'Saving your dog or a stranger' scenario

[jooxis]

I suppose this could be a debate. Most of you know this question.

If you could only save one, would you save your drowning dog/cat or a drowning stranger? Why?

What do you think is the right thing to do? Is it morally justified to save your pet?

[mangaroo]

On the theoretical level, the stranger.

On the practical level (as I imagine the scenario), I would make an attempt to save both until my own life was in jeopardy. Preserving my life would determine which of the two is saved.

And there are any number of practical scenarios in which you could morally justify saving an animal over saving a human being. Maybe this idiot stole your pet and took it out in a leaky rowboat in a storm. Having placed his own and a defenseless animal's life in jeopardy, he can damn well fend for himself.

[Safyre420]

Personally, I'd pick my dog, but since I do have a water breed there isn't a great big chance of my dog drowning. If the stranger were, however, a child the stranger would be the one getting saved, my dog can be replaced.

[Rawra]

I'd pick my dog with no regrets or second-thoughts. He is like my own brother, I love him way too much to choose a stranger instead of him in absolutely ANY situation. How could I possibly watch my dog drowning in pain, while saving a stranger? IMPOSSIBLE!

[Purity4]

I suppose this could be a debate. Most of you know this question.

If you could only save one, would you save your drowning dog/cat or a drowning stranger? Why?

What do you think is the right thing to do? Is it morally justified to save your pet?

Jooxis, I often notice a subject discussed on another forum I frequent, then I see you post a similar topic here on Mod the Sims. So I've got to wonder, are you a member of Mothering?

[jooxis]

That's actually strange, I've never heard of "Mothering". :blink:
I do occasionally post a debate inspired by what I read elsewhere on the internet, although not just from one website. I did see this one on another forum and found the replies interesting. :)

[anothereyjana]

Like mangaroo, I'd probably try to save both. With me only having one pet, a housecat who's rather small in size, it shouldn't be too hard, just plop the cat on my shoulders on the way to grab the stranger. It's not like the cat would let go, he hates water with a passion (even more so than cats usually do) and he can have a damn strong grip when he wants to.

On a more serious note though, if someone did choose to save the pet over the person (with the exception of mangaroo's example where they swiped the pet), they may have to worry about repercussions from the legal system afterwards, if the family of the drowning victim tried to file suit against you (hell, in certain sue-happy places they might even try and do this even if the drowning victim had stolen the animal), or if the law tried to charge you with involuntary manslaughter (or something of the like) for "not doing anything." It's like what I learned in Driver's Ed, where, if you slam on the brakes (or something similar) to avoid hitting an animal on the road, you'll still be considered "responsible" for the accident.
In the eyes of the law, the life of a complete stranger is considered "more important" than the life of an animal, even if the person is a complete asshole that the world would honestly be better off without and the animal is a beloved and loyal family pet who wouldn't hurt a fly. :(

[jooxis]

Well yeah, I'm sure we'd all try to save both but in the theoretical situation only one should be possible :)

Concerning legality in real life, I don't think you are required by law to save a drowning person, unless you're a lifeguard or something. A drowning person can very easily drown you as well in your attempt to save them, so it is a risky situation. I can't jump in to save a drowning man twice my size as he would likely pull me under and kill me too. So I doubt I'd suffer legal problems for deciding not to risk my own life. But for the sake of the theoretical question imagine that there's no danger for you and no legal aspect either.

[el_flel]

If only one was possible then I think it would be more logical to try and save the person. But I'd be devestated at losing either, even though I wouldn't know the stranger.

[simneesee]

I'd do all I could to save the stranger without drowning myself. I'm not a very good swimmer though, so if I saw the situation turning dire I'd save my dog.

[TheGuySim]

If I had to pick one, it would be my dog definately! I mean I would die myeslf if I saw my dog drown!! I mean, I start worrying when I see my dog following someone on one of their walks down the road from me! And you never know what the stranger would do if you went out to him/her, so I would trust my dog since I know he wouldnt turn on me :P

EDIT: Just realised I cant actually swim myself! (yes I know :S) But I would still try an save my dog even though I'm putting my own life at stake too.

[Dec127400]

i save my dog(Louger) daily he has to take his Insulin shot twice daily :P

[Rawra]

Like mangaroo, I'd probably try to save both. With me only having one pet, a housecat who's rather small in size, it shouldn't be too hard, just plop the cat on my shoulders on the way to grab the stranger. It's not like the cat would let go, he hates water with a passion (even more so than cats usually do) and he can have a damn strong grip when he wants to.

On a more serious note though, if someone did choose to save the pet over the person (with the exception of mangaroo's example where they swiped the pet), they may have to worry about repercussions from the legal system afterwards, if the family of the drowning victim tried to file suit against you (hell, in certain sue-happy places they might even try and do this even if the drowning victim had stolen the animal), or if the law tried to charge you with involuntary manslaughter (or something of the like) for "not doing anything." It's like what I learned in Driver's Ed, where, if you slam on the brakes (or something similar) to avoid hitting an animal on the road, you'll still be considered "responsible" for the accident.
In the eyes of the law, the life of a complete stranger is considered "more important" than the life of an animal, even if the person is a complete asshole that the world would honestly be better off without and the animal is a beloved and loyal family pet who wouldn't hurt a fly. :(

I would prefer to go to jail and be raped etc. rather than don't save my pet. So absolutely no arguments would change a real pet-lover's mind.

[el_flel]

I would prefer to go to jail and be raped etc. rather than don't save my pet. So absolutely no arguments would change a real pet-lover's mind.You can't assume that every pet lover would do the same as you, because they wouldn't.

[Rawra]

A real one like me would. I know at least 3 people.

[mangaroo]

I know at least 3 people.

Does anyone in this thread know fewer than three people?

[MakoPlus]

Theoretically, if I could actually swim and was capable of saving one or the other, I would choose the stranger. Yes it would be horrid for your pet to die and I would miss my dog. But the stranger I'm rescuing could be you or it could be a person who throws dogs in a river (that person would then need to be arrested mind you but that's another subject). The person you could be theoretically rescuing could be my girlfriend or my little brother, and I would hope that you would pick them too. I suppose that's what governs my judgment on this scenario.

[Alan_Gast]

DEAR GOD MAN, MY DOG!!

I couldn't live with myself if I let one of my best friends die over a potential rapist/child molester. Who really knows what strangers get up to in their own houses or what they think about?

I don't care if it makes me mentally ill or weird, but I talk to my dog all the time. That's probably because I've had my dog for 10 years (I'm only 15 since july) and love her so much. Besides my parents and some kids I went to preschool with, she's probably one of the living things I've known the longest.

I'm probably naive, but theres an assole inside of a most people, and I would rather sacrifice myself instead of my dog who has done nothing wrong...

[Rawra]

Me too, Alan. I talk to Chucky all the time as well. And I would sacrifice myself for him anytime!

[fakepeeps7]

Why are all these dogs drowning? Isn't swimming instinctual in many breeds?

[pinketamine]

I couldn't live with myself if I let one of my best friends die over a potential rapist/child molester. Who really knows what strangers get up to in their own houses or what they think about?


So you think about all strangers as potential rapists? It must be hard for you to go out of your house then.

Well, most dogs know how to swim, at least mine does. I would try to save both, but I'm confident about my dog's swimming, so I guess that I would just have to do a real effort to save the stranger. I'm not really a good swimmer or a very strong person, but yeah, I would try to save the stranger first and then the dog if he can't properly swim.

[el_flel]

A real one like me would. I know at least 3 people.So anyone who values a human life over that of their pet isn't a 'real' pet lover? I don't think so somehow, dear.

[Bailey Weggins]

Just in case anyone's interested:
In common law, there is no duty to rescue. A popular example is the drowning child. Someone who sees a child drowning does not have to try to save it, no matter how many dogs are present.
There's two exceptions: if a person has created a dangerous situation, like setting a house on fire, and in case of a special relationship (spouses, parents, emergency staff, babysitters ...).
In civil law, one has the general duty to save other people's lives as long as that doesn't endanger one's own life.

As for myself, I can't imagine letting a stranger die and save my dog instead. I sure love that dog and if someone hurt her I'd go nuts but I guess it's not in me not to save a human being.

[Rikachu]

I'd have to agree with Mangaroo and anothereyjana - I would always try to save both, until my life was in danger as well.

[lenglel]

I don't have a dog, so I'd just put the pool ladder back.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Unless it was a child or someone significantly smaller than me... no. I can swim, but I'm not a very strong swimmer, and there's a reason lifeguards have to be trained to save drowning people.

It's not just a matter of going out and dragging them to safety - someone drowning is usually panicking, and often try to climb their rescuers to get out of the water, pushing them under. Maybe if I had some kind of life vest/floating thing/something, or at least two other full-size adults to help - or if the person was unconscious and wouldn't be struggling. But I value my own life enough to think half a second and realize that A) I'm probably not strong enough to save someone nearing my own size and B) I'd like to continue living another day, to see my kid grow up.

If I saw a child drowning, on the other hand - I think I'd be in the water before I even knew what I was doing. I get a little surge of panic whenever I see a child in public not obviously with an adult, or crying, or looking lost. Seeing one actually in mortal danger, I would find it impossible to NOT help.

Dogs can swim. Or at least, most of them can - the dog can save itself, unless it's, I dunno, freezing water - in which case, me jumping is probably just going to result in two deaths. I love animals - I've had pets all my life. But they're usually pretty good at taking care of themselves, and I'm not going to risk my life to save one.

[appelsapgodin]

I'd just get my camera...

[WayBack]

I would dial emergency and let them decide.

[jooxis]

HP, I agree with your reply although the question is not meant to be taken literally since dogs do swim and drowning humans do pose a threat to potential rescuers - all that aside, the basic question is just which life do you personally value more and would rather save, if you HAD to choose. :)

[kiwi_tea]

Fundamentally, I'd save a person because I value a person's life more than a dog or cat's. There are some strong evolutionary reasons why we favour our own. I would never kill a person or a dog against their will, but I still have a preference for people based entirely on the fact that the choice of which life is more valuable is a very subjective question. Not to mention the social repercussions! Imagine what the poor stranger's family would think of you if you chose your pet!

It's not just self-interest, though. There is a whole other layer of communication and understanding that comes from sharing complex languages. I know to a far greater certainty the desires and complexities of another human being compared with a cat.

It's not just a matter of going out and dragging them to safety - someone drowning is usually panicking, and often try to climb their rescuers to get out of the water, pushing them under.

This is what a lot of people believe, but that kind of drowning is very rare. I live on an island. We're trained to recognise drowning. It's usually very quiet, very hard to spot: http://mariovittone.com/2010/05/154/

[HystericalParoxysm]

Well, if that's the question - animal vs. human, with none of the practical considerations, I'd choose the human. I love animals, I have always had pets, but I do value human life above animal life, if only because the potential for a human to do good is so much greater than that of an animal, and as idealistic as it is, I believe humanity can be great if we as individuals choose to be.

If you want to remove the practical considerations, then perhaps it should be...

You awaken in a windowless, doorless room, with two chambers with windows so you can see in. In one chamber is a stranger - they are medium sized, in shapeless clothing, with a bag over their head - you can't tell if it's a man, woman, or large child. In another chamber is an animal - similarly covered, but you can tell it's an animal - maybe a dog, or a pig, or even a small pony. You notice two red buttons - one on each chamber. A voice over a loudspeaker says, "You have 60 seconds to press one button to release the gas. The chamber whose button you have pressed will fill with toxic gas, killing the occupant. If you do not choose, both chambers as well as this room will fill with toxic gas - both the animal and person will die, and you will die too. Choose."

(The coverings are simply to remove any personal prejudice against, I dunno, men or black people or pit bulls or whatever qualities the individual in the chamber might have that you, personally, might dislike.)

[HystericalParoxysm]

kiwi_tea - Most of the articles I found before I posted said pretty much the same thing though - if you're not trained in saving a drowning victim, you are likely to have real serious problems saving one if you get in the water with them. Even if they're not splashing and screaming, if they're still conscious when you get to them, they're probably still panicking and unless you are trained in dealing with someone like that -while swimming yourself-, you're putting yourself in a dangerous situation. Which was my main point - big enough human, too far out to drag to safety, conscious and capable of pulling me under, I ain't jumping in.

[kiwi_tea]

RE: Drowning, point taken. :)

Lt Ripley saved the cat in the end. Jus' sayin.

[jooxis]

You awaken in a windowless, doorless room, with two chambers with windows so you can see in. In one chamber is a stranger - they are medium sized, in shapeless clothing, with a bag over their head - you can't tell if it's a man, woman, or large child. In another chamber is an animal - similarly covered, but you can tell it's an animal - maybe a dog, or a pig, or even a small pony. You notice two red buttons - one on each chamber. A voice over a loudspeaker says, "You have 60 seconds to press one button to release the gas. The chamber whose button you have pressed will fill with toxic gas, killing the occupant. If you do not choose, both chambers as well as this room will fill with toxic gas - both the animal and person will die, and you will die too. Choose."

Yeah I suppose it would have been a less ambiguous way of phrasing the question (although a strange scenario nonetheless, hehe). However, you omitted a very important part of the scenario - it's not just "a dog" - it has to be "your dog" which makes the difference. The animal you love, have a bond with, have responsibility over vs. a random human being with whom you've no such connection. I'm assuming everyone would rather save a stranger than a random dog.

edit: as for the question, personally, it would be a horrible decision for me to make. I would probably opt for the person, although I'd be VERY disappointed if the person turned out to be a selfish intolerant jerk that the world would be better off without.

[Rawra]

You awaken in a windowless, doorless room, with two chambers with windows so you can see in. In one chamber is a stranger - they are medium sized, in shapeless clothing, with a bag over their head - you can't tell if it's a man, woman, or large child. In another chamber is an animal - similarly covered, but you can tell it's an animal - maybe a dog, or a pig, or even a small pony. You notice two red buttons - one on each chamber. A voice over a loudspeaker says, "You have 60 seconds to press one button to release the gas. The chamber whose button you have pressed will fill with toxic gas, killing the occupant. If you do not choose, both chambers as well as this room will fill with toxic gas - both the animal and person will die, and you will die too. Choose."
In this situation, I'd definitely save the human. I'd save the animal only if it's mine and if I love it very much.

[Mistermook]

I'd save the person, unless they were on the very short list of people I keep on my head of "people who need dying," even if it were some sort of beloved pet in there. I could live with myself if an animal died, but I don't see how anyone could live with themselves if they had an opportunity to save a human life and couldn't be bothered to do so.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

definitely, i would save my cat instead.


pretty much the opposite of Mistermook, i cant see how anyone could live with themselves if they had an opportunity to save a beloved pets' life and couldnt be bothered to do so.

...for the sake of some stranger who has never once helped you endure whatever horrible circumstances youve been subjected to in life, no less.

but then you must keep in mind that if it werent for my cat, i would have successfully committed suicide some years ago. my cat was there when absolutely no humans were. i could never allow myself to do him any wrong.

[Rawra]

^^ Me clickz da agry buttonz!

[lauratje86]

I'd want to try and save both, but in the drowning scenario I'd probably end up not being able to save either, and maybe die myself in the process. I can swim reasonably well, but I've never done any life-saving (well, since I was about 8 and we did one lesson in my 5 years of swimming lessons) and am only small (thin, really, not short) and not very strong. If the person was a smallish child (under 10ish) I may be able to save them. I'd certainly try!

In HP's scenario, I'd save the person. Even if I could see the animal and it was one that I cared about I would save the person. Because they're a person - in someone else's "test" it could be me or my Mum or one of my young cousins in there - I'd certainly hope that people would save me/them over an animal!

[~Dee~]

Without a doubt I would save my dog, who has given me so much love over the years, instead of a total stranger.
I couldn't live with myself if I would let her die, it wouldn't even register that there is a human in trouble, I would just have eyes for my dog.

In HP's scenario I would save the human if the animal isn't my pet, since it's covered up I can't tell what kind of animal it is, it might be something vicious... but then again..so could be the human.

[jje1000]

You awaken in a windowless, doorless room, with two chambers with windows so you can see in. In one chamber is a stranger - they are medium sized, in shapeless clothing, with a bag over their head - you can't tell if it's a man, woman, or large child. In another chamber is an animal - similarly covered, but you can tell it's an animal - maybe a dog, or a pig, or even a small pony. You notice two red buttons - one on each chamber. A voice over a loudspeaker says, "You have 60 seconds to press one button to release the gas. The chamber whose button you have pressed will fill with toxic gas, killing the occupant. If you do not choose, both chambers as well as this room will fill with toxic gas - both the animal and person will die, and you will die too. Choose."


I'd press both the buttons at the same time because it might cancel out! That, unless the chambers are too far apart to do so.

[Mistermook]

I consider all of the "I'd save the dog" responses part of the reason the human race is so fucked up. "Another human being? Fuck that, I'm going after my animal, because I like it." Seriously, that's incredibly selfish sounding and the callous disregard for human life actually sickens me.

What sort of person would any of you think someone else was if they found themselves in the situation and had an opportunity to rescue your loved ones, but chose to ignore them in favor of their animal?

[Rawra]

I'd save the "loved one" but if it's a stranger, whom I don't know and he/she doesn't know me either, why would I save the stranger? It's preposterous!

[dutch]

Let's say my dog somehow can't swim.

If there are people around, what I'd probably do is I'd shout out so they'd come and help the drowning stranger and I'd rescue my dog myself. Because human life somehow has a tendency to be more valued by humans ourselves (whether it's a spoken fact or not) as compared to animal life (think keeping pets and being the masters, animal cruelty and poaching and whatnot). So in this case, where I know humans would likely try and save other humans, I'd go for my drowning dog, whose probability of being chosen to be saved is lower than that of a drowning human, from a third person's viewpoint. Everyone lives.

I mean, that's just the case where this doesn't happen in an isolated location.

If not, I'd go for the stranger, knowing he/she might have an entire family, whereas most probably the only connection my dog has with anyone is with, well, me. If anything, there'd be only one person to suffer from the loss of my dog, as opposed to quite a few if the stranger drowns.

[jooxis]

I consider all of the "I'd save the dog" responses part of the reason the human race is so fucked up. "Another human being? Fuck that, I'm going after my animal, because I like it." Seriously, that's incredibly selfish sounding and the callous disregard for human life actually sickens me.

What sort of person would any of you think someone else was if they found themselves in the situation and had an opportunity to rescue your loved ones, but chose to ignore them in favor of their animal?

This is what I wanted the debate to be about (and not the technicalities of a drowning scenario, my fault I guess for wording it the way I did *facepalm*).

Is it justified for someone to let someone's parent/sibling/spouse/child die in order to save their own animal? Is it justified to ignore your beloved animal when it needs you most in order to save a complete stranger just because he's the same species as you? There's arguments for both sides and that's what I was hoping people would debate/discuss. :report:

I would definitely feel outraged if someone had a chance to save my loved one but didn't and decided to save a chihuahua instead. Although even the pet-savers would be outraged if the tables were turned like this.

[dutch]

Judging by the situation, as my dog has only me, I'd bite my lip and try and save the stranger instead. Not because he's the same species I am, but because the opportunity cost of not saving the stranger is potentially greater (family, company, heck even nation, if he's an elected official of sorts)

[Rikachu]

I consider all of the "I'd save the dog" responses part of the reason the human race is so fucked up. "Another human being? Fuck that, I'm going after my animal, because I like it." Seriously, that's incredibly selfish sounding and the callous disregard for human life actually sickens me.

Humans have the same disregard for the lives of everything else on this planet. Now think about it, if humans -only- cared about other humans, do you think we would be very far in the world? Most of our current medicines would have never been discovered if somebody hadn't of taken the time to think about that plant before cutting it up for their cattle's food. No, the human race is so fucked up -because- we have no regard for anything but other human life.

Back on topic, no matter what, I would save my dog. I agree with SuicidiaParasidia on all points, in the fact that my dog would -always- have been there for me. If there were, however, a way in which I knew I could save both, I would do my best, or die trying.

[~Dee~]

We don't even have regard for other human life, how many people get murdered every day, why should I save a total stranger who could be anybody (good or evil) and let my beloved pet drown?

That is not one of the reasons the human race is fucked up, we are greedy bastards and just look out for number one because the human race is flawed, none of us are perfect.
If my response sickens you, that is totally fine by me but it doesn't change my mind, I would never let my pet intentionally die if I could save it ...let the stranger save himself, he got a brain, why is he in that situation in the first place, doesn't he know not to jump into the water if he can't swim.

My dog would die for me, I could not ignore her if she is in trouble.
Simple as that.

[jooxis]

We don't even have regard for other human life, how many people get murdered every day, why should I save a total stranger who could be anybody (good or evil) and let my beloved pet drown?
That is not one of the reasons the human race is fucked up, we are greedy bastards and just look out for number one

Sounds a bit like pot calling the kettle black ;)

[lauratje86]

When I think about how I would feel if someone saved their pet instead of saving someone who was a stranger to them but important to me, I know that, hard though it would be, I would try to save the stranger. The stranger could be a rapist/axe murderer/pedophile, true, or they could be a beloved Mum, someone who volunteered with disadvantaged children or someone who, if they lived, would discover the cure for HIV in a couple of years time. As I doubt I'd have the time to ask them for their CV, I'd take the chance on rescuing a horrible person because they could be a nice person, loved by many and important to all their family and friends, like my family and friends are to me. No way I'd pick my pet over a human stranger, even though I'd be devastated to lose my pet. To be honest, whichever one I rescued, or if both drowned, I'd never forgive myself for not being strong/fast/smart enough to save both of them.

[MadforSims]

this is the kinda of question that scares me to answer. If i choose the human, i feel bad about my pet. and if i coose the pet, i feel bad about the human. It's kind of a ose-lose situation. there's no way to win. In real life, i'd try to save both, and probably kill myself in the process, because i am a terrible swimmer. However, if i absolutely had to choose, i think it would be the human.

[Eat_ToAst]

Yeah, I don't know what I'd do to be honest. If it were my pet cat, who I've had for 10 years..I would probably go for the cat. It's been through most of my life with me. However..It depends who the human was. A child, yes. I would save the child. But an adult..well I'd probably be a great deal smaller then them so there would be no point.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i dont know, but to me it sounds like a degree of narcissism is involved with the crowd who respond with "i cant imagine someone picking a pet over me/my beloved".


and why, why should i care about someone who has done nothing for me?
they are a stranger. that was in the topic's first post.
a stranger is someone youve never seen or talked to before in your life.


supposing that we're sticking with the stranger deal, what valid reason do i as an emotional creature have for valuing their life over my pets? because i dont have fur? because he cant speak english, he doesnt walk on two legs? i say thats bullshit. valuing another person over a beloved animal is just another form of self interest. that doesnt somehow make you a better person.


and as far as someone saving their pet instead of my relative, friend, beloved.... no doubt i would be upset. but not enough to condemn them for their choice of emotional attachment.



oh but thats another thing.
in the argument of moral high ground...
how moral is it to debate saving the life of a beloved pet over a stranger when that same pet wouldnt so much as blink before saving yours?
why are humans so much better than animals, when we're the ones sitting here going "oh i'd let my pet drown", and that pet (dog) would leap in after you without turning to their pal going "gee i dont know, puppies are worth much more".

ever see a dog go consult his doggy pals before leaping in after his master?

just thinking of people who would abandon that kind of pure love is .... sickening.

[dutch]

Some people simply grow up valuing human life and act instinctively to try and save it. Not everyone thinks you should only save someone or something when you have an emotional attachment to him/it. I'm not saying such people can be found everywhere, I'm just saying there ARE people like that. And because you're asking why, with italics, I thought that perspective should be brought in, too.

People may prefer comparing an animal to a human and vice-versa. But whether you choose to save your dog or the stranger, end of the day, you end up saving one life. It's, IMHO, not about choosing which option to go for to feel like a better person.


And I wonder why you enjoy pressing three buttons after every of your post, by the way. I mean, I might be making a gross accusation, but it looks that way. Not just this once.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Some people simply grow up valuing human life and act instinctively to try and save it. Not everyone thinks you should only save someone or something when you have an emotional attachment to him/it. I'm not saying such people can be found everywhere, I'm just saying there ARE people like that. And because you're asking why, with italics, I thought that perspective should be brought in, too.

People may prefer comparing an animal to a human and vice-versa. But whether you choose to save your dog or the stranger, end of the day, you end up saving one life. It's, IMHO, not about choosing which option to go for to feel like a better person.


And I wonder why you enjoy pressing three buttons after every of your post, by the way.

im asking why as a method to get people to try to think about why they think what they think. growing up a certain way only stands as a good excuse for so long, especially if you learn to think for yourself earlier rather than later.

i use italics, bold, underline and even strikeout to bring more...depth? i suppose, to my posts. something more akin to how i talk in the real world.

as for feeling like a better person...the impression of that seems to stand out in a lot of "id feel bad about my pet but id save the human" posts. it feels like what theyre trying to get across is that youre a bad person if you dont automatically think about humans first. just take a look at how many people who would prefer to save an animal get judged as somehow horrible in some of the former pages of this topic.

as for the buttons.
i like buttons. >:|
what's wrong with pressing buttons?
accuse all you want, i really dont care if anyone thinks i suck because i like to press the Agree, Disagree, Funny, Helpful or Love buttons on my own posts.

[jooxis]

SP I don't necessarily think it's horrible and disgusting if someone would save their own pet - but there were several posts indicating that they would not only choose their pet, but not even feel bad that a person died whom they could have saved. As in, "fuck them, they were probably a serial killer/child molester anyway". I would expect someone to at least feel sorry that they couldn't save the person as well.

[dutch]

SP Haha. Well I just said I wondered why because I haven't seen that happen too often, not that it was a distasteful thing or you suck or anything. That wasn't an attack. So yeah. ;)

And yeah, I guess you're right on your part, although impressions are also subjective to each person. Some people may genuinely feel they should do something because it'll be the better course of action to take, which will benefit all parties rather than just themselves.

Now on one hand, some of us will decide to place trust in people and take their words for what they are, thus believing these people are selfless and brave. On the other hand, some other of us will be more critical and think there's a hidden motive behind such statements, thus suspecting these people are self-righteous.

To each his own, I guess.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

SP I don't necessarily think it's horrible and disgusting if someone would save their own pet - but there were several posts indicating that they would not only choose their pet, but not even feel bad that a person died whom they could have saved. As in, "fuck them, they were probably a serial killer/child molester anyway". I would expect someone to at least feel sorry that they couldn't save the person as well.

i am strongly tempted to say that that would be an indication of something seriously wrong with that persons' state of mental health. O_o
(and for the record, yeah, i would feel sorry for the person i didnt save, and whomever cared for them. im not the teary sort of person, but that doesnt mean i cant sympathize at least.)

though i probably wouldnt feel bad about a killer/rapist drowning. more for their family, but that's a different story...

SP Haha. Well I just said I wondered why because I haven't seen that happen too often, not that it was a distasteful thing or you suck or anything. That wasn't an attack. So yeah. ;)

And yeah, I guess you're right on your part, although impressions are also subjective to each person. Some people may genuinely feel they should do something because it'll be the better course of action to take, which will benefit all parties rather than just themselves.

Now on one hand, some of us will decide to place trust in people and take their words for what they are, thus believing these people are selfless and brave. On the other hand, some other of us will be more critical and think there's a hidden motive behind such statements, thus suspecting these people are self-righteous.

To each his own, I guess.

oh, it wasnt? *puts gun down*

true, impressions are subjective. though i hardly see how letting an animal drown could "benefit all parties" if we're agreeing that this pet is near and dear to the heart.

*shrug* all i know to be 100% are my own experiences, and such experiences could never supply a good enough excuse to pick a stranger over my cat. to let my cat die when i couldve saved him would be to let a chunk of my reason for existing to die.

i guess i kind of see it like letting your own baby drown for the sake of a stranger. your pet loves you, trusts you, depends on you, goes to you when its afraid and seeks refuge from danger in your arms, even comforts you when youre sad or angry or just need to talk/vent without being judged. how could anyone betray that for the sake of a few similar chromosomes?

[lauratje86]

oh but thats another thing.
in the argument of moral high ground...
how moral is it to debate saving the life of a beloved pet over a stranger when that same pet wouldnt so much as blink before saving yours?
why are humans so much better than animals, when we're the ones sitting here going "oh i'd let my pet drown", and that pet (dog) would leap in after you without turning to their pal going "gee i dont know, puppies are worth much more".

ever see a dog go consult his doggy pals before leaping in after his master?

Maybe that would change the situation for me, if I thought that my pet would save me, I mean. None of my pets have ever been the life-saving kind - our dog was terrified of water, and my cat, hamsters and rats didn't think much of it either. I have yet to come across a dog (seems to be the most likely life-saving species to me) that I think would rescue me if I was drowning, but I have met humans who I think would rescue me if I was drowning.

I don't think it makes much difference to me though. I would calculate it in a purely selfish way, really - what would cause me the least grief? And in my case saving a human stranger and letting my pet drown would be (slightly!) less upsetting to me than saving my pet and letting the human drown. Either way I'd be devastated, but I'd rather save the human.

As I said though, not a situation I would ever encounter as I've yet to have a pet that wasn't scared of water! The only pets I've ever had that could even vaguely swim were my rats, and they probably could've taken care of themselves if they'd ever needed to. And if not I could've picked them up on my way to save the human - they had amazingly sharp claws and good grip, I'm sure they could've held on to my coat or something! :-)

[Rawra]

i dont know, but to me it sounds like a degree of narcissism is involved with the crowd who respond with "i cant imagine someone picking a pet over me/my beloved".


and why, why should i care about someone who has done nothing for me?
they are a stranger. that was in the topic's first post.
a stranger is someone youve never seen or talked to before in your life.


supposing that we're sticking with the stranger deal, what valid reason do i as an emotional creature have for valuing their life over my pets? because i dont have fur? because he cant speak english, he doesnt walk on two legs? i say thats bullshit. valuing another person over a beloved animal is just another form of self interest. that doesnt somehow make you a better person.


and as far as someone saving their pet instead of my relative, friend, beloved.... no doubt i would be upset. but not enough to condemn them for their choice of emotional attachment.



oh but thats another thing.
in the argument of moral high ground...
how moral is it to debate saving the life of a beloved pet over a stranger when that same pet wouldnt so much as blink before saving yours?
why are humans so much better than animals, when we're the ones sitting here going "oh i'd let my pet drown", and that pet (dog) would leap in after you without turning to their pal going "gee i dont know, puppies are worth much more".

ever see a dog go consult his doggy pals before leaping in after his master?

just thinking of people who would abandon that kind of pure love is .... sickening.

I completely agree. The pet would be grateful all its short and "unimportant"(for those who'd save the human) life for saving it. I heard of a dog who was in danger and was saved by a woman. The dog was loyal and loving all its life with that woman.

Just give me a logical explanation for saving someone you know NOTHING about, instead of a creature that loves you and would do ANYTHING for you in any situation.

[Purity4]

as for the buttons.
i like buttons. >:|
what's wrong with pressing buttons?
accuse all you want, i really dont care if anyone thinks i suck because i like to press the Agree, Disagree, Funny, Helpful or Love buttons on my own posts.

I should hope a person can agree with themselves most of the time.

[Oaktree]

I would save the person, no question about it. One of the areas in which I do agree with Kant is in his assertion that rational beings are above non-rational beings. This has a lot to do with what HP previously said: humans have the capacity to do good.

Further, many people have argued against saving a stranger by saying that the stranger is probably a criminal. What percentage of the human species do you really think kills or rapes or what-have-you? From my experience, the vast majority of people are either good people, or self-involved, but relatively harmless to others. The majority of people have to be one of those two, due to the nature of human society. To save the animal purely based on the assumption that the stranger is a terrible person is a flawed course of reasoning.

I love my cats dearly, but the only circumstance I can think of in which I would save the animal over the human is if the human were brain dead.


oh but thats another thing.
in the argument of moral high ground...
how moral is it to debate saving the life of a beloved pet over a stranger when that same pet wouldnt so much as blink before saving yours?
why are humans so much better than animals, when we're the ones sitting here going "oh i'd let my pet drown", and that pet (dog) would leap in after you without turning to their pal going "gee i dont know, puppies are worth much more".

ever see a dog go consult his doggy pals before leaping in after his master?

just thinking of people who would abandon that kind of pure love is .... sickening.

What makes an emotionally-based decision better than a rationally-based one? Your dog doesn't have the capacity to rationally decide who to save. You do. Why do you think it's more moral to make decisions based on your gut feeling than on higher principles? And if it came down to you drowning and your dog's best doggy pal drowning, how do you know he'd pick you to save? It may be that his emotional attachment is stronger to his dog buddy.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

What makes an emotionally-based decision better than a rationally-based one? Your dog doesn't have the capacity to rationally decide who to save. You do. Why do you think it's more moral to make decisions based on your gut feeling than on higher principles? And if it came down to you drowning and your dog's best doggy pal drowning, how do you know he'd pick you to save? It may be that his emotional attachment is stronger to his dog buddy.

why my good friend, for simply that they are one and the same.
what rational reason do i have to save someone ive never met before, over my pet whom ive known all its life, other than same species entitlement?
why must i value someone of the same species as automatically better, because they are the same species? what makes choosing an animal so horrible? love is worth saving, ive heard it time and time again...oh but not when its your pet homosexual interracial.

that kind of thinking walks dangerously beside the idea that its okay to side against someone/something for no good reason other than the fact that they are of different appearance, mannerisms, language, abilities, etc.

and im pretty sure my dog does have that capacity.
example: when i was little, my family and i took a trip to the beach. i was...what, 3-4 years old? so very little. my family was off doing their own thing, i was playing in the tide, and then suddenly i was under and couldnt get back up. now, i imagine this scenario would be more 'fair' if there was a puppy also drowning beside me, but alas, there was not; however, the reason i didnt drown that day was because someone--well, some dog pulled me up and out. (the bite hurt, but she let go after my head was above the water again.)

now, my parents hadnt been looking, but after i started wailing, they did help me out. the dog had seen me the entire time, and had noticed when i was in trouble; she had saved me, when my human supervisors (who also had their hands full with my brothers at the time) were otherwise predisposed. (criticism toward my parents is strongly discouraged, thank you.)

my gut has never led me wrong. principles? they've screwed many people over, many times.

in any case, my dog never had a "best doggy friend"--and that wouldnt be the same scenario, anyway, since if we're agreeing that it is my dog, we'd already know each other and the other dog would need to be a stranger dog. :)

that being said, difference does not always equate to inferiority. i do not regard animals as inferior to humans, or superior (before someone leaps up and accuses me of animal worship...you know, the pinnacle of human rationality). just different, and worth recognition and validity.


EDIT: and the people who listed communication as some special key, i scoff at. you know only as much as someone tells/shows you; not necessarily what that person is actually like. you might not like hearing it, but honestly i have more faith in my animals' behavior being related to truth than any humans'. we are not mind readers, nor are we a naturally pious race that only believes in telling the truth at all times. another flaw; not everyone shares the same language as you. would you let them drown for a stranger who spoke your language? because technically youre saying that because you can understand them better, you favor them. which...is...messed up.
a larger potential to do good? maybe. but when you get a peek into some of the most vile, disgusting, evil things that humanity bears the responsibility of alone....you realize that we also have the larger potential for evil. which tends to cancel each other out.
(though another thing on the "oh but MOST of us are good"--id say half of us are good, half are truly horrible. and you dont hear about at least half of those truly horrible people, because theyre too smart to get caught being truly horrible.)

[Oaktree]

why my good friend, for simply that they are one and the same.
what rational reason do i have to save someone ive never met before, over my pet whom ive known all its life, other than same species entitlement?
why must i value someone of the same species as automatically better, because they are the same species? what makes choosing an animal so horrible? love is worth saving, ive heard it time and time again...oh but not when its your pet homosexual interracial.

I gave you my reason. It is because humans are moral beings. They aren't always good moral beings, but they are good more often than they are evil.

that kind of thinking walks dangerously beside the idea that its okay to side against someone/something for no good reason other than the fact that they are of different appearance, mannerisms, language, abilities, etc.

The difference here is that I'm not siding against my pet. If it were just my pet drowning, I would definitely try to save it. I'm siding for the human, though. And rationality/morality are quite different from race/sexuality/gender/culture/etc. The latter are merely superficial differences, while rationality and morality place a being in an entirely different category. A rational being will behave entirely differently from a non-rational being. A rational being has the ability to deliberately change the world.

and im pretty sure my dog does have that capacity.
example: when i was little, my family and i took a trip to the beach. i was...what, 3-4 years old? so very little. my family was off doing their own thing, i was playing in the tide, and then suddenly i was under and couldnt get back up. now, i imagine this scenario would be more 'fair' if there was a puppy also drowning beside me, but alas, there was not; however, the reason i didnt drown that day was because someone--well, some dog pulled me up and out. (the bite hurt, but she let go after my head was above the water again.)

now, my parents hadnt been looking, but after i started wailing, they did help me out. the dog had seen me the entire time, and had noticed when i was in trouble; she had saved me, when my human supervisors (who also had their hands full with my brothers at the time) were otherwise predisposed. (criticism toward my parents is strongly discouraged, thank you.)

The judgement to prevent needless death is different from the judgement of whom to keep from needless death. One is something that we would almost instinctively jump to, while the other requires the weighing of options. There isn't a true weighing of options in the scenario above or in any non-rational being because options can't be properly weighted without logical reasoning.

my gut has never led me wrong. principles? they've screwed many people over, many times.

You may not have noticed the times your gut has lead you wrong. I hesitate to use the example, and you can tell me if I am crossing the line, but you have many times here said something to the effect of you having considered suicide at some point in the past. Suicide is not a rational course of action. If your cat is what prevented you from committing suicide, that, too, was an emotional reason, so both of your considered options used emotional reasons. One of them would have lead you wrong, the other lead you right. It is certainly best that you chose not to commit suicide, but the fact that you had considered it means that your emotions lead you astray on that occasion.

in any case, my dog never had a "best doggy friend"--and that wouldnt be the same scenario, anyway, since if we're agreeing that it is my dog, we'd already know each other and the other dog would need to be a stranger dog. :)

You're right, I'll give you that.

that being said, difference does not always equate to inferiority. i do not regard animals as inferior to humans, or superior (before someone leaps up and accuses me of animal worship...you know, the pinnacle of human rationality). just different, and worth recognition and validity.

I think that animals are worth recognition and validity as well, but I simply think that rational beings should be given more consideration. If it turned out that dolphins or apes are capable of rational thought, I would rush to defend them, but, so far as we can tell, humans are alone in their capacity for rationality and morality.


a larger potential to do good? maybe. but when you get a peek into some of the most vile, disgusting, evil things that humanity bears the responsibility of alone....you realize that we also have the larger potential for evil. which tends to cancel each other out.
(though another thing on the "oh but MOST of us are good"--id say half of us are good, half are truly horrible. and you dont hear about at least half of those truly horrible people, because theyre too smart to get caught being truly horrible.)

I think that it is fairly cynical to say that humans have a larger potential for evil. Simply in terms of capability, we have an equal potential for good or evil, but in terms of personality and innate qualities, I think we are more inclined to do good. Except for sociopaths, most people feel a pang of regret/guilt when they do something wrong. Even those who don't feel very strongly for others will often do good simply because it helps you fit in with society. While it is more noble to have good intentions, actions and consequences are more important. Overall, there are far more acts of good than acts of evil.

I think that it is rather silly to say that there is a massive group of people who are too smart to get caught doing wrong. First, not everyone who does wrong can be smart. I would argue that those who do wrong are, in some sense, rather stupid because they jeopardize their ability to live within human society. But let's assume that there is a random distribution of intelligence and goodness/badness. There would be just as many intelligent good people as intelligent bad people. While it is often more difficult to catch a criminal than it is to commit a crime, most of these bad people will commit multiple crimes, increasing their odds of being caught. In the end, most of those bad people will be caught doing wrong.

I realize that there are a few very prominent examples of bad people doing wrong and getting away with it. There are dozens of dictators who suck the wealth out of their nation to live in splendor while their people suffer abject poverty. But consider how many of dictators that there are and compare it to how many people that there are. The percentage is negligible. Horrible people tend to stand out in our minds, which is why some people think that there is so much evil in the world. But when you force yourself to think about all of the good people in the world and all of the people who simply live out their daily lives, the number of evil people is a statistical fluke. That's not to say that we should ignore the presence of those evil people, but we shouldn't judge the entire human race on the actions of a few.

[Purity4]

I think that animals are worth recognition and validity as well, but I simply think that rational beings should be given more consideration. If it turned out that dolphins or apes are capable of rational thought, I would rush to defend them, but, so far as we can tell, humans are alone in their capacity for rationality and morality.


It's been proven than many species of animals possess rationality and morality. Among them are dolphins, crows, certain parrot species, and elephants.

[Oaktree]

Purity4: It hasn't been proven. Most of the evidence of morality is in the form of reciprocal altruism. Essentially, the animal will do something for another animal in exchange for that animal doing something for the first animal at some point in the future. While that displays a degree of intelligence, it is unclear that it is a display of true logical reasoning.

Some animals possess certain types of intelligence that were previously thought to be exclusive to humans. Magpies, for example, are capable of recognizing their own reflection in a mirror. What degree of rationality can be extrapolated from a test that shows self-recognition, though? Is self-recognition a package deal with all of the other qualities of rationality, or can it exist on its own? We simply don't know.

[simsfanforever99]

I feel like it depends...but I'd probably try and save both...which would be ridiculous since I can't swim anyways...so the poor drowning dog would have 2 drowning humans to pull along...I think though if people were around you could probably just call for help and everyone starts darting over to help...I'd probably grab the dog, toss them to shore then go back in, and drag the person to shore...and then almost pass out from exhaustion

[Pax]

Why are these people and animals drowning at once, I don't understand!? Do I have floatation devices handy? What is the wind trajectory? Dogs can swim! And people, people too can usually swim, so long as they're not wee thangs. Well maybe the dog could pull the stranger to safety, but wait, the dog is drowning...why are they drowning?

/failed the exam

[Robodl95]

Honestly it would probably depend on the situation. If possible I would call for help, ideally I would save both. I would save the human if the human was a child, if it was an adult then I would have to question the stupidity of swimming if you can't but I would still help him/her.

There are too many variables. :/

[jooxis]

There are too many variables. :/

That's why I seem to have failed in asking the question more directly.

The question just really is - whose life would you save if you could save one - your dog's or a complete stranger's. Nothing else matters - why they were in the water in the first place, whether you can call for help, etc... those things don't matter.

[GeneralGerard]

If I'd be dying I'd sure as hell hope the closest human being would save my drowning ass,
get me back to my wife and family, give me the chance to continue existing for the next few decades.
I mean if some one would let my wife die for their pet.
I'd understand the reason, but I'd hate the fuck out of them for it.

If I want some one to save my life or the lives of my loved ones, theres no way I'd ever be selfish enough to not do the same.

In the end you just loose a lot less than any other variable in the situation.
I'd never blame some one for choosing their pet though, emotionally thats extremely understandable.

[Elyasis]

We don't even have regard for other human life, how many people get murdered every day, why should I save a total stranger who could be anybody (good or evil) and let my beloved pet drown?

That is not one of the reasons the human race is fucked up, we are greedy bastards and just look out for number one because the human race is flawed, none of us are perfect.

Sounds a bit like pot calling the kettle black ;)
Hardly, just admitting to being a kettle and not a different form of dishware.



As for me I'd save whomever I could save. If I had an equal chance at both it'd be my pet. But then again I'm only human. I've made mistakes.

[Lavaster]

Human. Plus, can't you get charged/sued if you let them die in order to save the dog? Unless it wouldn't matter anyway and it was a person I despised, maybe the pet would be saved...

[malfoya]

Doesn't it depend a tiny bit on what kind of pet you own? I mean, if I could save a child who has lots of years left to live over a gold fish, I think I would consider the child. But when it comes do dogs and cats it's maybe a bit harder to think like that... since they are more interacting pets.

[jooxis]

Doesn't it depend a tiny bit on what kind of pet you own?

In the question I stated only dog or cat :)

I'd rather save a random dog than my own goldfish, heh.

[malfoya]

In the question I stated only dog or cat :)

I'd rather save a random dog than my own goldfish, heh.

Oh, hehe. I was thinking pets in general.. but well then it's a totally different thing. Though I do understand that people can get commited to their fish or butterfly, that would be a very selfish thing.

I would felt a bit sad if someone decided to save their pet over me, but I guess that's just how life is sometimes. We have to make a difficult choice from time to time.