Maybe you should ask the King to be invited to the Round Table of Retards to have tea and discuss how people are soooooooooo selfish to save the life of something they love and priortise themselves over a stranger.
Seriously, go back to the question you were asked that involved saving the life of your mother or the life of histories greatest nobel prize nominee in the field of medicine. And I mean actually ANSWER it and have a great big fucking think WHY you reached that conclusion. Don't just dance around it and say 'nah, thats off-topic, thats flamebait, I dont have to answer that.' Because I dont know any other way to show you how backwards-thinking it is to tell someone they are a monster for saving something they love over something that has more 'value'. God knows how many others have tried.
Within the murky depths of history, great thinkers and Noble prize nominees are a dime a dozen - and often die horribly. The person who gave you life is unique and deserves at least some priority. That being said If the OPs question was two humans are drowning, ones your Mum and the other is some smart dude and I only had time to save one. My answer would be the same as the last time someone asked such a simple question. Whichever one is closer to my available resources.
Okay lets actually pretend the nominee is the bloody nicest President in the world. Or he WON the prize. Or whatever makes him more accomplished than your mother without you having to answer the question without copping out and going into details.
And nah mate, you HAVE to pick the one that has more societal value. His life is more valuable. Don't pick the one you have a strong emotional attatchment to at all, that would make you a monster.
Then I'll answer the question - again - and your childish sarcasm the same way I answered last time and everytime. Whichever one is closer. A human is a human. From a societal point of view they are equal in measure.
So if it was a choice between your mother and criminal you'd pick either one right?
Anyway forget all that and let me just drop the whole hypothetical question and say:
'What would you rather save - something that you have powerful emotional attachment to and it in return or something that is socially accepted as having more value?'
And don't worry, there's no wrong answer. I cannot believ anyone would turn to someone on this thread whose pet might mean the whole WORLD to them (try to find my post about Jim from down the road if you would like to see more about what I mean by that) and flat out say, 'you're selfish'. Anyone would think they had no emotions or something.
By all means, if you pick the socially valuable thing, thats fine, but are you really such a monster for saving what you love instead? I mean, is it that bad to think about yourself (to some sort of rational standpoint, I mean, only someone who was bonkers would save their pet rock) in these situations? I mean, it's a lose-lose scenario they're gonna feel like shit afterwards either way. Is priortising what you love that selfish? Can you empathise with THEM?
Maybe you should ask the King to be invited to the Round Table of Retards to have tea and discuss how people are soooooooooo selfish to save the life of something they love and priortise themselves over a stranger.
Seriously, go back to the question you were asked that involved saving the life of your mother or the life of histories greatest nobel prize nominee in the field of medicine. And I mean actually ANSWER it and have a great big fucking think WHY you reached that conclusion. Don't just dance around it and say 'nah, thats off-topic, thats flamebait, I dont have to answer that.' Because I dont know any other way to show you how backwards-thinking it is to tell someone they are a monster for saving something they love over something that has more 'value'. God knows how many others have tried.
Within the murky depths of history, great thinkers and Noble prize nominees are a dime a dozen - and often die horribly. The person who gave you life is unique and deserves at least some priority. That being said If the OPs question was two humans are drowning, ones your Mum and the other is some smart dude and I only had time to save one. My answer would be the same as the last time someone asked such a simple question. Whichever one is closer to my available resources.
Okay lets actually pretend the nominee is the bloody nicest President in the world. Or he WON the prize. Or whatever makes him more accomplished than your mother without you having to answer the question without copping out and going into details.
And nah mate, you HAVE to pick the one that has more societal value. His life is more valuable. Don't pick the one you have a strong emotional attatchment to at all, that would make you a monster.
Then I'll answer the question - again - and your childish sarcasm the same way I answered last time and everytime. Whichever one is closer. A human is a human. From a societal point of view they are equal in measure.
So if it was a choice between your mother and criminal you'd pick either one right?
Anyway forget all that and let me just drop the whole hypothetical question and say:
'What would you rather save - something that you have powerful emotional attachment to and it in return or something that is socially accepted as having more value?'
And don't worry, there's no wrong answer. I cannot believ anyone would turn to someone on this thread whose pet might mean the whole WORLD to them (try to find my post about Jim from down the road if you would like to see more about what I mean by that) and flat out say, 'you're selfish'. Anyone would think they had no emotions or something.
By all means, if you pick the socially valuable thing, thats fine, but are you really such a monster for saving what you love instead? I mean, is it that bad to think about yourself (to some sort of rational standpoint, I mean, only someone who was bonkers would save their pet rock) in these situations? I mean, it's a lose-lose scenario they're gonna feel like shit afterwards either way. Is priortising what you love that selfish? Can you empathise with THEM?
To answer your first question. Yes you are right. It is regrettable but if the criminal is closer then so be it. It is not my place to judge a person by their crimes if they are in dire need. That would be hypocritical.
To answer your second question. That would depend on society's point of view. If it is indeed for the greater good then so be it, although I suppose 'the greater good' would have to come from my own perspective and that would indeed make me a selfish person, which I am. Of course in context with the original hypothesis - in my mind - the decision to jump in and save somebody is a snap 'right here right now' decision. I'm an act and react kind of person in these cases so the original answer still applies. Which ever is closer or path of least resistance. I will admit this philosophy has bitten me on the arse as many times as it's helped but it's how I roll.
And believe me I'm not worrying. And as yet I haven't turned on anyone for choosing their pet over the human. Their decision is their decision and mine is mine. Although my original post featured a high horsed lament that if people felt the same way about their fellow human beings as they do over pets and prized possessions the world would probably be a better place. A personal belief of mine which I hold to.
To answer your third and fourth questions. No it does not make them monsters to save what they love over whatever. From a religious and social point of view that would even make them the better person to a point. Unfortunately as the Rolling Stones would say 'you can't always get what you want, but you might just find you get what you need'. Sometimes sacrifice is required.
To answer your fifth question. Yes. But as contradicting as it may sound, that's what makes us human.
Hmmmmmm. To answer your last question. No. Although when I was young I was very materialistic and often likened inanimate objects to living things - I would cry if a glass broke, because the glass was dead for example. I have met in my life animals - stray cats for the most part - that I would consider my aquantances, but never my pets. I did not own them, they were themselves. And as regrettable as it is I would still choose the fellow member of my species over the animal because - and believe me when I say this honestly - I LITERALLY CAN SEE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.
Indeed! It's a valuable skill and good excersise. Which reminds I must get to the gym tomorrow!
That being said, here in Australia we have compulsory swimming lessons in primary schools (Years 1-7 or 8 depending on which state). Can I assume that doesn't happen in other countries?
Indeed! It's a valuable skill and good excersise. Which reminds I must get to the gym tomorrow!
That being said, here in Australia we have compulsory swimming lessons in primary schools (Years 1-7 or 8 depending on which state). Can I assume that doesn't happen in other countries?
Also has the potential to be a worthless sack of shit so what's your point? If you can be optimistic about the person and whatever it is they do we can be equally pessimistic and assume they're hitler.
I live by the general rule "Expect the best, but prepare for the worst." That way, I don't seem like a judgmental prick but am still rarely caught off guard when things go wrong.
A pet is stuck being a pet. It can never become anything more a non-sapient animal, a slave to its instincts.
It will never found and run it's own company because it can't.
It will never make great breakthroughs in science or medicine because it can't.
A pet can't help change the world.
A pet could also become a murderer. Dogs, for example, have killed many humans in the past.
They can also become a leeching slob. Providing no enjoyment to you and taking your resources and money.
However, a human CAN change the world.
A human CAN become a great scientist, a great engineer, a great philosopher.
A human can reach the stars on his own.
Sure they could also become a leeching slob or a murderer, just like the dog could, but the fact of the matter is that a human with a working human brain will always have more potential than a dog with a working dog brain.
Saving the human would be the most logical thing to do. Saving the pet would be an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Now, If I had to choose between saving my friend or saving a stranger?
The playing fields are level. I have more stake in my friend.
Of course I would save my friend.
Having already lost my pet... I'd save my pet if it was magically revived for the sake of me saving it. Damn I'm not going to let them die again!
Sorry but my faith in humanity just isn't strong enough for me to want to save a stranger. Plus it would be a lot easier to save an animal, they're smaller than humans.
In the heat of the moment I might save the stranger, but if I had enough time to think I might go for my pet. Also: do I have an audience? That would critically affect the result.
Time to think + no audience -> Save my pet
No time to think + no audience -> Save the stranger
Time to think + audience -> Save the stranger
No time to think + audience -> Save the stranger
I'm sorry, I just happen to make bad calls when under a lot of pressure.
Why would you change your answer based on if people are watching?
Also, "Time to think." This is exactly why this thread exists, so you can think about what you'll do when this inevitably does happen to you.
I would act differently if there are witnesses, because... witnesses. Leaving a man to die just so I can rescue a smelly furball would not be good PR. But if there won't be any witnesses I am free to do as I like.
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?
If OP is asking you to choose between 2 actions to test your moral view of the situation, it is assumed you can physically do them(in fact it is irrelevant if you can physically do them, as it is a hypothetical situation), and its kind of obvious that the question means you can pick only one option.
First of all, I would argue that the question doesn't test your moral view of the situation at all, as there is no moral outcome to the situation. You either value your pet's life more, or the stranger's life more. Either way, you're leaving one of them to die. There is no objective right or wrong answer.
Second of all, you're repeating yourself. Just because you're using a hypothetical scenario, doesn't mean that I can't criticize it for its contrivance, particularly if you're going to claim the moral high ground and be judgmental of the people who answered your question, like the OP did.
Okay, I will say that I really can't pick through 18 pages of posts to see if any of the points I'm making have already been stated, so I apologize in advance for redundancies in this post. However, I did read the OP (obviously) and a few others. So let's take the time machine all the way back to the OP and start from there.
First off, I actually find Dennis Prager to be a pretty reasonable person. I don't listen to his show regularly, but I've caught it a few times and he's not a total prick or blowhard, at least not any more-so than your average political pundit, but that's just part of their job. The reason I'm bringing this up is there's a reason this caught Prager's attention. A while back there was an interview with some of the head idiots from PETA[footnote]Yes, I know that "PETA" and "idiots" are synonymous but that's besides the point.[/footnote] regarding this very situation. Of course they said they'd save their pets over a person. Well Dennis, along with a good number of people, were a bit taken aback by this, which is probably what led him to investigate this further. I'd still like to see the actual data from that poll.
ANYWAY... I would most certainly, 100% of the time, without any hesitation rescue a human being that is a stranger to me rather than my pet. The third option is pretty much non-existent for me because not only am I a very strong swimmer, but I've actually been trained with precisely the skill-set required for a water rescue.[footnote]If you can't swim well then definitely take the third option and yell for help, you have a better chance of saving both the victim and yourself.[/footnote] There are both pragmatic and idealistic reasons for saving the human but this is about the idealism behind it so I'll go with that.
Saving a person can be easier simply because of the fact that they can grab onto things. Having opposable thumbs is a huge bonus. To rescue a pet, you'd have to swim out to, and actually grab it. With an animal that's even medium sized this would pose a huge problem as the thing would be thrashing about pretty badly. With a person, you should almost always attempt to rescue them with something that floats, or at least something they can hold on to that's not you, even if it's as simple as a branch that's lying around. A human, even when panicked, can also understand simple instructions like "Hold on to this and I'll pull you to the shore." You don't want them hanging on to you. That's a good way to turn one drowning person into two drowning people. If nothing else, saving the person might be the way to go in order to avoid further endangering my own life.
So, now on to the ideological part which is the real purpose of this thread, and be prepared for a semi-rant.
Alright, for all you people who would save your pet over another human being: What the HELL is the matter with you?!! No, I'm serious. I've been sitting here trying to figure out what sort of hardcore malfunction a person would have to possess in order to callously watch someone die while they opt to save their friggin' pet. But then I thought of an answer to this fairly disturbing quandary. It has occurred to me that many, if not most people here with that attitude have probably not quite properly fleshed out the full extent of this little thought experiment. See the thing is, right now, I'm typing this on a computer in the safety of my room with this situation being imaginary. Now, maybe this seems more serious to me because I live near a river where people do tend to drown a few times a year, but I have a feeling that what some of these posters aren't quite thinking this completely out. And by that I mean you guys seem to be overlooking the details. The horrifying, horrifying details inherent in the actual reality of a situation like this.
Look, it'd be pretty heartbreaking to watch a dog drown. It'd yelp and struggle and whip its head around in a vain attempt to breathe before the current sucked it under. I'd hate to have to see that, but as bad as that sounds, watching a person drown would much, much, much worse. For one, it'd most likely be more prolonged, even if someone can't swim they'll still have better control in water because our hands and feet have more surface area. Oh, and you know what else a human can do that your pet can't? They can beg for their lives. So, all you pet savers on here, I want you to visualize this hard. This person, female, late 20s-early 30s, according to the OP, would be screaming her head off, something along the lines "Please help, I have kids, I have a family!", or maybe "Help me out of the water, I can't swim!", but most likely it'd be something as simple as "PLEASE, PLEASE HELP ME! I DON'T WANT TO DIE!!!" And you would watch this woman, plead, beg and sob, while you swam out and grabbed your pet instead? Are you fucking kidding me?!
You know what? I think that if you want to save your pet there should be a stipulation where afterwards you have to look every member of this woman's family in the eye and explain to them the reason why you basically killed her through omission of action. Yes, it's sad when a pet dies, but it's absolutely devastating when it happens to a loved one. It's the sort of thing they may never get over for the rest of their lives. Explain to her parents why their daughter will never have the career she wanted or know the happiness of having a family of her own. If she already had a family, it's even more fucked up because her child(ren), would still be fairly young. Try sitting down a 3-10 year-old, and explain to them that mommy is never coming back because you wanted to play fetch with Fido or scratch Mr. Mitten's ears for a few more years. Not to mention that, statistically speaking, growing up minus a parent tends to screw kids up. I'm just trying to drive home the full ramifications of what an incredibly, despicably selfish act like that would do. Look, for me, people come first. Always.
Dammit, why do I always end up writing a wall o' text about shit like this? I come here for gaming news for fuck's sake.[footnote]Nothing here, I just think these footnotes are kind of fun. I've had some beer and just wanted to say that beer can be just swell.[/footnote]
A creature's life never has as much value as a member of my own species (excluding horrible humans). Even if an alien race far smarter than us showed up, I'd still stick with my own species. Also, I believe that gorilla could only learn 2000 words, I think it had the intelligence of a 3 year old human or something like that, so not quite on the same level as a sentient alien race or adult human. That being said, I won't kill a creature for no reason, it either has to be attacking me or needed for my comfort or survival.
So in your opinion, the life of a species of equal intelligence to us is worth less, because it was born different? I suspect thought patterns like this are how racism started.
I suppose I just don't see the plus of owning an animal, I guess. I mean I like dogs and pigs are rather cute, but owning an animal that just rings up huge vet bills, keeps me awake/wakes me up, eats, and craps/pisses in my house doesn't have much appeal to me. Sure it might recognize and react positively to the hand that feeds and pets it, but that's likely all you are to the simplistic mind of the animal. Replaceable and forgotten in a matter of months, if that.
And there is your problem. I suspect you're someone who has either never owned a pet, or at least never grown attached to one. Not only that, but you've already said that you place virtually no value on animal life. It's really not all that surprising you'd save the stranger then. So I think it's not unreasonable to assume that you simply find the idea of having an attachment to a pet so unusual, that you're having trouble empathizing with the point of view of a pet owner? You're about as biased an one could possibly be.
For me, it's the simple fact that in order of importance, human > animal until proven otherwise. It's not about how it'll affect the world. I'm not really assigning prices to life forms based off of impact on the world or intelligence, it's just in a heat of the moment situation, if you see your pet and a human being in danger, you should hopefully assist the person first, then the animal, if time permits.
That is just an opinion, and while I agree with the part I've highlighted, I disagree with the rest.
So, in your opinion, humans are inherently more important than animals. Why?
Most people would answer "because we're more intelligent" and I would agree with that. But why then, would a hypothetical alien species of equal intelligence to us, be less important? What exactly gives us more inherent worth than another species of equal intelligence, simply because we're born to a different body.
Question, how likely is it that the stranger drowning has no family, no friends, and no one who will be torn up by his death for years, if not decades? Could you live with letting him die for your pet? Even if all he did was work at McDonalds and try to scrounge a living for his girlfriend and baby son. Does that make his life less valuable than your pet? The fact that some people not only considered it, but decided they would is crazy. The fact that they are a majority here scares me.
This is why I drew the parallel about someone of great value to the world, verses a close family member. Saving the close family member will cause much more suffering, but you save them anyway, because you love them.
If my pet died, my family and I would mourn him, in exactly the same way the stranger's family might mourn the stranger's death. Yes, it likely wouldn't be as bad for us as it would be for the strangers family, but it'd still be bad.
Tell you what, in the quote below, I'm going to replace the word "human", with "white" and the word "animal" with, I don't know, "Asian".
Order of importance. I still believe that a fundamental part of being white is that first priority should be our own kind until such a time that it's proven that the whites cannot coexist peacefully with other whites. Regardless of the amount of attachment, that should be a secondary way to determine whom to save. The fact that anyone would place ANY Asian life over a white's bothers me immensely.
It sounds really quite disgusting when I put it like that, doesn't it?
I'll tell you what, 50 years ago, the quote above would have seemed normal. It's good we got past that way of thinking, isn't it?
I know it's an extreme example, but the principal remains the same: What you're saying is extremely prejudice.
Call me a monster all you like, If I could swim well id choose the pet. It means more to my life than a stranger would. Just the same way I would choose the death of 1000 strangers over the death of someone I love.
Look, one of the benefits of aging and years of therapy (7 and counting) is that we get to accept the things about ourselves that we cannot change. I chose to save the pet, because I value its life, I love my two pets and they are special to me. Human beings, there are 7 billion of us. I don't know you, or your family. I know I would be wrecked if I had the chance to save my beloved pets, lifeforms that I vowed to care for as my own children, and didn't take it.
Perhaps if this was not a hypothetical situation, if the scenery presented itself, I would search my feelings and chose otherwise. Things standing as they are, hypothetical, I chose the pet 100% of the times.
I am no monster, no nazi, no beast. I am who I am, and I respect the oppinions of those who would chose to save the person.
Even though I can swim, I don't think jumping into a whirlpool that is already trying to claim two lives is the smartest thing to do. I'm not an action hero. Chances are, all three of us would probably drown.
No no no no no. Asians, Whites, Blacks are all HUMAN. Period. Which is why "racism" is stupid in the first place. Trying to equivocate Racism with Speciesism, is frankly, insulting and intellectually dishonest. The fact that Richard Hawkins tried to draw this comparison does not make it any less stupid, it just highlights his irrationality.
To answer your question, if a species of alien that were of equal intelligence were to land on our planet, we should treat them as equals, until such a time when a distinction must be made for "us" vs them", because at the end of the day, as a species of HUMAN, you side with your own species. That is all it comes down to.
You're still on this about how horribly monstrous people who don't agree with you are? More like an intolerant, self-righteous green knight, complete with oversized sense of importance and wooden armor of sanctimoniousness. I don't know why green, it just seems fitting.
Why don't you answer this guy here? He has an excellent hypothetical scenario for you to consider. Especially if the only reason you would save the human is because it would net less suffering in the end which, of course, is completely subjective and situational.
Wynaro said:
Let me counter your argument with a similar scenario. Your parents died when you were young, only you and your younger sister are alive, you've both become socially awkward, so neither of you really have any friends, it's just the two of you alone in the world. Your sister is drowning, and so is a dog that you've never seen before, but can PLAINLY see is wearing a colorful collar. Who do you save? If you save your sister, you're selfish right? Saving her only benefits yourself, and keeps you from depression. Saving the dog will benefit it's owners, however many their might be, the owner's friends who will no longer have to go through trying to help the person through the period of depression they would otherwise be facing. The families of the friends, who get to spend more time with that loved one due to the fact that less time is spent away from home trying to help the owner.
If the ethical thing is that which benefits the majority, rather than the few, isn't it best to save the dog in this situation?
I absolutely agree that if a stranger and a stray dog you have no association with are drowning, the human comes first. But when it comes to something you've known for years, and something you've never met, the one you're connected to has EARNED the right to be saved by you. Whether it's a human, a dog, a cat, or any other animal that can show clear signs of an emotional connection, it deserves to be saved for all the things you've done for it, and all the things it's done for you. People die all the time, Dogs die all the time, we're all just animals struggling to survive. The connections we have and the efforts we put in are all in order to survive. Saying a dog who puts JUST as much effort into forming these bonds as a human might have doesn't deserve to LIVE simply because it's a dog is as disgusting as saying a man doesn't deserve a job he worked his ass off for, just because he's black, or that a woman who works twice as hard as any man around her deserves less pay, simply because she's a woman. It's wrong, and if you can't see that, you're the monster.
EVERYONE has their opinion. You can't insult a person just because they have a different opinion than you do in some poll you made because you were angry. If you wanted someone to agree with you, you should have found a friend who you could vent to without their comments on the subject. The stranger and the dog have EQUAL right to survive, because they're both animals, nothing more, nothing less. Humans can be some of the most terrible animals, dogs can be some of the most loving animals. And Vice Versa. You have NO right to call a person a MONSTER of DISGUSTING over the fact that they feel saving the animal that they've formed a lasting bond with over the animal they've never even seen before. You can disagree with it all you want, and they can disagree all they want. But you do NOT make a thread on a forum saying to pick A or B, then insult and degrade every person who picks B.
That hypothetical scenario is stupid. Let me point out why. A human, is always (ALWAYS) worth more than an animal. That is all it comes down to. They are not "equal". This scenario would be more fair if both of the things drowning were people, then it would be a moral dilemma. In this case however, it would be justified in choosing your sister, because THEN and only then, are they both equal in saving, and if they are both of equal importance, then you choose the person who is of more value you to.
That is ALL it comes down to. Please stop trying to draw intellectually dishonest comparisons like some sort of checkmate.
Not well said Wynaro, your logic could use some work.
If I had time to think about it? My pet. He's worth more then any 10 random humans, at least to me.
But I'd likely save the human first, that would be my instinctual reaction. I've actually done it before, some people freeze, some scream for help, some jump in fully clothed and pull a kid out, you never know what you'll do until it happens.
Of course being a child I imagine the instinctual reaction was heightened, but I honestly can't remember thinking anything before diving in when I saw a 4 year old fall off the pier into deep water, I just moved.
If I had time to think about it? My pet. He's worth more then any 10 random humans, at least to me.
But I'd likely save the human first, that would be my instinctual reaction. I've actually done it before, some people freeze, some scream for help, some jump in fully clothed and pull a kid out, you never know what you'll do until it happens.
Of course being a child I imagine the instinctual reaction was heightened, but I honestly can't remember thinking anything before diving in when I saw a 4 year old fall off the pier into deep water, I just moved.
Look, it'd be pretty heartbreaking to watch a dog drown. It'd yelp and struggle and whip its head around in a vain attempt to breathe before the current sucked it under. I'd hate to have to see that, but as bad as that sounds, watching a person drown would much, much, much worse. For one, it'd most likely be more prolonged, even if someone can't swim they'll still have better control in water because our hands and feet have more surface area. Oh, and you know what else a human can do that your pet can't? They can beg for their lives. So, all you pet savers on here, I want you to visualize this hard. This person, female, late 20s-early 30s, according to the OP, would be screaming her head off, something along the lines "Please help, I have kids, I have a family!", or maybe "Help me out of the water, I can't swim!", but most likely it'd be something as simple as "PLEASE, PLEASE HELP ME! I DON'T WANT TO DIE!!!" And you would watch this woman, plead, beg and sob, while you swam out and grabbed your pet instead? Are you fucking kidding me?!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
