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

[recurve6]

I can't swim rofl.

BUT if I could magically Michael Phelps that shit I would definitely go for my pet. My pets are like family and they're much more important to me than random people.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

As a theoretical who-would-you-save thought experiment I would save the stranger. I put a higher value on human life than other animal life purely because I identify with the human thought process.

Having said that, I would probably freeze up at the situation or call for help, I am a fairly strong swimmer but I wouldn't be too sure about jumping into a situation that ALREADY has someone else that close to death.

 

[Skratt]

I would try to save the person if possible but to me it's not a question of people over pets because I will try to save the person every time. It's regarding a full grown adult drowning in water that is dangerous. I've taken some water safety classes and trying to save a freaked out drowning adult can sometimes get two people killed. I would look to see if there is anything I could throw for them to float on. If there wasn't anything, I'd have to think before jumping in.

 

[Jynthor]

I'd save her if she was hot.

Spoiler

Nah, joke, I'd probably save the person, I don't have a pet so yeah.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

A) You jump in to save your pet and die with it.
B) You jump in to save the stranger, and die with him/her.
C) Shoot yourself in the head to save time.
D) You stand on the shore and watch them both die while lamenting your impotence. By the way, Jesus hates you for your inaction and reasonable sense of self-preservation. *guilt guilt guilt*

You forgot E) video it with your phone and post it on Youtube.

 

[Lizardon]

I know it's a cop out, but I'm going to go with "I don't know".

Seriously, I have no idea how I would react in such a situation. I've never been confronted with anything like that so I have no experience to draw from. I do know that I'm much more likely to drown myself if I swim out to the person, as in their panic they could pull me under (that is actually how my great-grandfather died) whereas my dog is a maltese shih tzu who I could tuck under my arm and swim to safety. Other than that I just don't know.

Anyway, I think this hypothetical situations are bullshit. They are always so contrived and convoluted. I can pretty much guarantee that I'll never been in a situation where I'll have to make such a choice, much like I've never considered what I would if I suddenly turned into cheese, so why bother thinking about it?

I fail to see how a fish would drown, so I'd save the stranger.

What if your fresh water fish was 'drowning' in salt water (or vice-versa)?

 

[Mr_Spanky]

Its a person... there isn't a choice here.

That was my thought was well. I was clearly wrong. I just hope people would grow up a bit if they ever actually run into this situation.

Kinda sad that Dennis Prager was right. A ridiculous amount of people would save a dog before a human.

This has nothing to do with maturity or age. Not everyone values other humans to the same degree. Is that wrong? Its debatable. Legally your not held accountable (here) if someone dies in preventable situation, morally we are told that human life is of greater importance then any other but the world is overflowing with examples of people who turn on each other over slight offences. Things are never black and white.

Here is what really matters. Who is the person, how old are they, what do they do. As far as I'm concerned, if my pet (by pet I mean Dog... I don't hold as much respect for other animals) has bigger impact to the world then the drowning person then I would obviously choose the dog. Just as people pull the "what if he's a paedophile" card, I see you thinking that all animals are just novelty items. There are dogs who accomplish more in their short lives then some people do in their entire lives. Also, People are driven to depression at the loss of a pet, not to strangers.

This dilemma seems to solely exist for you to propagate cynicism or to elevate your own opinion of yourself.

Here is a better one. Save a young family member, or save a stranger who is the only person who knows the cure for cancer/aids/alzheimer's (pick your poison). Now, lets see you fumble with the reasons why you choose one over the other.

These questions are always bullshit. They are hypothetical circle jerks for people to either generate delusions of grandeur (how selfless, heroic and noble you are to save the strangers child rather then your own dad) or to affirm a selfish opinion (Everyone would save their dad right? Its not just me?)

The right answer is you don't fucking know. At that moment you will be so overcome by emotions (you love your dog, but feel obligated to save the person), flowing with chemicals (fight or flight) which cloud judgement and possibly concerned about your own safety (if they are drowning, I might drown).

I voted for my pet, because fuck your poll.

There is no wrong answer. There is a stupid question though. These conundrums are utterly useless.

Im pretty much with this guy. It doesnt serve any purpose philosophically to pose a question whilst firmly telling people that theyre wrong if they choose option B.

Also knowing exactly what youd do is a matter of little consequence as sitting in a warm room with a little ACDC typing away on my computer is several worlds away from the reality of having to make a primal instinct, spur-of-the-moment kind of decision.

It reminds me of that Bruno Mars song "Grenade". I mean would you REALLY throw yourself on a grenade, in front of a train get stabbed and whatever else? Even if your brain reacts fast eneough (many people when faced in such situations simply "freeze") are you REALLY prepared to take someone elses place in front of the firing squad?

Theres no way to know - and condeming someone for not wanting to save a stranger when the animal in question may hold a strong emotional bond isnt a fair poll.

Essentially this is:
You chose option A): You are a disgrace to humanity and should be ashamed of yourself.
You chose option B): You are a credit to society have earned 50 internets!
You chose option C): You are a coward.

And besides I think we all know that most people are going to take the option they think they SHOULD take and not the one they actually would.

I havent voted because I dont know. Honestly these things can swing on something like whether you think the woman is pretty, whether youre in a good mood or youve just been fired from your job etc etc. Split second desions can be decided on things we may not be proud of or find any validaity in when calmly sitting in an armchair.

Its not predicatable and its not wrong to choose one over the other.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I never said they had no value. Me not caring about them doesn't mean they have absolutely 0 value.

In one scenario, I chose an emotional bond over a loyal pet, in another I chose to spare the lives of 2000 instead of receiving 10 dollars. What's so confusing about that?

When someone says "I care NOTHING for X" I assume it means x has zero value to them. If they mind when it is gone thats the definition of caring. Youve basically admitted that you DO care about random people. To the point where youd pay 10 hypothetical dollars to save 2000 of them.

I understand your choice entirely. Im not saying its confusing to understand the two ANSWERS. The motivation is what im talking about. If someone went "Well i care about the person but i care about the dog more" id understand. Thats perfectly reasonable and it explains why they wouldnt pick the 10 dollars. When someone goes "I dont care at all about random people and id save the dog" i think wait a minute. If you dont care about random people at all then youd care about any material possession more right? So if given the choice between a life and some money youd pick the money, caring about one but not the other?

If people didnt care about random people theyd mug them and rob them whenever they had the chance as long as they knew they wouldnt get caught. Because i doubt thats true i tend to believe that people who say "I care NOTHING for random strangers" are lying or haven't thought about the consequences of their statement.

 

[zumbledum]

all choices are selfish. every choice ever made.

this one is about fear, fear of loosing a beloved pet or the fear of the social cost.

we choose the bill that is easiest to pay.

for me i save the pet, im just not very bothered of about society nor am i in any real way a member of it. people with kids that do stuff and have a wide social network will choose the other way. but all of us take the selfish choice.

 

[floppylobster]

Spoiler

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. Excuses ranged from arguments from ignorance "Well the stranger might be a pedophile!" to admissions that their own feelings trump the feelings of the friends and family of the human being who is going to die due to their action (or inaction).

What bothers me most is that I remember Dennis Prager, a conservative loudmouth, talking about a poll conducted with "liberals" asking the same question. He claimed that an overwhelming majority of them would save their pet over a human, and at the time I thought that sounded like just more bullshit from a bullshit artist.
Was I wrong? Does that loudmouth imbecile actually have a valid point for once in his career? I decided to run a completely unscientific test with a fairly liberal audience (you guys) to find out.

These points raise some interesting questions though -

(1) My pet probably can't save itself, the stranger should be able to.
(2) The stranger should have known better than to put themselves in a situation where they might drown. My pet is not as smart.
(3) The pet might expect my help because we have a relationship. The stranger should not.
(4) If the house is burning down do I save my baby or a stranger? Where is the line drawn between our own feelings and what is socially considered the 'right' thing to do?
(5) Is it right to value a human life over another animals? Why? Because we're more advanced? In the time of dinosaurs then, it was the 'right' thing to do to save a Velociraptor. But had you let a Purgatorius (small rat-like creature) die, humans may not have evolved.

What is the right thing to do? In moments like these the right thing is only to do what feels right. I don't believe there is a wrong action. Even leaving both to die because you're scared you might drown is perfectly natural. What is the nobler thing to do? That is a different question.

And if I my pet was a goldfish... that would change the whole scenario.

 

[Ragland]

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.

Excuse me for butting in, but with all due respect, sir, that's not what these people are saying. They're not saying "I have no reason to care about these people, what's in it for me?" They're saying, "I have a lot GREATER reason to care about my pet than this person." They're not really saying they're mercs or something who would kill a bunch of people just for some monetary value. They're just saying if it's a choice between their pet, who they love and cherish, and a total stranger, who they've never met and never WILL meet again, they choose the thing they know. That's not really wrong, it's human nature. Every single time humanity has been confronted with a choice between something different and something they already know, the vast majority of people would choose the thing they know. In this case, that's a pet, with the different thing being a person.

And in case it hasn't been made abundantly clear, yes, I chose, and would choose, my pet.

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.

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.

AND YOU, YOU SIR. You condemn people for choosing the life of their pets over a stranger? Why? Because a random human is more important than a cared for pet? And not only that, you say then people need a God to tell them right from wrong because they choose the pet? You condemn people for choosing what they know over what they don't, and make disparaging comments about their morality or sanity based on your own personal sense of justice? This isn't about what's right and wrong. There IS NO right and wrong. You wish to justify your decision and own self righteous opinion with "How could any person pick a PET, an ANIMAL, over a HUMAN BEING?! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE SUFFERING THIS WILL CAUSE TO THEIR FAMILY?! ARE YOU SO SELFISH?!" The selfish remark maybe warranted, but if you are surprised, then you know nothing about humanity. As for the suffering? What about it? You make remarks: "What if she was a mother of three kids?" How would you know that? She's a random stranger. You wouldn't know for it to influence your decision at all. You ask that people consider the possibility before jumping in to save them, or that they should just jump in and save the person without thinking? I would prefer not to go into speculation about you personally, sir, but to so blatantly refuse to even TRY and understand the opposing side of this debate, you yourself have clearly never cared about a pet. You claim that logic or simple morality would cause a person to easily choose the stranger over a pet? When have these things ever effected humanity historically? You are surprised humanity makes the selfish, emotional choice? Read a history book. Behold, the exact same pattern again and again and again and again. Why are you surprised, sir? Do you know so little about people? Is it truly ignorance for caring about a pet? Or is it just plain self righteousness? Elaborate, sir.

 

[I-Protest-I]

I take my hands off their heads so they can swim to safety.

 

[Spambot 3000]

And with no due respect(because it deserves none), fuck the OP's 'morality'. Fuck it right up the arse.

Now, I asked Jim from down the road this threads question and Jim is 20 years old and lives with himself and his pet dog. Jim's father bought him the dog as a puppy when Jim was 13 to help him break out of his depression after Jim's brother died from cancer. It worked out splendidly and for the next 7 years throughout his life the dog was Jim's loyal companion. Whenever Jim was feeling depressed, the dog was there for him. Whenever Jim was lonely, the dog was there for him. The dog did not judge, it just loved. And Jim loved it back. Oh the memories of playing in the park, going for a jog during the sunset, cuddling up at night ... To Jim, the dog was more than just a pet. It was more ... a brother. A best friend. Someone who would always love him, no matter what.
So when I asked Jim this queston, naturally, he said he'd save his dog.

What a selfish ****.

Seriously though, OP, this is not the black and white 'are you a normal, sane, socially-acceptable human being OR ARE YOU A MONSTER' question you think it is. Congratulations on making a complete ass of yourself.

 

[Frission]

Why would most people save their pets?

Here's the thing, people are more important than animals. I never understood those who would be against animal suffering, but not human suffering.

Just get another pet. I like my cat, but I don't think he's important than a stranger.

 

[Thistlehart]

A) You jump in to save your pet and die with it.
B) You jump in to save the stranger, and die with him/her.
C) Shoot yourself in the head to save time.
D) You stand on the shore and watch them both die while lamenting your impotence. By the way, Jesus hates you for your inaction and reasonable sense of self-preservation. *guilt guilt guilt*

You forgot E) video it with your phone and post it on Youtube.

B-b-b-but, that would be immoooorrraaaaalll!

*whinge whinge whinge*

 

[Baldry]

I'd save both because I'm a trained lifeguard and I could do that shit. But if I couldn't my priority would be the stranger since a human life's more valuable than that of an animal.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Excuse me for butting in, but with all due respect, sir, that's not what these people are saying.

Of course not all of them are saying that, i posted this a few mins after the post you quoted:

"I understand your choice entirely. Im not saying its confusing to understand the two ANSWERS. The motivation is what im talking about. If someone went "Well i care about the person but i care about the dog more" id understand. Thats perfectly reasonable and it explains why they wouldnt pick the 10 dollars. When someone goes "I dont care at all about random people and id save the dog" i think wait a minute. If you dont care about random people at all then youd care about any material possession more right? So if given the choice between a life and some money youd pick the money, caring about one but not the other?"

But some people most definitely are sir. Would you like me to quote them for you sir? These people definitely DO exist on this forum and i am addressing them directly. The person i am having a discussion with for example said this:

"I have no reason to care for those I don't even know"

If this is true my "merc" example applies. Why NOT be a merc if you believe this to be true?

 

[Parivir]

My dog can swim better than me so... yeah, maybe he'll save me?
And what the hell am I doing near a whirlpool anyway!?

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

Now, I asked Jim from down the road this threads question and Jim is 20 years old and lives with himself and his pet dog. Jim's father bought him the dog as a puppy when Jim was 13 to help him break out of his depression after Jim's brother died from cancer. It worked out splendidly and for the next 7 years throughout his life the dog was Jim's loyal companion. Whenever Jim was feeling depressed, the dog was there for him. Whenever Jim was lonely, the dog was there for him. The dog did not judge, it just loved. And Jim loved it back. Oh the memories of playing in the park, going for a jog during the sunset, cuddling up at night ... To Jim, the dog was more than just a pet. It was more ... a brother. A best friend. Someone who would always love him, no matter what.
So when I asked Jim this queston, naturally, he said he'd save his dog.

What a selfish ****.

Seriously though, OP, this is not the black and white 'are you a normal, sane, socially-acceptable human being OR ARE YOU A MONSTER' question you think it is. Congratulations on making a complete ass of yourself.

Yeah, he sounds like such a douche. That kind of bonding with a non-human makes me sick.

Just to clarify, I have no issue with people choosing a stranger over their pet. My problem comes when they decide that that is the only correct choice to make, and if you pick anything else then you yourself are a selfish dickheaded monster. It's extremely narrow-minded and frankly unrealistic.