I'd save my pet. I care for my pet more than a random stranger. Now, if you can tell me why I should care for a random person more, I'd be happy to save that person, but the thing is, while I'd LIKE people to save me where I in that situation, not everyone is going to do that. I'll quote Catch-22 for my point:
"From now on I'm thinking only of me." Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: "But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way?"
"Then,? said Yossarian, ?I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"
There's no advantage to thinking of others if there's no assurances they'll act that way to you. I'm admittedly self-serving, and I place my needs at the highest amongst my priorities. And I don't care if anyone thinks any different. There are two successful ways things get done. We all do what we need to survive (Which is what I do), or we all help each other to survive. Thing is, the second only takes a couple of sneaky people to work for themselves to get ahead. Without any sort of enforcement of cooperation (Which is where government, welfare, social security and taxes come in), cooperation ends up supporting the tricksters. My dog means more to me than a random stranger, or any one of my random acquiantances. And I'll save whatever means most to me.
Onto the stupid bit:
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).
I'll appily make the admission: I don't think it's wrong to say so-I personally think most people would choose what matters most to them, even if they'd claim the heroic option. What about if I spoke about say, your mentally disabled child? That child is of less use to society, and it's death causes less harm to people who aren't you, but would you save your mentally disabled child over a random stranger? We're trying to judge the worth of a being over their cognitive ability, and ability to contribute to society. This is foolish. It's not inherently noble or heroic. It's self serving as well, just in a more long term situation. Empathy is an important part of our decision making process. Even Kant, who created an entire system for secular morality based on logical principles, kept in the need to consider empathy and emotion.
And, as an arrogant asshole, I'd happily judge many people as having such little intelligence they don't deserve my saving. Which is why I'm very glad it's not up to me, or someone cleverer (Yes it's not a word) than me with the same attitude. In all cases we're deciding who dies: I'm simply refusing to judge them on what seems to be their worth to the rest of society, and consider them as equal, and instead, making my decision on my personal emotion.
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.
I'd go further. I'd say that most people would.
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.
So apparently we're all liberal now? Considering how crazy the conservative wings of a certain country have become, compared to them, everyone is liberal. That's the lense he's looking through, don't listen to him.
And, without considering the Conservative position as well (And it's a real muddle splitting people by their political leanings, we end up with a number with no comparing value. It's useless.
