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

[Adultism]

I don't care about random strangers. However, I am also not a murderer. I won't intentionally kill someone. That's the inherent difference between your hypothetical and the original. One requires intentionally harming someone, the other requires simply valuing your pet more than the stranger.

Please read my post:

"If someone went "Well i care about the person but i care about the dog more" id understand. Thats perfectly reasonable and it explains why they wouldnt pick the 10 dollars. When someone goes "I dont care at all about random people and id save the dog" i think wait a minute. If you dont care about random people at all then youd care about any material possession more right? So if given the choice between a life and some money youd pick the money, caring about one but not the other?"

If you choose the dog that says nothing about you really. Nothing special.

However if you choose the dog and say "I choose the dog because the stranger has ZERO value to me, not because i value both and the dog means more" it shows that you would value ANYTHING (even 10 dollars) above a random human.

If you place zero value on a human life and 10 dollars of value on a 10 dollar bill why would you ever pick the worthless human life over the worthwhile money? Youve just admitted that your value system places objects higher than random people. Therefor if you had to make a choice between material goods and people youd pick material goods.

The answer to the question in the OP means little. The motivation reveals a lot.

So a person has to couch their response in language so specific that you don't have to try to read between the lines to reckon they wouldn't Merc out at the slightest opportunity?

Sir, you are either being deliberately disingenuous or lazy.

To say that one cares little about a stranger is not the same as saying one values material gain over said stranger (whatever the number of either).

What is more, your rather egregious example fails to reconcile a major factor that would influence a person's decision were they given this rather suspect opportunity to Merc Out. That is to say, you forget that people think.

Possible thoughts:
"Wow, this is all very convenient."
"Can I trust this person?"
"Who are these people, and why is it so important that I'm the one that pushes the button?"
"Why is it so important that they die, or that they suffer so?"
"Why me?"
"Who profits from this?"
"Who's acutally going to get blamed, if not me?"
"While there will be no immediate rammifications, what will this be setting in motion?"
"This can't be right."
"This person is lying to me."
"Get the hell out, now."
"Is this person going to kill me if I refuse? They set this whole unsavory thing up. Why wouldn't they?"

Please note, none of these thoughts are granting any inherent, personal value to the people being killed.

Were people as simple as you claim. The world would be so easy to deal with.

I think this man may just be picking a fight or something. Any rational person would not press the button and just because someone doesn't care about random people does not mean they would kill them for money. I mean some people would but MOST would not. I think it just comes down to this guy is either trying to get an argument for argument sake or he sees things in black and white.

I do see what he is saying now though, by choosing your pet over a person and saying that you don't care if the person dies as long as you save the pet you could theoretically be subject to the 10$ debate because you did not feel bad for the strangers death so why should you feel bad for killing 2000 people? I mean I doubt the other guy sees it that way but I do see where this guy is coming from now.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

If you place zero value on a human life and 10 dollars of value on a 10 dollar bill why would you ever pick the worthless human life over the worthwhile money? Youve just admitted that your value system places objects higher than random people. Therefor if you had to make a choice between material goods and people youd pick material goods.

You're discounting a lot of external variables, with fear of detection and retribution/punishment probably being the biggest one, that could have more value than the paltry $10 on offer even with human life at zero value.

True, but in any hypothetical scenario in which chances of being caught are VERY low (in real life this happens, i had NO way to identify or report my mugger at all) they should logically be doing these things.

That's a non-example. Muggings don't get entire groups of nations demanding answers while mass murder has a definite tendency to result in exactly that. Hell, 2000 dead will get label as terrorism and/or a crime against humanity, either of which results in a fuckload of people being interested finding out what happened.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

I'm not great at swimming but even if I was a world champion swimmer jumping into a whirlpool would probably just get all three of us killed. But if you take the whirlpool out of it and it is just save a pet or a stranger then I would save the stranger.

 

[DazBurger]

My dog have as much right to live as any person.

 

[SlamDunc]

I dont have a pet but I probably still would not risk my life for a stranger. My reaction would be more of "Damn, that guys drowning." and look around to see if there is anyone who might be able to help. I don't even think I would jump in for most of my family.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

That's a non-example. Muggings don't get entire groups of nations demanding answers while mass murder has a definite tendency to result in exactly that. Hell, 2000 dead will get label as terrorism and/or a crime against humanity, either of which results in a fuckload of people being interested finding out what happened.

The 2000 is arbitrary. If human life is worthless then anything times 0 is still 0 meaning the number of people harmed for any reward is inconsequential in a hypothetical where being caught is impossible. Its a fact of reality that any hypothetical can be destroyed by adding details endlessly to prove its impossible. Thats why its a hypothetical. It also doesnt render hypothetical useless. My underlying point still stands that if someone holds life to be worthless and any material object to be of worth then the trade is self evident to that person.

 

[teebeeohh]

if an animal in my life ever counts as a pet it is most likely the pet of my partner and i have to put up with it so i most likely threw it in the water myslef.
however if my external hard drive(and backup) were drowning in a bag i would totally go for that

 

[Savryc]

I'd save the stranger, I can buy a new fucking pet that would love me just as much like the slobbering fools that they are. But you can't buy a new brother/sister/mother/father etc.

I'd be sad but not as nearly sad as the victims family would be, if I lose my pet only I suffer and even then not for long and I'm sorry but there is no way I could condemn a person to die for a ball of fur, I couldn't swim out there, ignore the screams and pleas of said stranger, scoop up a dog and fuck off. I'm not any where near that callous.

So sorry pooch, but you're going under.

 

[Caliostro]

If I could only save one of them: My pet. No question. No second thoughts either.

I don't see why I should inherently put a human's life above another animal's. A life is a life, it's all the same shit. I know my pets. They're awesome. They're friends and family, and you can bet your ass I care about them a great deal more than most people I've met, let alone ones I didn't.

I wouldn't have an issue killing someone to save them let alone pick who to save.

If you would save a stranger first then you don't deserve your pet's love. I'd bet the house that, were it the other way around, they'd save you in a heartbeat.

The ignorant backwards mentality that somehow humans are "special" "sacred" animals belongs two or three centuries. We're over that shit.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Save the stranger. The pet I can mourn later. I just couldn't face knowing that I had the opportunity saved a person's life and chose not to. I would be as if I'd killed them myself.

Don't get me wrong. I would rush into a burning building to try to save my pet rats. Like the complete idiot I am, I would risk my own life to save my pets without a second thought. But I wouldn't sacrifice another human being.

 

[Mikejames]

I'd save the stranger, I can buy a new fucking pet that would love me just as much like the slobbering fools that they are. But you can't buy a new brother/sister/mother/father etc.

I'd be sad but not as nearly sad as the victims family would be, if I lose my pet only I suffer and even then not for long and I'm sorry but there is no way I could condemn a person to die for a ball of fur, I couldn't swim out there, ignore the screams and pleas of said stranger, scoop up a dog and fuck off. I'm not any where near that callous.

So sorry pooch, but you're going under.

This is blunt, but true. Thank you.

 

[SveeNOR]

I must say I am shocked as to (right now) there are more people who would rather save their pet than the stranger. After what I have understood, the main reason is because people love their pet (which i did to mine before it died of tuberculosis), but I would never chosen it over another human life.

I could have gone a very long rant about culture, worth of a human life and all that troll bait, but to sum it up, my main reason would be "I think he would have done the same for me".

So i would like you who picked your pet over the stranger, what made you come to that decision, is it a bad experience you've had with people, you don't think people would have done the same for you or is it something very special with your pet which makes you value it so much?

 

[Herman Hedning's mace]

I'll save the stranger, because if my goldfish finds a way to drown, it honestly deserves to die. Still, if I DID have a less fishy pet I would probably still save the stranger.

 

[Weaver]

What if your pet was a turtle or a fish? Then you would be fine!

 

[Lionsfan]

I would save the person every time, because if it was the opposite, I would want someone to pick me over a dog

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

It also doesnt render hypothetical useless. My underlying point still stands that if someone holds life to be worthless and any material object to be of worth then the trade is self evident to that person.

Giving a binary solution set to a hypothetical that considers all exploration of the hypothetical as 'irrelevent' is useless except to confirm bias.

Edit: not that confirming bias is useless per se.

Besides, if I truly placed no value on human life, I'd choke you to death, steal all your money and take the magic button machine to sell to the military.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

It also doesnt render hypothetical useless. My underlying point still stands that if someone holds life to be worthless and any material object to be of worth then the trade is self evident to that person.

Giving a binary solution set to a hypothetical that considers all exploration of the hypothetical as 'irrelevent' is useless except to confirm bias.

Edit: not that confirming bias is useless per se.

Besides, if I truly placed no value on human life, I'd choke you to death, steal all your money and take the magic button machine to sell to the military.

A binary solution to a hypthetical does more than confirm bias. Red or blue? Whats your favourite colour out of those? It shows preference in a case of two options.

Thats a fair point. Didnt think of this. Should be more careful around potential sociopaths.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

What if your pet was a turtle or a fish? Then you would be fine!

Actually, if it was a turtle, you'd have a fuck of a time keeping it out of the whirlpool... fuckers love them.