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

[Kyr Knightbane]

I honestly hate threads like this. Don't try to justify that fact that you'd be so 'noble' by saving a drowning stranger. Threads like this serve no purpose than to garner fans and heated arguments. If i saw a stranger and a pet of mine 'drowning' i'd save neither because the last time i checked anyone can doggie paddle and my pets all can swim and one can freaking fly! Plus if i can swim out to save you, you can obviously save yourself. I can't even describe how irritated these things make me. Don't give the 'stranger' a back story like its a mother of 3, or a Vietnam vet, or someone with a handicap. Its pointless and stupid. People would save a pet, that is a given and its a point because they are familiar and have emotional attachment. A stranger could be anyone. What if the person you saved became the next Hitler and murdered millions of people? What if the person drowning then cuts your throat and then kills your pet? See? I can add variables that are equally pointless. Stranger saving doesn't equal kindness nor does not saving them equal evil that is reprehensible. Its plain that you gave 2 choices that don't equate well to one another. Forgive the rant but its just bull**** drama

 

[Basement Cat]

P.S.: Did Prager consider the fact that plenty of conservatives love their pets, too? Did the poll he was condemning ask people to identify themselves as libs/cons in the course of answering whether they would go for their pet or the stranger?

These are legitimate questions.

His assertion, if I recall correctly (it has been a long time), was that the poll was conducted among liberal college students, and the results were proof of the moral superiority of Christianity because the 'libs' would let the human die to save Fido.

He was apparently right, and this is the first time I've ever, -EVER- heard a conservative talk show host make a strong, effective, factually-accurate argument.

Forgot to ask for a clarification--One that may save you from being flamed for being misunderstood.

I'm guessing that when you said "He was apparently right-" you were referring to people going after Fido and not that his assertion that 'Christianity' is inherently morally superior to all others.

Yes? If so, and others jump you, just post this specific exchange to act as a 'fire suppressant'.

I prefer civil exchanges, myself. If I want flame wars I'll go to Yahoo, News.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Don't give the 'stranger' a back story like its a mother of 3, or a Vietnam vet, or someone with a handicap.

Someone asked for specifics, I gave specifics.

 

[Pandabearparade]

I'm guessing that when you said "He was apparently right-" you were referring to people going after Fido and not that his assertion that 'Christianity' is inherently morally superior to all others.

Oh, absolutely. I should have been more clear. He was right that morality has tanked in society if kids value their dog more than their fellow humans. His remedy for the problem ("GAAAAAAWD AND JEEESUS!") is ridiculous and has already been shown to be a complete failure in producing the best human societies.

 

[solemnwar]

Fine. Let me try. If you have a choice of saving an old woman, who has maybe 10-15 years of her life expectancy left to live, or a child that has about 70 years of her life expectancy left to live, which would be the logical choice? And seriously dude, if you say the old woman, I'll slit my wrists. So for the sake of my own life(I'm joking), I'll assume you'll agree.

No, you choose whomever you're able to save.
There's a question similar in the test those of the medical profession have to take. It's a trick question sort of thing. So they're drowning in a river, that's the scenario, right? Who has the more likely chance of being saved, in this case- the old woman, who is close to you, or the child, who is further from you and perhaps close to going over a water fall? In that case, it would be best to go after the old woman, because likely as not you will not be able to reach the child in time, and in trying to save the child while ignoring the old woman, you might end up with both dead.

But, really, in the end, people go with their EMOTIONS in situations like these, not logic. So in the example other people have given, i.e. stranger vs. sister, of course someone is going to go after their sister (unless they hate them, I guess). Likewise, a lot of people are going to their pets. A pet isn't just "some animal". My cat is like my baby. I sincerely value him as a proper member of my family. And I am going to save a member of my family over some random stranger.

And as a side note, I don't really believe in true altruism. EVERYONE does something to get out of it, even if it's just to feel good or a sense of fulfilling their "soceital obligations".

 

[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.

I don't think that's entirely fair.

I'd be terribly sad that someone died instead of my pet. I would be traumatized. Shocked. Depressed for a long, long time. In short, sympathetic.

But to say something like 'loving pets over asshats on the street leads to genocide' is ridiculous, in my opinion. Atrocities seem to be commited by people against people, and usually over money, or ethnic differences.

I'm not a psychopath. I love my pet. Why would I throw that love and trust away, that companionship and shared life, all in an instant for a complete stranger?

Let's be clear.

I'm not making a "this causes genocide" I am saying both indifference to suffering of strangers and genocide both come from the same root problem of lack of inherent empathy. Genocides and other systematic atrocities are just examples of the same principal.

Pets aren't particularly the problem. I'm not demonising pet owners any more than I'm objecting to someone who cares more about breaking their ipod than hearing about a newspaper salesman being beaten to death by the police. The problem is the dependence on "connection". You OWN your ipod, it's got all your stuff on it and you saw it break right in front of you.

But because you don't have a connection with the random violent death of another person living a life you can't relate to, it doesn't affect us.

I don't have a problem that you love your pet. I have a problem that is trumps the life of a stranger... because you don't have a connection.

This is the problem, it doesn't matter what the life in peril is for society or for the wider benefit of people. Only how it stimulates your emotional synapses, are we really rational beings if we make decisions like this.

 

[Porygon-2000]

Well, since my pet is a turtle, I reckon I can leave it to it's own devices and go after the stranger.

 

[Rednog]

Save the person, hands down, every time.
Sorry I know you love fido but we're talking about another human being. And I'll be brutally honest if I saw anyone in that situation (and I couldn't make it in time to help the person drowning) I'd kick the person and their pet into the whirlpool for being absolute d-bags.

 

[Treblaine]

Fine. Let me try. If you have a choice of saving an old woman, who has maybe 10-15 years of her life expectancy left to live, or a child that has about 70 years of her life expectancy left to live, which would be the logical choice? And seriously dude, if you say the old woman, I'll slit my wrists. So for the sake of my own life(I'm joking), I'll assume you'll agree.

No, you choose whomever you're able to save.
There's a question similar in the test those of the medical profession have to take. It's a trick question sort of thing. So they're drowning in a river, that's the scenario, right? Who has the more likely chance of being saved, in this case- the old woman, who is close to you, or the child, who is further from you and perhaps close to going over a water fall? In that case, it would be best to go after the old woman, because likely as not you will not be able to reach the child in time, and in trying to save the child while ignoring the old woman, you might end up with both dead.

I like the "Rescue Helicopter" scenario with VERY STRICT weight limits. You can't take half a person, and you have to leave immediately. You can leave with one, none, but not both. If you even try to leave with both the helicopter will stall and crash killing everyone. You're the pilot, no one else can fly. A huge wave is coming and will kill anyone who hasn't flown up 100 feet up in the air.

I think it's pretty bulletproof. The trick here is you can't force the other one not the grab onto the skids, you need to CONVINCE them to agree for one to stay and the other leave in the helicopter.

 

[TKretts3]

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?

I don't think a dog's life is "completely different" I do deeply consider the similarities and the suffering of drowning will be severe for both, I abhor cruelty to animals, pain is as vivid and profound to a human, chimp or dog it's effects on each mind are ultimately indistinguishable. Pain is a fundamental thing, the simplest animals feels it profoundly as the WORST thing. Still, death as the antithesis of life is different for a human from a dog just as the life of a human is different from a dog. A dog's life is far from worthless, but I think we can agree if there are dozens of rats in your habitation you won't consider each of their several month-long lives that valuable.

But those are irrelevant if your motivation is selfishness, not altruism for their wellbeing.

Why the guilt trip? Because as you admit your loss for your pet is selfish self-pity at not having your dog any more. I am asking you to feel empathy for a being you aren't going to directly get anything out of. Why? Because if YOU were in the water, and you never had any reason or ability to help your saviour, wouldn't you want him to show some empathy? Empathy is what dragged us out of the stone age.

Empathy is what sociopaths like Ayn Rand didn't understand so mistrusted and railed against.

Empathy works for every living thing, really it's a matter of stepping out of your perspective without becoming detached, it is quite an amazing and unique ability of the human brain to perform the thought process of empathy, to think about someone else's thoughts. This is an amazingly influential cooperative ability.

All you say about raising a dog, that only shows how much YOU are attached to it. Not why it's life is more important.

Dogs don't do empathy, they do pack loyalty. That's the way their brains work, they are obedient, subservient and dependent. Man's best "friend" but that's not what a real friend is, a friend is a confidant, who will support you yet challenge you, give you the hard truths and talk things over. Dogs are smart, they'll drag their owners out of burning buildings... and they'll do this even if you beat them, even if you give them no love they will love you.

What life is there to save with a human compared to a dog.

I cannot say a dog's life is worthless, but you must consider that your dog likely only has a special connection with you and could only be with you and it would only ever have been for a short time. While a human has a special connection with dozens of people for a long life, with their parents, with their spouse, with their offspring, with their work, with their art, with their contribution to society in general.

Ideally both would be saved, the dog and the stranger, and you all get to pose for the local newspaper. But which life is most valuable.

But If I'm the winchman on a light rescue helicopter and we are loaded to stall capacity and there is your dog and a child (of the same weight as your dog) as the last few kilos to save before the wave comes... the kid is getting on and your dog is not.

Big question, would you get off the helicopter to stay and die with your dog, or would you get off and let your dog go on the helicopter his/her weight in your place so you'd die alone but your dog would live another few years?

If you think another human's life is less than a dog, is your own human life less than your dog?

I know, if my sister or my mother and I were to be one of the last people out of the jaws of death I'd ask the winchman to lie and tell her that I'd catch my sister on the next flight out.

If I were in the water and someone else had the choice of saving a life that they knew and loved, and a complete stranger (me) I would not expect that to go for me, and therefore do everything in my power to help myself. One such thing would be to offer incentive for them to save me.

I wouldn't categorize my wanting to save my dog to avoid, "self-pity." I would do it because that dog brings me joy, it is loyal (even if just by instinct) - because I have reason to save it. Furthermore, by buying/adopting the dog, I am entering an agreement in which I must protect the dog and keep it safe. Therefore if it is in danger I have an obligation to save it. I have no such obligations to someone I have not met prior.

As for empathy, I disagree that it is what dragged us out of the stone age. What dragged us out of the stone age was the discovery of new technologies, primarily iron. Advancements in technology, culture, and other fields are what advance society into the future. More often than not the people who make such discoveries do so out of greed.

I also think it's quite clear, by now at the least, that I would disagree with your blows on Ayn Rand. I find her a fascinating individual, both for her philosophy and her literature.

EDIT: I also forgot to write that I never imagined that it was in a helicopter. I imagine that I was on a beach and saw a person drowning, and my pet drowning. If I were in a helicopter I would no doubt be in a rescue team and my sole obligation would be to rescue the human stranger. That is why I imagined the beach, because I am a private individual with no job to perform who just happened to walk upon the scenario.

 

[Treblaine]

Better question, you have been abducted by aliens in the middle of a local flood you've been caught in but they are friendly and won't hurt you they are trying to follow objective values of morality to avoid war between planets.

The aliens point out to you two organism below that have survived the flood, a random person holding your pet in the slowly encroaching flood. The aliens have one last teleport zap before they leave that can only take one organism but very soon both will fall into the churning flood and die. It is technically totally impossible for the aliens to rescue any other discrete organism, so no debate there.

The aliens didn't want to teleport you up in the first place, now you have to convince them to save one, or the other in terms even these aliens would accept. You cannot appeal to "it's another human" or "it's MY pet" they are completely neutral, in the most extreme sense, they have no vested interest other than not to be deliberately malicious.

What could you possibly say to convince them?

Cool!

If I wanted to save the stranger, I'd totally explain that they might need a breeding pair of us to begin to understand us (assuming they understand english, or read my mind, or some such thing).

If I wanted to save the animal, I'd probably explain that it would provide a wider sample of genetic material for study.

...

Either way I'm getting probed, aren't I?

I'm not sure you're entering into the spirit of this right, the point is to be more objective and argue on far more objective terms, that yo'd have in common with a completely alien but intelligent life form.

Not to instead try to appeal to alien logic of them being scientists manically obsessive with samples, they are supposed to be passive observers seeking a universal morality but erring on the side of total non-intervention. Not interested in probing, they just downloaded human anatomy textbook from the internet, they know everything FACTUAL about humans.

You need to make a non-contradictory argument for one or the other. Breeding pair and genetic variables they could get elsewhere. Why save THAT organism from THAT situation.

They are going to rescue you both 9whichever both) then when their orbit has looped around again set you back on earth much later and get you do sign a NDA form or something so you don't tell anyone about the alien abduction and secret observation of earth thing.

I'm starting to realise this analogy has too many holes.

 

[the December King]

I don't have a problem that you love your pet. I have a problem that is trumps the life of a stranger... because you don't have a connection.

This is the problem, it doesn't matter what the life in peril is for society or for the wider benefit of people. Only how it stimulates your emotional synapses, are we really rational beings if we make decisions like this.

I see what you're saying, I think.

I think it might be a product of the fact that as a species and as a race, we don't need to worry about the future of our tribe/clan/what have you on the merit of one individual anymore, maybe? Or rather, it might be a conclusion that one could reach?

In a world of seven- odd billion people, a connection is very important to the individual. We can try to love everyone, I suppose, and many do- but many more don't.

To be fair, if I was forced to make the titular descision, I actually don't know how I'd react- and I sure as hell haven't weighed in at the polls, after hearing how biased the OP is. But I do love my pet, and that means something to me. It might make the difference.

Maybe I'm not as rational as I like to think I am.

 

[217not237]

Save a human being who can benefit society in some way.

Are humans more likely to benefit humanity? Considering how the world looks today, I'd say that a human being is just as likely to invent a new agent of biological warfare as curing aids. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that humans are inherently good, and that premise is needed for your argument to work.

I'm just being realistic.

...Well, if you want to be cynical about it, fine. I say give the stranger the benefit of the doubt. Unless he's covered in swastika tattoos, I don't think there's reason to doubt him.

 

[Treblaine]

I also think it's quite clear, by now at the least, that I would disagree with your blows on Ayn Rand. I find her a fascinating individual, both for her philosophy and her literature.

I put her in the same category as L Ron Hubbard, creator of Scientology.

the captcha taunts me: agree to disagree

 

[TKretts3]

I would also like to ask, what do you consider as a stranger? Like the wife from The Box said, "How well do we really know them [our neighbours]?"

Is someone you've met and know by name not a stranger? What if you know nothing about them? They're practically a stranger. Or how about famous/well-known people? These are people that you've seen on TV, Films, or read about. Are they strangers, after all you know them about as much as you know the first example.

 

[Quaidis]

Can't choose. Therefore I choose not to vote. I'd likely die trying to save both. A life is a life. I don't pick favorites.


Captcha: I am not going to choose dish for the life of me. Change to something else, dammit...

Captcha part 2: No, I'm not going to take a survey either. What crackhead put these captcha bots up?

Captcha part 3: nobody home... Sounds about right.

 

[RJ 17]

Gotta stick with the same-species bias. Sorry, but Bonecrusher the Hamster's gotta take one for the team.

 

[the December King]

Better question, you have been abducted by aliens in the middle of a local flood you've been caught in but they are friendly and won't hurt you they are trying to follow objective values of morality to avoid war between planets.

The aliens point out to you two organism below that have survived the flood, a random person holding your pet in the slowly encroaching flood. The aliens have one last teleport zap before they leave that can only take one organism but very soon both will fall into the churning flood and die. It is technically totally impossible for the aliens to rescue any other discrete organism, so no debate there.

The aliens didn't want to teleport you up in the first place, now you have to convince them to save one, or the other in terms even these aliens would accept. You cannot appeal to "it's another human" or "it's MY pet" they are completely neutral, in the most extreme sense, they have no vested interest other than not to be deliberately malicious.

What could you possibly say to convince them?

Cool!

If I wanted to save the stranger, I'd totally explain that they might need a breeding pair of us to begin to understand us (assuming they understand english, or read my mind, or some such thing).

If I wanted to save the animal, I'd probably explain that it would provide a wider sample of genetic material for study.

...

Either way I'm getting probed, aren't I?

I'm not sure you're entering into the spirit of this right, the point is to be more objective and argue on far more objective terms, that yo'd have in common with a completely alien but intelligent life form.

Not to instead try to appeal to alien logic of them being scientists manically obsessive with samples, they are supposed to be passive observers seeking a universal morality but erring on the side of total non-intervention. Not interested in probing, they just downloaded human anatomy textbook from the internet, they know everything FACTUAL about humans.

You need to make a non-contradictory argument for one or the other. Breeding pair and genetic variables they could get elsewhere. Why save THAT organism from THAT situation.

They are going to rescue you both 9whichever both) then when their orbit has looped around again set you back on earth much later and get you do sign a NDA form or something so you don't tell anyone about the alien abduction and secret observation of earth thing.

I'm starting to realise this analogy has too many holes.

No no no! Just roll with it! It's fun.

For example, okay, I'll explain to these apparently star-trek styled cosmonauts that if this prime directive of theirs is so easily broken for a schmoe like me, that they probably have already made up their minds and will save the other human.

Unless they are, in fact, space cats, wherein the descision is also already made. I wonder if they'll make me wear a mouse costume? Oh, horrible overlords!

Personally, they should send me back into the whirlpool- they are messing with primitives, influencing things directly, and altering the course of events.

And that's a moral 'grey' area... oh, snap!

 

[bluerocker]

As terrible as it sounds, but out of complete honesty, I would save my pet. To me, my pets are the equivalent of children to me. To let my child die instead of a total stranger... I don't think so.

Call me crazy, call me selfish, but that is how I'd feel about the matter.

 

[Dangit2019]

Save the person, hands down, every time.
Sorry I know you love fido but we're talking about another human being. And I'll be brutally honest if I saw anyone in that situation (and I couldn't make it in time to help the person drowning) I'd kick the person and their pet into the whirlpool for being absolute d-bags.

I second this notion, and I do so with, what else, a Fillion gif:

Spoiler