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

[Ghengis John]

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.

Yes more or less. His or her. In a life or death situation. However, you missed something important about that "functionality" that I'll expound upon.

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.

Why is the life of a tiger more important than the life of a human being? What grand function does the tiger serve? It kills things to eat them. Humans can do this remarkably well. In that function of the eco-system no tiger can best a human. What a human cannot do however is to be a tiger. You have left the thread behind and wandered into an eco-warrior bunker. The question was life or death, your pet or a human. Now you're talking about the eco-system. I think it's wrong for a human to wander into a tiger's territory and take it for themselves we can make due with what we have and it's insulting that you would assume I have no love for nature or appreciation for conservation. However, given the choice between saving a human and a tiger, I would save the human, because I am a human and I would want to be saved.

Are you saying that a human life has no value because there are so many of us? I fail to believe that were you pressed you would not defend your own life. Similarly, most people could not see someone get swallowed up by a mudslide right before their eyes and not start digging. As you want to live, so too do others. To be able to do so and fail is a cowardly hypocrisy especially if in your life others have helped you. The tiger too, perhaps wishes to live, however it would not help you. Forgive me, but in my eyes there is no choice at all and nothing to vacillate over. I would regret the loss of a tiger it is a rare and precious thing, but I would not be able to forgive myself for the death of a human. They would no doubt feel the same things and think the same things that I would in their place. The tiger is a creature of instinct. It is true in the function of being a tiger there can be no equal to a tiger. The genuine article cannot be substituted in this case. However in the function of being a tiger you must accept that the tiger must kill things to eat them and survive. And so you have judged the lives of the animals that the tiger must kill to be worth less than the life of the tiger. If it is wrong to make such judgments then why have you made one? And if it is acceptable to condone that one creature can have more value than another, than why not a human over a tiger?

As for these amoeba I can't imagine which they are or what they do, however you missed something. The things I named were all related to human endeavors. An amoeba will have no appreciation for a play, but a human can have appreciation for an amoeba. That said, why should an amoeba care about scientific theorems or human charities? It doesn't. If you want to believe that humans are worth less than dirt than nothing we do is worth dirt. Amoebas really only exist for the same reason that you or I do, to live and multiply. They won't ever contemplate if it's wrong to kill or take life to distant planets. How much you value these activities is entirely relative but I do feel genuinely sorry for you if you think less of human life than you do of an amoeba.

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?

I have heard of them. And they are trained, by humans. Kept, by humans. Funded, by humans. And raised merely to serve, humans. To argue that a creature meant to help humans should live when a human should die seems like a betrayal of intent doesn't it? I mean that human could contribute their time in exchange for the dog's, providing conversation, training countless numbers of dogs or serving medical functions. From a perspective of functionality any one human trumps any one dog. Furthermore in acknowledging the importance of these animals in a purely servile position to humans you acknowledge the superiority of humans as worthy of serving.

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.

How is that dumb? It is true, you simply found it distasteful. You could not for all the world teach a dog calculus. I never said animals have no intelligence, or emotions, simply that a human possesses more comprehension and the ability to reason. Your point is neither here nor there. Having a "rich emotional life" does not connotate understanding, an inner monologue or consciousness of thought, self or mortality and humans with their intelligence can experience emotions most animals couldn't hope to such as romantic love. Being able to feel physical pain does not make something intelligent, it simply means it has a nervous system and where did I say animals should be mistreated?

Let?s first define ?animal?. There is a difference between a fish and dog, and a dog and a Gorilla.

NO! Do tell.

Gorillas can communicate with sign language and speak of childhood memories. And there is no telling how intelligent dolphins are.

Unless your pet is a gorilla or a dolphin I don't see how it relates to the conversation at hand. We were, again, talking about pets. I have never seen a dolphin eat it's own poop, though I'd imagine it can't be easy. I am certain though that dolphins posses a concept of self. They have sex for fun, like humans, recognize themselves in mirrors and communicate with language. It is a little hard though to imagine a situation where it would be a human's life or a dolphin's. I mean you usually don't spot them outside of the water and even then they can take care of themselves there a lot better than we can. If it makes you happy, if my pet were somehow a dolphin and you and it were in trouble I'd probably help my dolphin and let you die as a way to say thank you for all those sailors his people have saved. I mean how often do you get to help a dolphin? Otherwise I'm picking you and letting the animal die. Sorry man. We're all proud of you now get down from your soap box before you break something.

 

[Beliyal]

I didn't answer simply because it depends on the situation.

This kind of situation is pretty extreme; under which circumstances would anyone be forced to choose whether they will save a human being or an animal? Why not both? I know it's hypothetical, but I can't wrap my mind around any possible example. If my pet had rabies and was attacking you, I would save you of course. If you were beating my pet for no obvious reason, I would separate you from my pet, but I would sure as hell call every single person on Earth to tell them what kind of a scum-bag you are for hitting an animal (hypothetically ). If it was any kind of an accident where I had to think in seconds, I would save a familiar face. Whether it was my cat, brother, parents, friend, even a random person I sometimes see around in my building. My instinct would immediately grab the familiar face. In such moments, you have no time to evaluate the worth of someone's life; you do whatever first comes to your mind. Granted, some people are wired to help you, some are not. It's not about selfishness or anything similar.

This might make you feel better; I risked my own life for a random animal on the street. It wasn't even my pet. It just happened, instinctively. I saw a little kitty on the street and a car coming towards it. The kitty was too small to think or move (and to be seen by the driver), and my first reaction was to run into the street to make the driver stop for me. The car didn't really had a chance to hit me, but it could've happened. Luckily, when I ran out in front of the car, the kitty got scared when I approached and ran off the street. And it hit me (no pun intended) only a few minutes later; the fact that I genuinely risked my life for a random animal. Sure, it wasn't that close; even if the car did hit me, I would maybe be bruised a little, but you never know. And it made me realize that there is no "rational thinking" in such situations. You do what you're wired to do. I'm very empathic and if I could save a living being, I will. In your hypothetical situation, I would be more empathic for someone I recognize, live with and love. Although, I can't really guarantee that, in the said situation, I wouldn't act differently than what I expect I would act. I mean, if somebody asked me would I ran in front of a car for a random animal, I would most probably have said "No", and yet, I actually did when it happened.

 

[Maze1125]

And on superiority, if you do believe your dog/cat/fish/pet scorpion is equal or better than a human, that is indeed your opinion--but it is not the case in law,

Laws are made by humans.
What a shock!

rights,

Rights are either human opinion, or laws made by humans.
Again, what a shock they favour humans!

intellectual capacity

And?
Cheetahs are faster than tortoises, does that make them superior?
Only if you choose to value speediness, and that's an opinion.

or potential.

That's an unbelievably generic claim with no substance whatsoever.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

I'd save you, but it would kill me. Although, I disagree with some of your edits. Your cat doesn't exist solely to please you, it exists as it's own entity to please itself, and may not have aspirations, family (it cares about) and friends, but it's right to life is significant, and since you've taken it in as your own it's your responsibility to see it doesn't come to harm (as food per say). If it's happiness brings you mutual happiness, that's good. I feel like I'm preaching, maybe I am, because I feel you know all this, but it's definitely worth mentioning I think.

Seconding you later say "kill my cat". The question never specified I had to actually do the killing, just that one would die as a consequence of an action in an emergency. If I had to kill, especially without a tool (say a gun), I'd find it extraordinarily hard. So conflicted would I be, I'd likely freeze up completely. I'd like to say I could kill my dog or my cat, rather than allow you to passively die, but the passive is an easier choice than the active, and in that sort of horrific scenario I'd have to completely detach myself... I'd try to save you.

If it was actively kill you or my dog / cat, same scenario, I wouldn't even consider killing a stranger.

 

[Maze1125]

How mentally disturbed are we talking here because if it is like an animal where all it's cognative thought process is non-existent over a healthy man with family yes I would choose the person

And how exactly would you determine how much cognitive function he actually had?
He's not going to manage any IQ tests, but how can you be sure that means he has no thoughts?

And, again, this isn't just a random disabled person, this is you friend who happens to be mentally disabled.

 

[Crimsane]

I'd save you, so that I could extort favors out of you for the rest of your hopefully long life. ^^

 

[Walter Sobchak]

And on superiority, if you do believe your dog/cat/fish/pet scorpion is equal or better than a human, that is indeed your opinion--but it is not the case in law,

Laws are made by humans.
What a shock!

rights,

Rights are either human opinion, or laws made by humans.
Again, what a shock they favour humans!

intellectual capacity

And?
Cheetahs are faster than tortoises, does that make them superior?
Only if you choose to value speediness, and that's an opinion.

or potential.

That's an unbelievably generic claim with no substance whatsoever.

I think the substance is made by the fact that we made the claim and we are the only ones who understand it personally I love my dog but as long as it can't write on a forum we are more superior

 

[Walter Sobchak]

How mentally disturbed are we talking here because if it is like an animal where all it's cognative thought process is non-existent over a healthy man with family yes I would choose the person

And how exactly would you determine how much cognitive function he actually had?
He's not going to manage any IQ tests, but how can you be sure that means he has no thoughts?

And, again, this isn't just a random disabled person, this is you friend who happens to be mentally disabled.

we are talking about quality of life at this point as much as I would like my friend if he can't think his quality of life is less than that of a man who can think

 

[Resetti's_Replicas]

I'd save you, so that I could extort favors out of you for the rest of your hopefully long life. ^^

I picked "Kill OP", but that might change my mind. Are we allowed to do that?

 

[Baneat]

If I had 100 cats I loved dearly...

The OP. Not even a second thought.

 

[red the fister]

part of owning a pet is having that "helpless" animal depend on you for protection. i have a responsibility to my pets that i do not have towards you. it's similar to being a parent, and yes, i'd save a child over a pet: but i'd go back for my pet

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

You just proved his point.

In my opinion, the value of human life is far too important. A pet, though another living thing, doesn't have the same potential of making an impact on the world as an intelligent human being does. My pet is for me, for my entertainment and unconditional love. It's death will only impact me. The death of a person? Who knows how many people his death would impact. How many family members' lives will change without him. What impact he may have had on the world and community around him. I don't know, no one does. But are you willing to risk that? Are you willing to risk the emotional pain and the wasted potential of the death of a human being just because he's one in trillions on this earth?

I don't belittle you for your decision. It was my choice too after all. What I find most important in these kinds of questions is to gain as much insight and perspective on both sides of the issue so that we may make a fully realized and conscious decision.

To me, it's like he said. It comes down to two things: selfishness or big picture?

The vibe I get is that he thinks we should all be bleeding hearts, that nobody should ever hurt and that we should care about every single little insignificant ant on this planet. I have a more realistic point of view, in that I should only care for the ants I have a vested intrest in lest I go completely insane. What he calls "selfish" I call "Looking out for one's sanity".

You're right, that would be a seriously unhealthy attitude to take. Sort of a Spider-man syndrome. Problem is that's not the point. No one should take on the responsibilities of the world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be inconsiderate of our actions and how they affect the people around us. It's not about helping out everyone you see that needs saving; it's about being conscious of your own actions and your direct impact on the world around you, something that you can be accountable for. The death of human over an animal was your direct decision in this issue, whether right or wrong, whether selfish or not. Now your accountability for that action is what's put to the test. Everything we do, every impact we make in life, we are accountable for it and must take responsibility. Question is, is it something you want to be accountable for?

 

[Mr.logic]

Even If I love the pet I can never compare it to a human life. I choose to save you.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

I think that this can be solved with a simple question what would keep you up at night killing your dog or walking up to someone on the street and murdering them

 

[GeneralFungi]

I love my cats, but as a human, we have to stick together.

I'm sure my cats would understand.

 

[Maze1125]

If you died tomorrow, your cat would not even notice the difference if it still got its food.

Oh bollocks.
That's exactly the sort of thing people like you say all the time and it is total bollocks.

I don't live with my old cat any more, only my mother does. My cat gets fed regularly by her, in fact when I did live with the cat, I was never the one to feed it.

And yet, somehow, whenever I go back to my old house to visit, the welcome I get from the cat, that I never once fed, is huge. In fact, it's greater than the welcome I often get from my own children. Although that's not a fair comparison, as I tend to only leave them for at most a couple of days at a time.

Still, the idea that pets don't care about humans beyond their next meal is just plain utter nonsense that anyone could see if they didn't purposely blind themselves to the way non-human animals behave.

If the person's parents are still alive, you have just killed their child.

Yep, I saved my disabled friend who has no parents and let someone with parents die. I'm a selfish bastard.

Please point out where I said the relationship "transcends death".

I never said you did say that.

I said that relationships between humans are deeper and more complex than relationships between humans and animals can ever hope to be.

And your example for that has how humans react when other humans die. Which, as I pointed out, is pretty damn similar to how people react when their pets die, just to differing degrees. The only exception being the parent-child relationship which is intrinsically biased due to evolution and so inappropriate for the example.

And like I said before, I don't care if you save your handicapped friend over another guy with family. It's your choice. You're still saving a human for another human, something I can support no matter the circumstances. It's only saving an animal over a human that I don't tolerate.

Yes, I know you said that, because that is exactly the thing that I have a problem with.

The only way this disabled person is different from a dog is that he is a human. He corresponds exactly with a dog in every single one of your arguments as to why humans are more worthy of life and yet you still attribute that same superiority to him even though he fails the very tests you give out yourself

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

We care for them, we love them, we feed them, we teach them if we can, we watch them grow. I've had a lot of pets, and so have the people in my family; but these bundles of cuteness or interesting, unusual pets really draw out our maternal or caring side.

And on superiority, if you do believe your dog/cat/fish/pet scorpion is equal or better than a human, that is indeed your opinion--but it is not the case in law, rights, intellectual capacity or potential.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a child substitute though. I mean, I guess it makes sense with the rabbits your friend had, but I go for dogs. And not some fluffy thing, a goddamn working dog. That thing ain't your child, it's your brother. They're tougher, more intelligent, less demanding, less work, and more loving than a lot of humans I know. And yes, I stand by the "intelligent" part.

Again, that only applies to a small minority of pets, but it's MY minority.

I mean that all said, humanity as a whole is superior to animal-kind. Why this thread is interesting is because we're talking one-on-one.

Ah working animals, companions and helpers on the job, good things. Although that is more in a class of its own, the working dog, and less tied to the pet and what that typically entails and the culture around it. Thanks for your input.

To the people that argue animals are equal or superior, I've heard this before and I'll put it this way. What beagle has built or steadily filled a library with literature and science over generations? What canary has opened a shop to sell goods and make the lives of other canaries (or people) better? A cheetah is fast (although not a typical pet by any stretch) but does it catch violent criminals in a society, or does it run into burning buildings and carry out the helpless or injured? Some animals have languages as identified, but have they developed or used telecommunications? Animals can eat, but can they cook and present a fine meal (a croc leaving a corpse to rot under a log does not count, lol). Various types of monkeys can be intelligent, but have they ever written a screenplay, novel or persuasive essay? Ants are industrious (some of the time) to our perceptions, and cultivate fungus, but do they plant and nurture varied crops of wheat, fruits and a variety of vegetables? Pack animals bully or follow but have they ever created and institutionalised something like the code of Hammurabi or any code of jurisprudence? Lizards bask on hot rocks, but have they ever used solar power for their benefit, and so they didn't have to go outside and be vulnerable to predators? Animals can sometimes heal injuries and some are better at this than others, but has any non-human animal species ever developed medicine and acted to improve and refine its treatments?

The superiority of humans is plain if you move beyond emotion swaying your opinion and examine history and multiple human civilisations. I'm a sociologist, so this is somewhat my area.