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

[neverarine]

i'l be entirely honest... all i can do in the water is dogpaddle... an attempt at saving the stranger would probably get us both dead....granted if i saw someone drowning i would try... but honestly i would have to go after my pet, she is as close as family gets to me, so its like asking me would i let my sister or a stranger drown? the answer is obvious....

 

[Aris Khandr]

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.

I don't care about random strangers. However, I am also not a murderer. I won't intentionally kill someone. That's the inherent difference between your hypothetical and the original. One requires intentionally harming someone, the other requires simply valuing your pet more than the stranger.

 

[jordanredd]

I would like to hear why choosing your pet over a stranger is the "monstrous" or "immature" choice to make. The only rationale given so far is simply "it's a person," which doesn't explain anything. Why, exactly, is a strange human's life so much more valuable than a animal family member, by default? I genuinely cannot think of a reason that does not involve one's personal religious beliefs (which do not apply to anyone but that person).

I'm not a child, or a liberal. I'm a 30-year old conservative Presbyterian. And I would almost certainly prioritize my dog's life over a stranger's. Though, as others have said, I would absolutely go back for the stranger after rescuing my dog. So how does that make me a monster?

 

[Exocet]

As much as I love my dog, a human life is more important than a dog's life. There is no questioning that, ever.
Now, to Godwin the thread a bit, if the stranger was Hitler, or some dickhead of that same magnitude, then I would save the pet.
But an average joe? No way.

Of course, while I would be swimming towards the stranger, I would be praying to our mighty lord for him to come down and save the pet. "Come down from your heavenly abode and save us, Batman!"
Not only I would have saved someone, but I would be able to ride the batplane back to the shore, which is basically the fourth most awesome thing one can do in his life.

 

[The Event]

Setting aside all considerations of logic regarding the facts eg. that my dog is a better swimmer than me,

I know my dog. I love my dog. In this situation she has more value to me than the unknown woman so I save my dog. No guilt because I didn't put the woman in the whirlpool.

You can say all you like about the human being inherently worth more than a dog but i don't believe that to be true. She may be a saint, or she may be a crack dealer, she may have just murdered her children and be in the process of killing herself, she may have a terminal disease and be wilfully killing herself and not want my help. She may just be incredibly stupid for swimming in a whirlpool and deserves the darwin award she is about to become eligible for.

But I know my dog so I save her. And I'm a conservative.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I don't care about random strangers. However, I am also not a murderer. I won't intentionally kill someone. That's the inherent difference between your hypothetical and the original. One requires intentionally harming someone, the other requires simply valuing your pet more than the stranger.

Please read my post:

"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 you choose the dog that says nothing about you really. Nothing special.

However if you choose the dog and say "I choose the dog because the stranger has ZERO value to me, not because i value both and the dog means more" it shows that you would value ANYTHING (even 10 dollars) above a random human.

If you place zero value on a human life and 10 dollars of value on a 10 dollar bill why would you ever pick the worthless human life over the worthwhile money? Youve just admitted that your value system places objects higher than random people. Therefor if you had to make a choice between material goods and people youd pick material goods.

The answer to the question in the OP means little. The motivation reveals a lot.

 

[Thistlehart]

It's almost certain that (however unlikely) anyone that actually attempted a rescue from this forum, would try to save the stranger. It's all talk and people will tell you how cold and uncaring they are, how much their pet means to them, etc., but in the moment, they will save the human.

You're most likely correct in this assumption. Speculation is just that. When the midden hits the windmill, all that goes out the window.

Debates like this are mostly masturbatory.

 

[Grant Stackhouse]

Depends a lot on the situation for me. For instance, if the stranger had gotten into this situation while trying to save my cat, I would save them first. If they just happened to be in the same giant, scary whirlpool that was sucking up my cat, then I'd start with whoever was nearest to me.

Also, this poll assumes that you have the meta-game knowledge that you only have time to save one of them. In reality, nobody would possibly know that. I'd certainly try to save both. It would just be a matter of who I tried to save first.

Now, on the topic of saving: I am a weak swimmer. I cut slowly through the water, and I tire out after just a few yards. There is no way that I would throw myself into some giant vortex of spinning water to save anybody. That would be my death. Rather, my method of saving the entities would involve throwing them something that they could cling onto until proper help could arrive.

 

[Chungus]

I can't really swim all that well, so there's no way I'm trowing myself in a whirlpool. So the "I scream for help from someone who can swim better than me" option it is for me.
But let's say I could survive jumping in a whirlpool, I'd save my pet.

 

[burningdragoon]

Well the real answer is I'm not sufficiently capable to save either from this situation.

Assuming I was capable, but only just capable enough to save one then... well it depends on the context. Hypotheticals without any context are stupid, because there's always context.

More often I'd probably save the person, though not because of any sort of morality that places a random person over things I care about. Just the person can likely talk to me, and thus more efficiently guilt convince me to help him/her. And for some reason they were gagged, I'd probably feel sorry enough to help them.

But let's throw out some more specific scenarios... for fun.

I'm walking my dog and we see the person drowning in a whirlpool, again assuming I'm capable, I try to help her. My dog also jumps in and starts drowning (silly Fido), then I would continue focusing on the person.

The person has kidnapped my dog, but suddenly found themselves drowning in a whirlpool. Well then fuck the person for taking my dog, Rex is coming home alive tonight.

Some bastard has me in a room. The room has 2 exits, both leading to a whirlpool. He tells me that the left room leads to a whirlpool where my dog is drowning. He then has to stop me since I immediately head to my dog before hearing more. Learning it's a stranger drowning in the other direction, does not change my course. Afterwards I push this person into one of the whirlpools. It's his fault for standing so close after risking my Buster's life.

Mother of 3? Probably the person.
Mother of 3 with the small children helplessly watching, probably the person.
Abusive mother of 3, probably my dog.
Escaped criminal, my dog.
Batman, my dog.

(and nice job dismissing the negative possibilities of the stranger while propping up the positive ones, that's fair.)

Oh, and also what @Ragsnstitches and @RhombusHatesYou said.

 

[Spambot 3000]

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.

And I wholeheartedly agree my good friend.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Well this poll really depends on two things.

1. How selfish is the person
2. How much do you rely on your pet.

I've chosen the person but I'd really feel like shit for a long time afterwards.

 

[Nachtmahr]

A quick google search has revealed to me that whirlpools aren't very powerful. A maelstrom or vortex would be a more powerful and dangerous one.

So, I guess I'd leisurely swim through this 'whirlpool' and save my pet and then the stranger. The stranger would probably be so embarrassed over having to be rescued from a little whirlpool that the world would never know of my grand heroics.

 

[thespyisdead]

since there are mo preconditions to who is around me, i will not answer the poll, because i have another solution: tell some stranger to save the drowning stranger, while i save my pet

 

[Aris Khandr]

If you place zero value on a human life and 10 dollars of value on a 10 dollar bill why would you ever pick the worthless human life over the worthwhile money? Youve just admitted that your value system places objects higher than random people. Therefor if you had to make a choice between material goods and people youd pick material goods.

The answer to the question in the OP means little. The motivation reveals a lot.

Because I value not being a jerk more than money? That doesn't mean that the people themselves hold any value to me, it just means that I value my own perception of right and wrong higher than the money.

 

[Ragland]

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?

My bad, didn't see the second post. And I was KIND of hoping that that specific 'I have no reason to care for those I don't even know" was more poorly worded than actually meant. It appeared to me that you were addressing the people who chose their pets in a more general sense as fundamentally wrong, like the OP. I sincerely apologize for butting into a situation I did not have full knowledge of.

 

[SadisticBrownie]

There's no way I'd let my pet drown, even to save someone. Easily my pet.