societies have stagnated by trying to chose between screwing one or the other, we only started to really pull ourselves up when we thought outside the box and focused efforts on a third better way, not choosing again between two awful compromises.
 

Slayer_2

New member
Jul 28, 2008
2,475
0
0
Spartan Altego said:
Well that was a pathetic way to say, "I'm done arguing with you because I can't defend my position anymore so I'm just gonna parrot your statement back at you and leave! But I'm still morally superior. So there!"

I guess sometimes immaturity and self-righteousness go hand in hand. Not implying anything that would reflect badly on you of course. Because that would be rude.
No, it was a way to say "why should I argue with a guy who tries to bring science and objectivity into a discussion that is 100% about moral values? The only "facts" here are opinion, and using as many big words as you want won't change that. Hence the discussion is futile, and I do not wish to waste anymore time replying to his novel-sized reply. Plus he's hypocritical, sarcastic, and brings no points or stance of his own to the table.

Oh and I admit to being self righteous, it's hard NOT to feel superior surrounded by a bunch of people who'd let me drown for Fluffy. I can only hope they end up in the same situation so that the world may be cleansed of them. Arguing this goes nowhere, since it is purely based on moral values, and you can't tell the psychopath why murdering is wrong. Why should we waste more time on it? If it makes you guys feel better: "you win, you are superior, I bow to your amazing debate skill". Now, I'm off to do something more worth-while, like whack off.

DRes82 said:
Understandable. His rebuttals were pretty airtight. I don't think that you'll be winning the election after this debate, Mr. Slayer.
Yes, airtight, I'm sure. As much as you can have airtight arguments in a moral discussion. Like a submarine made out of sponge. See above for more info.
 

Spartan Altego

New member
Aug 7, 2012
79
0
0
Slayer_2 said:
Spartan Altego said:
Well that was a pathetic way to say, "I'm done arguing with you because I can't defend my position anymore so I'm just gonna parrot your statement back at you and leave! But I'm still morally superior. So there!"

I guess sometimes immaturity and self-righteousness go hand in hand. Not implying anything that would reflect badly on you of course. Because that would be rude.
No, it was a way to say "why should I argue with a guy who tries to bring science and objectivity into a discussion that is 100% about moral values? The only "facts" here are opinion, and using as many big words as you want won't change that. Hence the discussion is futile, and I do not wish to waste anymore time replying to his novel-sized reply. Plus he's hypocritical, sarcastic, and brings no points or stance of his own to the table.

Oh and I admit to being self righteous, it's hard NOT to feel superior surrounded by a bunch of people who'd let me drown for Fluffy. I can only hope they end up in the same situation so that the world may be cleansed of them. Arguing this goes nowhere, since it is purely based on moral values, and you can't tell the psychopath why murdering is wrong. Why should we waste more time on it? If it makes you guys feel better: "you win, you are superior, I bow to your amazing debate skill". Now, I'm off to do something more worth-while, like whack off.
You just called him a psychopath for having differing moral values? Cute. It's shocking that only after you've seemingly realized you have no more counter-points to give out (which most would call 'Losing the argument') that you say "Arguing this is pointless!" and wishing that those with differing options to yours would drown or otherwise die. That just radiates maturity. Never mind that nobody arguing against you have actively wished for your death (to my knowledge) and you've spent as much time debating the subject as anybody else in this thread.

But I suppose you're somehow special and that of course your arguments have a point to them: It's everybody else who has the problem.

On topic:

Everybody in this thread, including myself, has probably forgotten the most important thing of all: The OP never mentioned any consequences for your choice. It was based solely on emotional connection, like the choice on Virmire. There's no real "wrong" choice because there's no "right" choice except what the reader puts on it. It's disconnected from reality. I'd bet a lot of us would choose differently based on whether there were consequences or not for saving the pet or human.

Slayer_2 said:
Spartan Altego said:
You just called him a psychopath for having differing moral values? Cute.
You just put words in my mouth? Cute.
"Plus he's hypocritical, sarcastic, and brings no points or stance of his own to the table.

Oh and I admit to being self righteous, it's hard NOT to feel superior surrounded by a bunch of people who'd let me drown for Fluffy. I can only hope they end up in the same situation so that the world may be cleansed of them. Arguing this goes nowhere, since it is purely based on moral values, and you can't tell the psychopath why murdering is wrong."

I apologize for my mistake. The above led me to believe you were insinuatiting the person you were arguing with was a psychopath.
 

Pandabearparade

New member
Mar 23, 2011
962
0
0
DRes82 said:
I don't think that you'll be winning the election after this debate, Mr. Slayer.
He has my vote.

Well, not really, I vote for myself. But he would definitely be second or third on the list.
 

Slayer_2

New member
Jul 28, 2008
2,475
0
0
Spartan Altego said:
You just called him a psychopath for having differing moral values? Cute.
You just put words in my mouth? Cute.

It's shocking that only after you've seemingly realized you have no more counter-points to give out (which most would call 'Losing the argument') that you say "Arguing this is pointless!"
I told you, I have better things to do that fight an impossible battle. It's clear to me that both of us have differing view on what human life is worth, and I doubt any amount of internet bickering will change that.

and wishing that those with differing options to yours would drown or otherwise die. That just radiates maturity.
AND
But I suppose you're somehow special and that of course your arguments have a point to them: It's everybody else who has the problem.
Oh, look who's getting on a high horse now. 50% of the people here admitted they would let someone drown, why do they deserve better? Because it's them? Because they're special? Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Never mind that nobody arguing against you have actively wished for your death (to my knowledge) and you've spent as much time debating the subject as anybody else in this thread.
Anyone who voted for the pet essentially has, so a current total of 677 people. I'm a stranger to them, so there is a chance it could be me. And I have, now I realize how futile it is trying to argue morality, since neither side will back down. Is it worth it to me to read about 3-4 pages of text, reply to it all, and have it ignored, taken out of context, and distorted? No, not really. I'll just ignore him instead. Call it losing the argument if it pleases you. What is in it for me to listen to his hypocritical, all fluff no substance ramblings? Nothing.

On topic:

Everybody in this thread, including myself, has probably forgotten the most important thing of all: The OP never mentioned any consequences for your choice. It was based solely on emotional connection, like the choice on Virmire. There's no real "wrong" choice because there's no "right" choice except what the reader puts on it. It's disconnected from reality. I'd bet a lot of us would choose differently based on whether there were consequences or not for saving the pet or human.
I assume it's because the consequences are more or less obvious, and what isn't is left to your imagination. It'd vary slightly person-to-person, depending where you live and how much people find out about what happened (witnesses, etc). Save the human, you're sad about the dog to varying degrees, but you get showered with thanks from the stranger and community. Or save the dog, feel guilty about the human to varying degrees, and possibly face legal action or people generally hating you for a while, depending how much they know. I've also assumed that there is no risk of you drowning or suffering harm if you only save one, although unless you are a trained lifeguard, this is unlikely, however it is a hypothetical scenario.

Pandabearparade said:
He has my vote.

Well, not really, I vote for myself. But he would definitely be second or third on the list.
Thanks Panda, I'll be sure to leave you a spot on the debate team now. But only if you vote for me. Also, why did you make this thread, it brought me so low I considered posting the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme... Most depressing forum posts I've seen since I saw that pedophile forum.
 

Kirex

New member
Jun 24, 2011
67
0
0
legendp said:
Did you purposely not quote my whole paragraph to twist my words, after I finished the sentence about the 8 year old girl I said the age shouldn't matter. I was saying the same as you but making the point that if the poll had asked between your dog and an 8 year old girl than I think the poll would read differently. I managed to come up with these thoughts in 20 seconds, (the time it would take you to swim towards them), this is more than enough time to consider what you are about to do and how it will affect others as long as you keep your head screwed on straight and don't freak out, which shouldn't be hard to do. Like I said I love my pet but I would pick the stranger, It could be you out there drowning after all

In terms of the Robot, I was saying because the robot was choosing the option that benefited itself, The robot would choose the efficient easy way because it has no emotions and does not care about consequences of it's actions, The human would choose the painful sad option but ultimately right (I would hope), save the human. because a Human is capable of understanding there actions and emotional consequences on others, A robot is not.
Sorry, that with the girl came across that way, even if you denied it. My fault for falsely interpreting things.

Keeping your head screwed on straight is harder than you think in such a situation and I wouldn't make any wild claims about that. Well, at least as long as I'm talking about myself, because I know me. You can do that and you're sure of that? Fine, perfect, that's a good trait of character. But you can't just go out and expect other people to be, because it is a very stressful situation.
The "it could be you" sounds like you'd only do it because you'd want other people to do the same. I think you don't mean it that way, but that's no argument for your case, because - as I've already said - I wouldn't judge anyone for saving his pet instead of me or my family members, at least in the long run. And as I also said, I WOULD expect everyone to try saving both. If someone didn't, then I'm willing to talk in the terms of "unforgivable asshole".

Oh, you're talking about that kind of robot. Huh. Okay, then it depends on what set of rules the robot is programmed with. I guess you're right, but who would program an egotistical robot? That's not very practical :D
No, but seriously, let's leave the robot out of the way, I just meant with robot "a guy who always thinks rationally", and picking the human is quite the rational decision. It hurts you more for the benefit of other people.

Slayer_2 said:
Do you hate people who don't give to charity, too? After all, they could save lives, but instead they buy themselves luxurious shit. There isn't even another being on the line, it's just inanimate unneeded shit. By your arguments, you should hate them, because you could be one of the kids in Africa. Do you? And if not, would you kindly elaborate on the difference?

I'm not passive-aggressive here, I just don't get it. Seriously. I'm with you on the "save the human"-side, but I don't get why you'd hate the others.
 

Spartan Altego

New member
Aug 7, 2012
79
0
0
On topic:

Everybody in this thread, including myself, has probably forgotten the most important thing of all: The OP never mentioned any consequences for your choice. It was based solely on emotional connection, like the choice on Virmire. There's no real "wrong" choice because there's no "right" choice except what the reader puts on it. It's disconnected from reality. I'd bet a lot of us would choose differently based on whether there were consequences or not for saving the pet or human.
I assume it's because the consequences are more or less obvious, and what isn't is left to your imagination. It'd vary slightly person-to-person, depending where you live and how much people find out about what happened (witnesses, etc). Save the human, you're sad about the dog to varying degrees, but you get showered with thanks from the stranger and community. Or save the dog, feel guilty about the human to varying degrees, and possibly face legal action or people generally hating you for a while, depending how much they know. I've also assumed that there is no risk of you drowning or suffering harm if you only save one, although unless you are a trained lifeguard, this is unlikely, however it is a hypothetical scenario.
There's still a keen difference between debating about what you'd do in a (hopefully) safe and calm environment rather than actually being faced with the choice. I seriously doubt that more than 50% of the voters here (If you disregard calling for help) would actually let another person die to save their pet, if not only because the sheer volume of social damage that would incur would force them to choose the human.

Add to that the genetic instinct to preserve your species and the rigidly enforced code of morality and socially acceptable actions...well, let's just say choosing the pet becomes a non-option. And I'm still of the belief that a better topic would be "Would you save a stranger or a valued family member/friend?" because many here are of the belief that human life is sacred and above that of animals. It's a better experiment.

...In fact, that sounds like it deserves it's own thread. Gonna go work on that.

Also, apologies (in case you missed my edit) for misinterpreting your words with the "psychopath" comment. You may not believe it, but it was not intentional. Again, sorry about that.