Poll: Who would you rather let die, your pet or me?

[SFR]

The difference between choosing an animal over a human being and choosing a family member of a stranger is that in the second decision, you're choosing a human either way. The only deciding factor you have to go on is your personal attachment. It's is trumping nothing, it's simply a tie breaker. Choosing to save one's pet over another human being isn't just siding with personal attachment, it's deciding that your personal attachment is more important than another human's rights, or to put that differently, it's deciding that another person's personal attachment to their furry life-addition trumps your human rights.

Do animals not have rights? Or are they just not as important as humans? I was under the impression that all sentient beings deserved equal amounts of respect.

I'm not sure where you gained that impression. Perhaps they deserve such respect, but that is not the case nor ever will be. Animals kill other animals; that's nature. We are the dominant species; therefore, the earth as a whole is essentially our play thing. We NEED to kill animals. If you want equal respect for all, then we'll have to start killing and eating people too.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

I'm going to keep my dog alive, thanks.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

The difference between choosing an animal over a human being and choosing a family member of a stranger is that in the second decision, you're choosing a human either way. The only deciding factor you have to go on is your personal attachment. It's is trumping nothing, it's simply a tie breaker. Choosing to save one's pet over another human being isn't just siding with personal attachment, it's deciding that your personal attachment is more important than another human's rights, or to put that differently, it's deciding that another person's personal attachment to their furry life-addition trumps your human rights.

Do animals not have rights? Or are they just not as important as humans? I was under the impression that all sentient beings deserved equal amounts of respect.

There's a reason we don't issue citizenship and voting rights to dogs, cats, horses, and rabbits. We like them and they do deserve respect, and should not be killed unnecessarily, but we're talking sacrificing a human to satisfy someone's personal attachment to their pet.

 

[SirDoom]

The closer something is to me, the more I value it. This applies to people and animals too. Therefore, if I could save you or my pet dog, you would be out of luck. Unless you were a friend or at least an acquaintance, that is.

If the question was "Save a family member/friend or 100 kids you don't know in a country far away", then there would be 100 dead kids. Hell, I'd probably even save my dog over the 100 kids, although there would be at least half a second of seriously debating before choosing dear old Patches.

That being said, if I was responsible for putting both you and my pet in the life-or-death situation in the first place, I would have to save you.
---

I see this as a modified trolley problem. The only difference is that instead of trying to determine if a person sees multiple lives as more valuable than a single one, this is designed to see if a different type of life is more valuable than a standard human life.

I approach this problem the same way as I approach the typical trolley problem- I walk up to the track and see the situation at hand, realize someone is going to die either way, and don't do anything about it. If people die because I didn't pull a lever, then it's not my fault. They would have died anyway. However, if I do pull that lever and a different person is killed instead, I participated in it. Even if the train hits one person instead of 4, I still partially caused that one person's death.

The only reason I would interfere with the situation at all is if one of the parties involved is important to me. In this case, it's the pet. In this case, I pull the lever to save a loved one over a stranger.

(Oh, and I value rights, and hate human rights abuses. I would never kill another person to save my dog, or even another person really. But in a situation of "They're both in a random life-or-death situation that is completely not my fault, I can only intervene to save one, and they'll both die if I don't step in," I pick my personal attachment.)

 

[Vault Citizen]

Tough one, on the one hand I care more about my cat and it being my cat I am much more attached to it, especially given the years I've known it and the fact that you are a complete stranger. Yes that is selfish as the original post says but I won't apologise for that. On the other hand you are a human being and letting you die would be worse and I know that "my cat is still alive" wouldn't be of any comfort to any friends or loved ones you might have.

So I'd probably save you as long as I could bring myself to kill the pet if need be.

Now that I've answered I have to open the window, my cat has got stuck on the roof again and is mewing to be let in >.<.

 

[ThatDaveDude1]

If you want equal respect for all, then we'll have to start killing and eating people too.

Or stop eating animals...

 

[silasbufu]

you I love my cat and I dont know you I mean you could be a rapist for all I know

Best comment ever.

+1

 

[CG NUTS]

you are the wrong one, why is a human life more important then that from an other animal. humans just think there the most important because they are the smartest and think everything on this earth is theres. and i use the term smartest litely. because you can see how smart people are when there still is religion.

 

[nomad240]

I'd save you then I'd make you buy me a new pet .... maybe a bengal tiger.. so we could avoid stupid things like this in the future..... minus the robot apocalypse...

then you need to get cyber armor for the tiger which would get countered by robot ninjas. so I'd have to build a stealth field generator for the tiger with which the robots would counter with heat seaking nanites which would force me to build a hyper coolant system and to seal the cyber suit on the tiger..... all in all I think i'd prefer the hamster.

 

[bad rider]

I love my pet, and I would be sorely tempted to let someone else die to save her. However I'd have to look at it this way, a human being is likely to live longer than my pet, therefore in terms of the quantity of life saved I'd save you. If I knew the op was about to die, e.g cancer and a few months to live, then, unlucky op.

 

[SFR]

If you want equal respect for all, then we'll have to start killing and eating people too.

Or stop eating animals...

That wouldn't stop other animals from killing other animals. If you want equal respect, shouldn't every animal give it as well? Oh, that's right, they can't, because they're not the dominant species.

 

[Ghengis John]

As for humans having an inherent value, it depends on how you speculate on potential and how much you elevate that over current status. Every lump of coal is potentially a diamond, and yet people just burn them!

Actually, once you've pulled them out of the ground the chances of them becoming a diamond are close to nil, for that matter we can make diamonds. In labs. Big as you please. Show me the gerbil who can do that. Humans. Comprehension. Win. Again, seriously you would be torn between an animal and me, a stranger? We're talking right now. We can exchange ideas, you can see that I'm a thinking being and so are you. We might like the same things, we could even be friends in the right circumstances. To me, even if you hate me that makes it no contest.

you are the wrong one, why is a human life more important then that from an other animal. humans just think there the most important because they are the smartest and think everything on this earth is theres. and i use the term smartest litely. because you can see how smart people are when there still is religion.

I don't know how smart you are if you would choose the life of an animal over the life of a human being. But you clearly are one of our rare geniuses with your take on religion. Another, theirs, lightly.

 

[Haydyn]

1. You are not fluffy (to my knowledge)
2. You dieing would most likely not affect my life in the slightest
3. You are going to die anyways; it's sad wehn a kitty dies
4. The world is overpopulated by humans

 

[CarlMin]

See if a dog ever writes a play, discovers a scientific formula or founds a charity. I'm not saying every individual is a noble prize winner, but human beings have more capacity for good, progress or even productivity than anything that barely even knows it's alive. And while the inverse is true, it doesn't erase the fact of the matter. It's the potential of a human that puts them above another animal. Even a stupid human comprehends a lot more of the universe than a creature that stares dimly and eats it's own poop ever will. Does that make any sense?

Of all the preposterously stupid and unfounded arguments I?ve heard in favor of human superiority, this one rather takes the prize.

Your main argument seems to be that because a human, with her superior intelligence, is more capable of filling an important function in our world than an animal, therefore all humans are inherently more worth than animals.

Technically, if the function the creature in question has in this world is the only relevant aspect, then the life of a tiger would be more important than that of a human being. For tigers are endangered, and fill a more important role in the eco-system. There are species of amoeba that have a more important function than humans, but surely you wouldn?t value the life of an amoeba over a human being would you? In fact, humans are overpopulated and one of the few animals in this world that has little to no function or purpose on this earth.
Besides, if a dog can be a faithful, loving and loyal friend to an old, lonely woman, then that dog fills an important function, no question about it. Besides, have you never heard of psychiatric service dogs?

And as to your ?Even a stupid human comprehends a lot more of the universe than a creature that stares dimly and eats it's own poop ever will.?

Normally, I wouldn?t even honor such dumb comparisons with a reply. But I think you should know that animals are not stupid or unintelligent as you may seem.

Let?s first define ?animal?. There is a difference between a fish and dog, and a dog and a Gorilla. Practically all animals are capable of feeling physical pain, so therefore their well-being should always be taken into consideration. All mammals, dogs, cats, horses, have comparably complex brains with neo-cortex and a rich, emotional life. Dogs can be depressed, confused and even develop post-traumatic stress disorder. Therefore, their wellbeing can arguably surpass that of a mentally handicapped human being (the Peter Singer comparison) Gorillas can communicate with sign language and speak of childhood memories. And there is no telling how intelligent dolphins are.

 

[ThatDaveDude1]

If you want equal respect for all, then we'll have to start killing and eating people too.

Or stop eating animals...

That wouldn't stop other animals from killing other animals.

I never said that it would.

 

[ComNetCom]

I don't like the idea of becoming to attached to a pet. I can understand why other people do but I still have a sense of hiërarchy I suppose ("Humans > Pets", not that I consider this a uniform rule).

So I suppose I'd let you live over a pet. Then again I've never really had a (serious) pet before.

I guess I'm not really qualified to vote?

 

[NathLines]

OP's profile says his occupation is a college student. You can't go to a pet store (or anywhere for that matter) and buy a college student like you can a dog. A lot of time and effort has been invested in the OP and those around him to get him where he is, and you would let all of that potential go to waste for a dog? A dog will only ever sit there and be happy, making you happy as well simply by not being a douche, what would it ever do in the grand scheme of things? The biggest thing it could do to influence others would be to pull a Napoleon and dive overboard to save a person that would do something important.

As I said, this depends on values. People has killed for money because they value money more. People have waged war for money/resources/religion because they value them more. Reason and logic do play a part in how we value things but some values are just hard to change. I simply value a cat or a dog of mine more than a complete stranger. A companion that sits around and "simply" not being a douche or a stranger that could potentially have potential for something? I'll go with whatever non-douche I can get my hands on.

And what's with this grand scheme of things? Have I missed that we're all part of something bigger? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

A better way to look at it would be would you rather save a friend or a dog? I feel this is applicable because the OP is a friend to many people, though they may not be you. Where you will mourn the dog's death for a time, you will probably eventually buy a new one (as heartless as that sounds, I've seen it happen time and time again, with my family and others), nobody can replace what the OP could have done for the world with the education he has and is getting.

No, it's not applicable. That's like telling people to leave Hitler alone because he had family and friends. He was probably admired and liked by more people than OP. That doesn't stop people from saying that they'd kill Hitler in "If you could travel back in time"- or "If you could kill one person"-threads.

Do people get new pets when their current ones die? Some do, some don't. Do people move on and begin dating again when a lover dies? Some do, some don't.

Also, "nobody can replace what the OP could have done"? As he is a stranger to me, he can be replaced with anyone else. Any accomplishment he might have made would probably be made by someone else, although maybe later.

 

[CarlMin]

I've met too many jerks that don't deserve the gum off the bottom of my shoe. You may be a fine upstanding citizen but I don't know that, you could just as easily be the next Hitler. Therefore, I will save my cat Walrus.

What if Walrus will be the next Hitler?

I know I will follow him if he does! I mean who is going to argue with a cat that can talk and goose step?!

I would. I'm really more of a dog person

 

[Ironic Pirate]

You. And I don't think it's selfishness. Because for all I know, you wouldn't really die. You might be a serial rapist/Hitler clone. All my dog is is adorable.

 

[Way]

it's deciding that another person's personal attachment to their furry life-addition trumps your human rights.

You have no right that demands I save you. Your right to life is to prevent me killing you, but does not require that I endanger myself. To do so would imply your life if more valuable than mine.