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

[Spitfire]

It's a nonsensical question. Assuming that you have the swimming skills and body strength required to carry an adult human from water, then clearly you'd be able to do so with your pet as well.

A lot of people like you bring this up, but thats basically not the point. Its a hypothetical situation. So assume you are able to swim and save one, and that situations prevent you from saving both, then try and answer it. Trying to pick apart a hypothetical question isnt really the point.

Why not? If you're going to construct a hypothetical scenario in order to either demonstrate something, or to determine people's reactions to it, then you better make sure that your scenario makes sense, otherwise, there's quite literally no point to it. If the circumstances in the OP's scenario don't matter, then why bother creating a hypothetical scenario to begin with?

 

[axlryder]

I can't swim. So neither.

If I could, it would depend. Is the woman enormous? I'm not a big guy. I'm not going to try and tote a 400 pound woman. We'd probably both die. Otherwise, the person.

 

[Zeriah]

I'd save my pet. I honestly love my dog more than my own family. To me she is worth more than a random stranger.

 

[not_you]

right now, my pets are annoying little things that never shut up... But, it's all a matter of circumstance...

I know that I'm a much better swimmer than most other people, but that doesn't mean I'll dive into a raging river to save someone I don't know... Sure, I'll throw something like a rope or flotation thingy, but again, it's a matter of circumstance...

If it's in the ocean on a normal day... Sure, I'd go help them... In a swimming pool.... No worries...

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if the water is calm enough, not a problem...
But that's still laced in the "what if" of the situation...

what if someone else is nearby
what if I'm hurt at the time?
what if...
what if...
what if...

But for the sake of the poll, I'll go with stranger, because the other two options don't really count for my situation

captcha: "I am fine"
alright, fine, I'll save the stranger... although since I'm a state-level swimmer, I could probably save both... ^-^

 

[Zio_IV]

I'd save my pet.

I don't know that person. They are not a part of my life. Saving the person simply because "it's another human being" means nothing to me. Humanity alone as a quality does not instill me with instant sympathy.

My pet, on the other hand, has an active role in my life, and is something with which I have an emotional investment in. Simple as that.

 

[jawz13]

Reading a lot of these posts makes me sad.
It is hard to imagine human beings who value their personal happiness over the life of another human. The amount of selfish conceit on display here is staggering.

Equally appalling are those who save the stranger because "society wants them to". Fuck that. You should save the stranger not because it is expected of you, save the human because it is the decent thing to do in a civilized society.

The level of simple-minded, over-entitled, and hyper-individualistic (lack of) thinking displayed by many of these posts shows much of what is wrong with the world today.

That is correct.
To an extent, you are the problem.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

I can't believe the pet is winning, god, this is just sad you guys. Who could possibly choose an animal who's lifespan is probably less than 20 years over an actual human being?
It's not that I don't love my dog, but realistically my dog just isn't going to cause me the hardship that the person's death would to their family. Ah screw it, you misanthropes'll never understand.

I think it's a little unfair to call everyone who disagrees with you in this scenario a misanthrope. There are many different reasons as to why they chose the way they did. People view animals in very different ways. The folks at PeTA see them as equals, in every sense of the word, some people seem to despise everything about them, some are indifferent, and some love them. Some people view them as simple toys for their amusement; replaceable furniture. While others see them as members of their family. There's at least one person in this thread who wouldn't save any animal, for any reason. Period. And I'm sure there's at least one person who is a legitimate misanthrope.

My first dog saved my life, so I'm pretty biased in the animal's favor. Yeah, the man could, I don't know, cure cancer or become the next Batman, but there's also a good chance that he'll amount to nothing. So it then becomes a choice between "Do I want to feel pain (save the man, pet dies,) or do I want someone else *whom I don't know) to feel pain (save the pet, man dies)?"

You could argue that the man has family who will mourn his loss, whereas I'm the only one who will mourn my pet, but two things: I don't KNOW he has family, and humans are selfish by nature. We all like to think we do the best we can to help our fellow man, but we don't. We don't give to charity as often as we should, we all probably fast forward through those relief fund commercials, and we don't buy Dolphin Safe Tuna because it costs a few cents extra. We're assholes. But.. I digress. Point is, I don't KNOW that the man has family, and, frankly, even if he did, I don't know that I'd care. I don't know them, and I don't know that guy any more than I know the starving kids in Africa, and I don't help them as much as I should. I'd wager you don't, either. So how is this situation that much different? I could donate money and adopt a village, save multiple lives. But do I? Do you? I didn't CAUSE the whirlpool to suck the man into it anymore than I caused the children in Africa to starve.

And there are people who say that the dog will never contribute anything to society, at least in comparison to what a human could contribute. Well, they're obviously not gonna cure cancer, but they do contribute. Saying they don't is just wrong. Seeing eye dogs, K-9 units, drug/bomb sniffers, track down escaped convicts, et cetera. They're even used to help veterans settle back into society. Frankly, if given the choice between saving a dog that might help a veteran or a blind person, versus saving, say, a banker, I have even more reason to choose the dog.

Spoiler: If you think that makes me a misanthrope...

<youtube=pc0mxOXbWIU>

I'm kidding. Kind of.

 

[TheMyffic]

Wow, so this is what the average human morality looks like. I'd save the stranger, there is no contest.

Clearly your best bet, if you were the drowning stranger, is to hang on to the pet...

 

[LordLucan375]

Well, to me a human life is far more valuable, and by extension worth saving than a dogs'. P.S if this wasn't immediately obvious, I'm not an animal person...

 

[Overusedname]

I've kinda noticed that people without pets (or people without pets that are emotionally close to them) are the only ones who would save the stranger.

...I'm sorry, what is the point of this question? For people with pets, this question is: Save someone you don't know, or save a family member you love?

Also: Human life is unanimously amazing and flawless and is not the most destructive species in recorded history. Wut?

I know I know, I don't despise my not-so-humble little species, but I do think the point stands. What makes us so damn special? This question is ridiculous, flawed in it's basic premise, and the underlying tone of accusation is condescending. Some people came home from days full of abuse and harassment to a dog who loves you more than you'd think was emotionally possible, some didn't. The end. You could literally change the poll options to:

You don't have/had an awesome pet.

You had/have an awesome pet.

Generic third option.

The anger in this thread is also very silly, for the above reasons. You didn't have my experience in life? YOU MUST BE THE DEVIL. I'm speaking of both sides, for the record. I ain't judging no one. It's a life or death situation. And on that note, the two biggest problems with this question are:

1.) Even as a hypothetical, this stuff doesn't happen outside of horror movies. There isn't a significantly present equivalent to this choice in real life.

2.) You can't judge someone for what they would do in a life or death scenario. Really think about their emotional state. If they try to save a life, kudos. It's the best thing they could do. Move on, and don't claim you'd do better.

Now let's shake hands and paws and play with our puppies and kittens and strangers we saved.

 

[AdmiralMemo]

Does that loudmouth imbecile actually have a valid point for once in his career?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkassHasAPoint at its best.

 

[SpAc3man]

I would like to say I would save my pet. Although in the end I would most likely end up saving the person.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Correct, I mean I don't condone killing them or hurting them unnecessarily, but I'd shoot a hundred kittens to save one beggar from the same fate. I wouldn't enjoy it, but I've probably been indirectly responsible for more animal deaths in my life so far, just because I didn't pull the trigger doesn't make me exempt. However, if you eat any meat, or use animal products, you probably withhold from judging. Why is your animal better than a cow?

That's an interesting viewpoint. Purely out of interest, where do you draw the line? When does a creatures life gain value to you? There is a gorrila that can speak in sign language, and communicate well with a team of scientists, does that life have value? What if - hypothetically speaking - we met aliens of equal intelligence to us. Does their life have worth?

I'm a strict vegetarian, and the only animal products I buy are free range. But that's not the point. Animals are bred to be eaten, so you could argue that if they weren't going to be eaten, they wouldn't even be alive in the first place. There's nothing wrong with eating meat.

You can still eat meat while thinking an animals life has value. Hell, I think most people do. This poll certainly suggests so too. Anyway, we're not talking about just any animal. We're talking about your pet. An animal you love and care for.

Assuming I somehow know all this and have time (and I don't panic), I'd probably go for the loved one, placing value on human lives is hard. Yes the politician is a person too, but so is my significant other. This is where the comparison falls apart. Your animal of choice is not a person. I'm not doing this to save the world, or for something like that. Like I said, I'd save the crack addict who contributes nothing, and could well be a small time crook. Besides which, you can't say that my significant other or the crack addict won't do something great for humanity in the future, where as I can guarantee your animal will never do anything but what I listed earlier.
No, but you're supposedly doing it because the stranger's life has more value than that of the animal, presumably because the stranger dying will have a greater negative impact on the world than the animal dying (correct me if I'm wrong here, that's the impression I got). The reason I used that parallel is because a family member dying will likely have less negative impact on the world than someone who does great things, but you'd save the family member anyway.

You might not be saying animal life has a higher value than human life, but your hypothetical actions speak for themselves. Can you blame me for being a bit depressed about the majority of votes being for saving an animal?

Here is a question for you, a REAL member of your family, whom you love and respect greatly, is in the same drowning pool, along with your furry friend. Again, you can only save one.

That's ridiculous. Of course I'd save the life of my brother or mother, or any other family member, over my dog.
And if it was a dog I didn't know and a stranger I didn't know drowning, I'd save the stranger. But it's not, it's my dog, to whom I'm attached to.
I'm really confused by why you're having so much trouble getting this. My dog, is an animal, a sentient creature with a consciousness, that I've grown close too over my life. Just as you might with a friend. Only with an animal instead. The fact that a friend is a human and my pet is an animal really makes no difference. This isn't just me either, the vast majority of pet owners feel this way.

 

[Spambot 3000]

This is the worst thread ever created. Apparently all the fucking white-knights of saving society and dedicating their life to solve world hunger say I'm not allowed to prioritise myself over someone else, because you know, we're all a race of fucking angels and we better act like it too.

 

[prophecy2514]

save the stranger. A humans life is infinitely worth much more than an animals life, even if that life is my pets life.

I have a cat and two dogs though, both dogs being very strong swimmers, having taken them to play fetch the tennis ball in the surf or river on countless occasion.

my cat would not ever be found near water in any case, unless he intends to drown in the bath while some random stranger is drowning...in the shower. dont think that will happen.

 

[mooncalf]

Choosing to save either a human or an animal? If you don't save the human, you're the animal.

 

[Olas]

snip

Chillax, I wasn't calling everyone who would save the dog a misanthrope. I'm not one to make bold generalizations about people. I was simply acknowledging that there is a very real presence here on the escapist that thinks humanity is the worst species on earth. They're in the minority but they exist and I'vs argued with some of them before.
Even outside of the misanthropes I feel that there's an attitude that humanity is overrated or that we aren't somehow special at all. Has a duck ever written a poem? Do dogs create charity organizations for other dogs. I love animals but I'm not blind to the ways in which we differ from them.

As far as the whole starving Africans charity thing goes I fully support that and if I actually had money to spare as opposed to being super in debt I'd happily support any such charities that showed they could make a real difference. I'm not perfect but don't make me out to be some kind of selfish bastard either. If I won the lottery I'd give most of it away, partially because I think material wealth is highly overrated.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Why should I care?

Well, if you're a sociopath with no regard for suffering you've caused there is nothing one can say that can 'make' you care.

Though for purely pragmatic reasons it makes sense to -pretend- you have a conscience and save the human. Saving a dog over a human would likely make it to big news outlets and make you a social outcast for the rest of your life.

Sorry but if you're really gonna jump on the high horse here I expect that you'd better be living in almost poverty with the amount of money you've donated to charities. Everyday, thousands of people die who's deaths could be prevented if everyone wasn't so incredibly greedy.

In your scenario, you have a chance to save something of a varying degree of importance to you (I love my dog very much so I picked her) or a complete stranger.

Yet everyday, you continue to not give money away to people who are starving. You could save many more than just one stranger. Don't tell me you can't afford to do such a thing. You have access to a computer obviously. Maybe you have a car, maybe even a house. Maybe you pay for education so you can make more money. Bottom line is, you're doing this all for yourself while you could be saving many lives.

Don't feel bad. Almost everyone does this. I do it too. But don't put yourself above everyone else and tell us to grow up because you're exactly the same.

Also, think of it this way. I doubt you have any emotional attachment to your money yet you don't give it away to help people. Yet you're telling people who do have emotional attachments to their pets (other living things btw, not inanimate objects like money) that they should just kill them to save a stranger. Your logic doesn't work.

 

[Womplord]

It's amazing how many people are they would save the person because otherwise they will be frowned upon. I mean, can you stop thinking of yourself for just one second please?