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

Recommended Videos

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
imahobbit4062 said:
That isn't my logic at all. I'm choosing to save what I love over someone I don't even know. Not pushing a button and watching them most certainly die for 10 bucks.
But it is. You dont know these 2000 families. You gain NO negative consequences for killing them. But you DO get 10 dollars. You have zero reason to care about your actions and 1 reason to want to. Therefor you should do it. Youre not going to have anything to do with those families, why would you care at all that they died? What you DO care about is 10 dollars. Even the tiniest bit. So if given a choice between 2000 families you care 0 iotas for and 10 dollars you care 1 iota for you should pick the 10 dollars right?
 

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,914
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
Pandabearparade said:
You're further demonstrating a lack of understanding of any sort of morality by asserting that the dog is equivalent to a mother.
... seriously?

'any sort of morality'?

You appear to be confusing social mores (the prevailing concepts and ideas of morality within a society) with personal morals (a peron's own concepts of right and wrong).
 

Pandabearparade

New member
Mar 23, 2011
962
0
0
Meaning of Karma said:
Although, I suppose it's to be expected, seeing as how a lot of people who hang around this site seem to be angsty teens/young adults who think that it's super cool to be bitter and cynical.
I hope you're right and they grow out of it.

Ragsnstitches said:
This dilemma seems to solely exist for you to propagate cynicism or to elevate your own opinion of yourself.
Not even close to true. I saw the same poll done by another person on MMO-Champion and was hoping if the same poll was conducted somewhere that isn't the asshole of the internet the results would be more.. sane. Didn't happen, clearly.
 

madster11

New member
Aug 17, 2010
476
0
0
Save my pet.

This is because i know how to resuscitate a human and i'm more likely to make it out of the whirlpool myself if i have to carry 10kg vs up to 100kg.
If the dog is fine and i know the strength of the whirlpool is low enough, i'll go back in and get the person and attempt to save them.
 

Kroxile

New member
Oct 14, 2010
543
0
0
After further review of this thread all I can say is this is Liberal Logic 101.

I'm not even Conservitarded and I realize the value of something I know, love, and care for is far above and beyond the value of something I probably would never look twice at.

So fuck you and fuck your heavy-handed "morality" passing judgment like this makes you every bit as stupid as the conservatives who think a bronze age fairy tale book gives them the god-given right to pass judgment on everyone else.
 

PatrickXD

New member
Aug 13, 2009
977
0
0
I find that the third option undermines the purpose of the poll. Yes we *know* you want to be a smart ass, but it isn't about actually saving anything from drowning. The poll is about what you care the most about. It could just as easily be any other situation. I'm not quite sure how that is a complicated concept, just leave your literal interpretation of the situation, including your skills related to the possible dangers, out of it.
I voted for the stranger, because I tend not to get too attached to my pets. Unfortunately the poll will provide somewhat skewed results due to that entirely unnecessary third option. Perhaps we should assume that whoever voted for the third option was too busy evaluating how 'hilarious' and 'witty' they are to make a decision.
Also, I'm not gonna judge people who vote to save pets. I get it, and ultimately what we think we'll do and what we would do in any situation of this ilk comes down to much more than just 'pet or stranger'.
 

theblindedhunter

New member
Jul 8, 2012
143
0
0
Well, aside from saving a person from drowning being an incredibly dangerous thing to try, it's just a matter of emotion. I feel very emotionally tied to my pets, and if it came right down to it I would be risking my life for them, and getting to the stranger second.

I'm not going to say it is the right thing to do, but I don't think it is so difficult to understand the response, and certainly not reason to call anyone a monster. If I save my pet, I will be miserable for a time about whether I could have saved the stranger as well or should have saved them first. If I save the stranger, I'd have the same feelings, plus that of a hole taken out of my life.

Should I call someone saving a person instead of the pet that they have known and loved for years monstrous? Because it's certainly not an entirely saintly decision to condemn a pet to such suffering and death either, just because they aren't your species.

Though I do think it is absolutely ridiculous to say that it's a liberal or conservative thing. What utter bullshit partisans come up with.

Also, trying to save a person from drowning is extremely dangerous. Saving a cat wouldn't be especially fun, but at least their clawing at your face isn't going to also include dragging your head under the water in an attempt to save themselves. People are absolute dicks when drowning.
What I would be most likely to try doing is throwing the person a rope (tied to something sturdy outside of the water), and going in after the pet.
But as far as the whole "who do you save" dilemma is concerned, see above.
 

Rainforce

New member
Apr 20, 2009
693
0
0
depends on how much I like my pet.
OP, if you rant about how the tendency is 2:1, you're lacking in perspective (at least I believe).
Please consider that humans have no other choice but to evaluate the situation by the factors they deem important, i.e. in this case the pet. It could also be said that you're quite "racist" or similar that you would rather save strangers from your own species no matter how much fun and friendship you shared with that other individual of another species.

*ahem* just a thing to think about. overall it really depends on your relationship with your pets and humanity as a whole. I would probably not save a hamster, because it would die within a few years anyways, but something with higher intellect and lifespan might indeed be worth the effort, and moreso than a stranger I won't see again.

EDIT: also @ all the people who need to make up excuses: get the fuck over it. You do what you think is the right thing to do, and that doesn't need any further pseudo-justification.
If your brain would deem it impractical, be it on a moral basis or something completely different, it wouldn't make that decision in the first place.
Unless you're a suicidal and destructive asshole of course, but then you have other problems.
 

Crimson Lucario

New member
Aug 14, 2012
75
0
0
I save my cat, I'm 15 so if a woman late 20s can't save herself how could I?
Also I sort of expect people to be able to swim by then, I live in the Netherlands and the ability to swim is normal here.

Even if I could save the woman I'd still not save her, I know my cat and I like it, I don't know the stranger.
If my cat drowned because I saved that woman I'd blame myself for not having saved my cat and feel regret later anyway so there is no point in saving that woman.
I can't blame a cat for not being able to swim but I can blame the woman.

And I don't see myself as a monster, humans are animals and pets too, I'm offered a choice to save one of two lifes and one I know and want to continue to live with and feel sad if it were to die.
The other one I don't know, have no interest in and I gain nothing when I save it and lose nothing when it dies.
So either I can save my cat, be happy living with it and prevent feeling sad not living with it or save a woman I couldn't care about dead or alive.
If I could save both I'd save both but if I have to choose I'd choose the one that actually has some value for me.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Kroxile said:
After further review of this thread all I can say is this is Liberal Logic 101.

I'm not even Conservitarded and I realize the value of something I know, love, and care for is far above and beyond the value of something I probably would never look twice at.
While i agree that this is true the thing that scares me is the arguement that "if i dont know someone i have zero reason to care if they suffer or i cause them to suffer". Which leads to things like "Would you take 100 dollars to bomb a building youve never heard of and kill 100s of people if you COULDNT get caught". Obviously with the logic "I dont care about people i dont know AT ALL" there isnt much of a reason not to, you get 100 dollars and things you care zero iotas about die. So why wouldnt you do it? People who admit they care about the human too but just care about the dog more make a decision i wouldnt agree with but is morally understandable. People who say they care zero about the human and would value almost anything more than it scare me.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
imahobbit4062 said:
...No, it isn't.

A choice between saving my pet or a random stranger in a life or death situation is not the same as choosing to randomly kill 2000 people for 10 bucks. Not mention money never factored into the original scenario of a whirlpool anyway. Also by not saving the person I'm not directly killing them, I'm just choosing to help save something else.

Any other completely unrelated scenarios you want to throw at me?
It definitely is...

You said.

"But I'm not going to have anything to do with that mother or her kids. Why should I care?"

So we agree you admitted you have zero reason to care about people you dont know. Like zero. Im saying you have a small reason to care about 10 dollars. So im putting forward that if this is true and you were forced to choose between 10 dollars and 2000 people if we apply the sentence above that you said you should pick the 10 dollars. If you wouldn't can you tell me why at least?
 

Dege84

New member
Jun 3, 2010
34
0
0
This might be only my oppinion but you're starting by assuming that we aren't also animals, which I do believe we are. No, not in the "you're behaving like an animal" way but in the sense that we are as much animals as our pets and the countless other species. Just because we can "speak" in a different way, do many things, etc. doesn't make us morally superior, we're just higher in the food chain.

I agree that the guy that you're refering to is actually a huge idiot, but for different reasons. You see, to say that non-religious people are immoral for not believing in one deity or another denotes a severe lack of understanding in my view. Reasoning is what gave us moral principles, ethics etc.,(maybe the greeks "invented" them) not some deity or religious figure.

We, like other animals, prioritize based on the relatioship (or the lack of) we have with others so in this case I will choose to save my dog. Unfortunately for me, since I can't swim and most dogs can, me and the stranger will drown while my dog could possibly save herself, a turn of events which might make you happy (seeing as I am such a monster) but not entirely since my dog survived. And you might think she should have died too, beeing the pet of a monster and all, isn't she?
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
If it was a stranger and an animal I've never seen before, I'd save the human.

When I have an emotional attachment to one of the beings I've saving, odds are I'm going to save the pet.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
Dags90 said:
BathorysGraveland said:
Well I can't swim, so I guess I'd yell for someone to help. My first instinct though if I COULD swim, would be to save my pet. I'm sorry, but people/things I care about come before things I don't.

You got some 'splainin' to do. You can't swim?
Pandabearparade said:
BathorysGraveland said:
Well I can't swim, so I guess I'd yell for someone to help. My first instinct though if I COULD swim, would be to save my pet. I'm sorry, but people/things I care about come before things I don't.
I bet you'd find that a little hard to explain to the family of the dead human.
If they're watching, they can save him themselves. Otherwise, why explain anything? Whose going to know the difference?
 

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,914
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
Ragsnstitches said:
These questions are always bullshit.
Yep, you can construct any number of scenarios to affirm specific biases. Hell, you can change people's answers to the same basic question simply by how you word it. Behavioural scientists and psychologists have been playing with this sort of thing for over a century now.
 

razer17

New member
Feb 3, 2009
2,518
0
0
Well I can't swim, so neither. Going on the assumption that I could swim, however, I'm really not sure who I'd save. Probably the person. If it were a child I'd be even more likely to choose the person.