Labcoat Samurai said:
Ok, I'll bite. But let's set the stage a bit: since empathy and selfishness are irrelevant (according to you), let's discard the notion of it being *your* pet. With no selfishness, that's an irrelevant qualifier. Instead, we will say that this is a typical animal of the same type as your pet.
Given this new scenario, my answer: I don't know who I'd save. This is assuming the danger that threatens the stranger and the unknown animal is, for whatever reason, no danger to me; otherwise, I *might* not save either. I haven't thought enough about it.
You make it sound little better than a machine. Let's file that away for later.
Animals, including humans, are machines. Natural machines of flesh, blood, electricity, and a bunch of chemicals.
So this is your pragmatic argument? It appears to consist of:
1) Animals are instinct driven biological machines.
2) Human beings have a number of flaws relating to their higher order rational thinking capabilities.
3) ....
4) Ergo, animals are more fit to live than humans.
Where's step 3? Where's the step where you somehow explain why flaws in higher order thought processes make people less fit to live than animals that don't even *possess* higher order thought processes? What value do we assign the life of an animal, anyway? You make it sound awfully low.... So where's the part where you justify this notion that things like gullibility and magical thinking make your life essentially worthless?
And finally, what is pragmatic about any of this? What is the practical outcome you would advocate? All I can think that you're saying is that the death of random human beings decreases the incidence of irrational thinking. Is that what you're saying?
You're missing the part where I talked about precedent. Step 3 would be, as stated, that there's a really, really, really strong chance the stranger isn't a terribly worthwhile human being, whereas MY pet is important to ME.
In the scenario where the animal isn't known, my reasons for helping one or the other -- if I help at all -- change as already mentioned, and at that point I don't know what I'd do.
So you think that you would not even have a marginal respect for the typical human being. It's funny. When I was teenager, I sort of felt that way. I was very bitter about the difficulties I had being accepted as nonreligious (ok, atheist). So I hardened my heart against people and passed off my misanthropy as dispassionate reason. And thus ideas like yours were born. But people aren't fundamentally bad. Over the years since then, I've come to realize I was largely unfair to people.
To borrow a bit from a Men in Black quote I've always liked: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." You seem right on board with the second part of the quote, but think about the first. If you actually sit and have a respectful conversation with most people, you'll find that they don't fit your caricature of the common fool.
Your experience differs from mine: as a kid, I thought people were inherently good, and several large doses of reality -- admittedly, a reality not everyone experiences -- changed my perception. That wasn't a plea for sympathy btw; I want and expect none. Just understand that the idea that people are fundamentally good clashes with what I've experienced and, if I may be so bold, the idea of skepticism -- including atheism -- in general.
Don't misunderstand: I'm not suggesting people are beyond hope or incapable, as individuals or groups, of great things. I'm merely saying that, in the event I had to choose between a stranger and MY pet, my pet is going to win every time. I'm not saying "everyone should save their pets over strangers" or "non-human animals are better than humans."
EDIT - Which, now that I think about it, isn't pragmatic as much as it is selfish. Touche. I'll stand by my newly realized selfishness, though.
