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

[Pandabearparade]

Nazis Nazis Nazis Hitler!

We might as well go full Godwin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfzJtiM4dvg

 

[Reece Stevens]

well, having never had a pet I can say that I have no value for animal life, so I would save the person by default, but this is not a fair poll for me

 

[DRes82]

Nice godwin's law intercept. Lets see how long we can stave it off.

Nazis Nazis Nazis Hitler!

...

Sorry, I couldn't stop myself.

I suppose I asked for that. Made me laugh, anyways.

I'd call it a dark, storm cloud grey. One option is selfish and leads to far more suffering.

I disagree. I feel it would be extremely selfish to allow a family member who trusts and relies on me to drown. In addition, I would suffer far more if I lost my dog in a horrible whirlpool accident than if I had to live with the burden of allowing a random stranger to drown in order to save him, but I respect and understand your opinion.

 

[Treblaine]

So I saw this poll on MMO-Champion and it tilted 2:1 towards saving the pet. I find this disgusting on a level I can't even begin to describe.

I quite agree with you but some people seem to think animals have MORE rights then people.

I started a thread a few months back and some people said that people are worse then animals and should die.

I know right

Are we so surprised? How many atrocities and genocides is it going to take? Perpetrated not by a tiny minority of psychopaths but huge numbers generally typical people all stirred by "strong feelings" to put their selfish desires and intentions above the lives of "people I don't even know".

It's interesting this idea of the "connection" that until we relate to other human beings on some personal level there is no inherent sympathy for them.

I don't think these people think "animals" have more rights than humans, if they got a rat infestation they wouldn't hesitate to call the exterminator. They care about THEIR pets, the animals that fawn over and love THEM, are more important than humans who don't adore them and are not utterly loyal and dependent to them.

 

[TKretts3]

My pet, because I like it more. I'd feel stronger for the pet then some stranger.
If, however, the stranger were someone well known, or particularly wealthy I'd be more inclined to save them.

Well that's kind of selfish, can you really justify actions by "feel strongly" that's not dependent on anything about the individual suffering or dying, only about you and your relations to them.

This isn't about you and your feelings and how YOU might feel letting one drown and not the other, this is about THEM, THEY are dying. Your feelings of guilt and loss are - if you think about it - trivial compared to the feelings of utter terror of impending suffocating death and then an eternity of oblivion as once they are dead they are dead FOREVER. The last star in the universe will fizzle out and they will never experience anything again, and you're worried about missing your pet?

And this is not like some warlord in Africa terrorising people that you can do very little about, where YOU come in here is not your feelings but your ACTIONS. You have the ability to affect the outcome, to prevent both of them drowning.

So please, if you decide to rescue your pet, do it for your pet, that being's state. Not for your personal selfish needs of an animal companion of which there are MANY unwanted and unloved pets on this planet who suffer worse lingering fates than drowning. You can get another pet.

Pets live relatively short and simple lives. What will they do in 10 years that they won't do in 2? But humans live interdependent lives, highly social creatures the loss of one is far greater than just the loss of one individual's perception and feelings.

They also INVEST in their lives, they study hard for a long career, take so much of their money into a pension and more in taxes investing in their country they intend to live a long life in... all for waste drowning with so much lost potential ahead of them. What about their spouse, what about their hopeful parents or eager offspring? I'd say that most human life is more valauble than most animals, especially the type of animals we keep as pets.

Some animals are so socially intelligent, interdependent and empathetic that they almost qualify for the term "people" like Chimpanzees though they are far from human though enough like a person that they make poor pets.

I think that you don't have to be so subjective as going by your gut reaction on this, that there is a lot to consider objectively on who is better to save if - hypothetically - by whatever circumstance you could only save one from a lingering death.

But I cannot say absolutely, my gut reaction is anger at someone who'd save THEIR pet rather than someone else's life. And I'd say their reasoning is disingenuous if they said their strong feelings guided them on this, rather than empathetic thought.

Yes, my reasons are selfish. Yes, I am doing it purely out of my relation to which is dying. Yes, only self-gain would motivate me to save the stranger. Yes, I would still do exactly the same.

You seem to think of pets as completely different things than humans, things that people won't care about the loss of, and won't suffer when they die. An animal will suffer when drowning just as much as a human would. You also seem to think that one, lets say dog, is just as good as any dog. That simply isn't true. By spending time with said dog, raising it, caring for it, you grow a bond with it. If one dog truly is the same as any other dog then the same could be said for humans.

Just out of curiosity, you say that my feelings of guilt and loss are trivial, so then why is it that later on you attempt to guilt-trip me with a hypothetical life that the person has lives, or their family?

 

[Treblaine]

My dog Brutus has more personality than most people. I'd save him.

I doubt that. I think it's more that your dog is more emotionally dependent on you than any human and that's just your perspective.

Just because people aren't extrovert, doesn't mean they don't have feelings and personality. Society has an effect of blunting our responses and forcing a kind of conformity in one sort or another.

People bite their tongue as they're fed up of suffering for showing their deviation from the norm. But now you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Express yourself and you're a jerk and you deserve to die, keep quiet and you're already dead inside.

But a dog, always loyal and totally unconditionally loving and dependent, it's worth picking up the dog crap for that. He'll never judge you, never ask you tough questions or give you answers would wouldn't want to hear... truly man's best friend.

So yeah, it makes perfect sense to save your dog. The logic may be horrifically depressing but it is internally consistent. What a world do we live in where these are the things we value.

 

[Varanfan9]

Considering my pet dog is and always has been a strong swimmer and in the peak of physical condition I would save the stranger first as I would think my dog would be able to handle himself before I got over to help him. Seriously these would have to be some kind of extreme rapids to be a threat for him.

 

[geK0]

Honestly, if the whirlpool is too strong for the stranger to swim in, it's probably too strong for me. I'd attempt to find a way to save both of them without entering the whirlpool, if I fail then I'm letting them both go; better one person and a cat than two people and a cat.

 

[CarlMin]

You're calling us monstrous for wanting to save something we love over a complete stranger.

It's. A. Dog. Yes, you're a monster if you pick the dog. You're further demonstrating a lack of understanding of any sort of morality by asserting that the dog is equivalent to a mother. It's not.

Most people would probably agree with you on that, but I have yet to see why. Out of honest curiosity, why is it so immoral to suggest that you can compare the life of an animal to that of a human being?

Is it because people believe that a humans suffering would be greater, or that a human being has more potential and thus inherently more valuable to the world, or is the reason religious?

 

[Deadyawn]

Where's option D which is swim out to the whirlpool and drown? Cause I get the feeling that's what would happen to me.

Really though, I don't have a pet so, yeah. Even if I did I'd still probably go for the stranger seeing as how they are sapient whereas a pet isn't (or at least shouldn't be. If it is then you've got bigger problems than trying to figure out who to save).

 

[DugMachine]

I still don't understand where this obligation to save all other humans from death comes from. We have free fucking will and can choose to save something we love over someone we know nothing about. To even entertain the hypothetical "WHAT IF THEY CURE AIDS?" is ridiculous.

Sorry if I snapped a neuron or something but I don't have that instant drive to help strangers in danger, but I do have the drive to survive and keep the things I care about alive that's for damn sure. Like I and many others have said, this topic is shit because there is no room for debate with you people. It's either save the stranger or you're a horrible AWFUL human being who will probably turn into hitler because he saved his cat, WATCH OUT Y'ALL HERE COMES THE NEXT HOLOCAUST! Yeah no, that's not going to happen.

You can 'lose faith in humanity' all you want, we'll keep on living and not seeing the world in shit covered glasses.

 

[DugMachine]

You're calling us monstrous for wanting to save something we love over a complete stranger.

It's. A. Dog. Yes, you're a monster if you pick the dog. You're further demonstrating a lack of understanding of any sort of morality by asserting that the dog is equivalent to a mother. It's not.

Most people would probably agree with you on that, but I have yet to see why. Out of honest curiosity, why is it so immoral to suggest that you can compare the life of an animal to that of a human being?

Is it because people believe that a humans suffering would be greater, or that a human being has more potential and thus inherently more valuable to the world, or is the reason religious?

The reason is LOGICAL. Any species that when faced with a completely informed decisions and supreme understand of the situation and all manner of connected things, has the choice to save either one of their own kind or one of a completely different species, and then chooses THE DIFFERENT SPECIES..? Well that species is fucking retarded, evolutionarily speaking. If a dog would ever choose a human over a dog, it's because to them, they're saving the leader of the pack. They act on instinct. You and I sit here and are able to discuss something that a dog could never even imagine. Are you seriously gonna suggest that I'm equal to the dog if you can only save one life? Flip a coin? 50/50 is all you would give a fellow human when the other choice is a dog?! In some parts of the world, DOG is an INSULT. Seriously, I just CAN'T wrap my head around how ANYONE would value an animal OVER a human being. I mean I totally understand that you would VALUE them, dogs can be pretty damn awesome, no doubt. But god dammit, there shouldn't even be a contest here! No wonder the world is going to shit...

Because not all of us want to be walking fucking biology textbooks and perfect examples of top of the foodchain homo sapiens. Fact of the matter is there are GENOCIDES and other serious shit going on in the world but because it's not infront of your face who gives a shit?

And like my other thread which was more for jokes but nobody seems to want to answer here, what do you do when your choices are two humans drowning and one of them happens to be close to you? What do you do? Fuck your close relative/friend because you already know them and their capabilities but stranger here might be the next albert einstein? Get real.

 

[DugMachine]

I still don't understand where this obligation to save all other humans from death comes from. We have free fucking will and can choose to save something we love over someone we know nothing about. To even entertain the hypothetical "WHAT IF THEY CURE AIDS?" is ridiculous.

Sorry if I snapped a neuron or something but I don't have that instant drive to help strangers in danger, but I do have the drive to survive and keep the things I care about alive that's for damn sure. Like I and many others have said, this topic is shit because there is no room for debate with you people. It's either save the stranger or you're a horrible AWFUL human being who will probably turn into hitler because he saved his cat, WATCH OUT Y'ALL HERE COMES THE NEXT HOLOCAUST! Yeah no, that's not going to happen.

You can 'lose faith in humanity' all you want, we'll keep on living and not seeing the world in shit covered glasses.

Because that's the human thing to do. That's why there's "no room for debate". Something went wrong in your childhood if you missed out on the part of your social programming that teaches you to be human. People who have been programmed to care about their fellow man, not be completely self-centered, that generosity and compassion are good virtues...they just can't understand it. "Snap a neuron" is a very fitting description of how I feel when I try to understand this

But I love helping my fellow man. I live in an area that gets bombarded by hurricanes every summer and I volunteer to help in any way I can. I give quality foods to charities on thanksgiving and always help my neighbors when they need a helping hand.

But because I won't save some complete stranger when shit hits the fan and I have to choose between them and my pet i'm automatically a bad person? See this is where the logic just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[CarlMin]

The reason is LOGICAL. Any species that when faced with a completely informed decisions and supreme understand of the situation and all manner of connected things, has the choice to save either one of their own kind or one of a completely different species, and then chooses THE DIFFERENT SPECIES..? Well that species is fucking retarded, evolutionarily speaking. If a dog would ever choose a human over a dog, it's because to them, they're saving the leader of the pack. They act on instinct.

You can't use evolution as a moral compass. I refuse to accept that a the life of a human being is more important simply because they happen to be a member of my species, just like I refuse to accept distinctions made based on other arbitrary traits such as the color of onces skin, gender or nationality.

I want to hear a compelling reason. Something a bit more consequentialist.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

So you know you're selfish, but instead of working on it and try to improve yourself, you just say "mjeh, either it fixes itself or it doesn't". That's not how it works.

Well if you must know, I lack the motivations to try and "fix" it. Again, maybe it'll change in time, if not, oh well. I don't see it as such a huge deal, really. I'm not living my life to impress others or get accepted into their moral codes or "standards".

 

[DugMachine]

2 humans drowning, I can save 1. One of them is my, let's say sister, the other one is a stranger. Did I get this correctly? I save my sister. They're two human lives. Unless you're saying that your dog would be equal to your sister, you're not even making sense. Who needs to get real here? My "textbook biology" bullshit was just an answer to the question of what would be logical. I don't give a fucking shit about it myself, I don't need a "logical reason", I have morals, honor and decency. Like real people. Get real.

No I don't value my pet above my family members but I value it above a stranger. It's a fucking hierarchy here. Your emotional attachment to your sister is no different than a pet. But I already know what you're going to say "ITS A FUCKING DOG," I don't give a shit. We have free will and my goal in life is not to expand the evolutionary conquest of humanity. Looks like we made it pretty far with all the killing n shit we do to each other anyways.