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

[Pandabearparade]

How about this. Same scenario but instead save a stranger or save your mom? Seeing as you put no value on a pet's life why even make that an option so let's raise the stakes.

You're completely missing the point here. We're not talking about human lives compared to one another, we're talking about the life of an animal in comparison to the life of a human.

I put value on my pet's life, my point is that unless the human drowning is a monster of some sort there is -no- contest here, but so many people would save an animal before a human.

Mr. Prager was right, and it sickens me to admit it. Even one person voting to save a dog over a human is something that should merit a facepalm, but the numbers are close to even.

 

[DugMachine]

How about this. Same scenario but instead save a stranger or save your mom? Seeing as you put no value on a pet's life why even make that an option so let's raise the stakes.

You're completely missing the point here. We're not talking about human lives compared to one another, we're talking about the life of an animal in comparison to the life of a human.

I put value on my pet's life, my point is that unless the human drowning is a monster of some sort there is -no- contest here, but so many people would save an animal before a human.

Mr. Prager was right, and it sickens me to admit it. Even one person voting to save a dog over a human is something that should merit a facepalm, but the numbers are close to even.

No I understand the point, and if it was any random animal and any random stranger then i'd save the stranger every time. But i'm not to type to believe all of humanity has to stick together and I must make my species thrive. If this animal is my pet who I have cherished for years and a random stranger I will always pick my pet.

Which is why I changed the scenario since you have such a problem with people who value 'animals' lives over a person's in fucked up hypotheticals such as this one. So mother or stranger? Both have the same fallout except one is personal and the other you shouldn't give two shits about. SO what is it?

 

[Aris Khandr]

I just want a good reason as to why I should care about this person that much.

You shouldn't care about the individual personally, you should save the human because the human dying will almost certainly cause a far more significant amount of suffering. Not only because the person herself would suffer, but because there are larger, longer lasting ripples that spread out from that death.
What if the woman is a mother with three kids? Are you really going to be able to live with yourself ten years down the line when poochie dies a natural death and that woman is still in the ground, her kids having to go without a mother for the rest of their lives?

Further, how would -you- feel if you were drowning and someone saved a dog and left you to die? I bet you'd be pretty pissed in those last few seconds alive.

So what about the suffering that I would feel, letting my pet die for (functionally) nothing? I don't know this person. I'll likely never see them again. And in exchange for, what, knowing there is one extra person in the world, I sacrifice a pet who has been loyal, loving, and a part of my life for years? No bloody question. If that makes me a sociopath, so be it, but I refuse to lose something I truly love when I have the power to save it, no matter what my other choices are. It isn't "just" an animal to me, but as real a member of my family as the hypothetical mother is to her family.

 

[Pandabearparade]

SO what is it?

SO it's a bad analogy. We're not comparing an animal you know to an animal you don't, so comparing a human you know and a human you don't is ridiculously off-point. Of course I'd save my mother, there is a league of difference between your mother and your dog.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I save the stranger.

To be fair, I have very little time for animals of any sort and wouldn't ever own a pet by choice so I'm just going along with it for the sake of the question.

 

[Pandabearparade]

So what about the suffering that I would feel, letting my pet die for (functionally) nothing?

Unless you're mentally unstable the suffering of losing a dog is not remotely similar to the suffering of losing a mother for a child.

The pet didn't die for nothing, the pet died because you did the right thing.

 

[Matt King]

it would be a hard decision, i have had this cat longer than i can remember (literally i have had him since i was 2, i am now 16) and many people would argue that all life is equal etc etc, but in the end, i would choose the stranger because they have more life to live than my cat
who maybe has 5 years at best,

it's a mute point since my cat is one of those weird ones who like to swim

 

[Pandabearparade]

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.

 

[DugMachine]

SO what is it?

SO it's a bad analogy. We're not comparing an animal you know to an animal you don't, so comparing a human you know and a human you don't is ridiculously off-point. Of course I'd save my mother, there is a league of difference between your mother and your dog.

Then why create a thread like this if you already have your mind made up? There is no room for debate of any sort because apparently we're 'sociopaths' for not caring about a random stranger more than our pets. You haven't even explained why we should care you just made stuff up about kids being sad and what not as if that changes anything about what i'll feel after letting my pet die.

I don't give a shit if i'm biologically wired to save my species, I have free will and choose my pet and that's the end of that.

 

[s0p0g]

uhm... screw my pet, save the person? how is this even a question?

i mean, come on... are people *really* that effed up? i refuse to believe this;
when i imagine the situation i do not believe that (most of) the people who voted for they're friggin PET! would actually go after it first.
here, from the safety of there keyboards and not-urgency of the situation itself i can... somewhat... believe the votes, but "out there", you know, in the real world, with a real drowning person - no way the majority of people would do nothing or go after their pet, and not the person/young woman


and yes, i did the above to tease grammar-nazis. i am a bad person

 

[Aris Khandr]

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.

Objectively, perhaps it isn't. But humans aren't robots. Something I love is more important to me than something I have never met, never interacted with, and never will see again no matter what happens. It isn't that "a dog is equivalent to a mother", it's that MY dog (I hate dogs, but the hypothetical stands) is more important TO ME than YOUR mother is to me". And since, you know, I'm the one risking my life, I'm going to go for what matters to ME.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Then why create a thread like this if you already have your mind made up?

I explained that already. Dennis Prager said something that I found to be ri-goddamned-diculous on one of his barely-coherent rants about liberals being immoral without God. I thought it was bullshit.

Clearly he was right to a much larger extent than I would want to admit is possible. Clearly some people -do- need a sky daddy to tell them the basics of right and wrong.

 

[Alcamonic]

My swimming and overall fitness is so-so. I would probably fail or drown myself trying to save the strange. The pet should be easier to carry.

 

[EeveeElectro]

Depends on the race of the person.

She's Irish, and got caught in a whirlpool because she thought her lucky charms were at the bottom.

Well that's just natural selection then, isn't it?
If someone is stupid enough to risk their lives like that, they should probably die.

I'd probably save my pet. The stranger I don't know and don't know what she is like. She most likely wouldn't do the same for me and carrying an animal that weighs probably 14kg at most is going to be a lot easier than carrying a woman who probably weighs around 60-90kg.
However, if it was someone I loved then I'd go for the person and even try to save the pet if I could.

I'm sorry but I'm not risking my life for someone I don't even know. I would try my best to save both, but I would go for my pet if I have to. And people choosing their pets don't need to "grow up" and it's not sickening like you say. Some people get such a close attachment to animals, that they would do anything for them.
Although I only own cats and they can apparently swim so I'd assume they'd be okay to swim out themselves...

 

[G32420NL]

Whould have to be the human, even if i dont know the person, he still probably has loved ones who whould be crushed by his loss, even thinking about losing one of the people i love because someone thought their cat was more important makes me sad :S

 

[PurePareidolia]

I wouldn't even hesitate to help the stranger. It's a human, as opposed to like a cat or something.

 

[BaronUberstein]

Neither. You said whirlpool; given my lack of lifeguard training, weak physical state, and bad swimming form, I would be unable to save either by jumping in.

Instead I would yell for a lifeguard, and attempt to throw the person something that floats and/or a rope. I see no reason to make a situation where one person may die into a situation where two people may die if it doesn't help the situation at all, heh.