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

[jordanredd]

But hearing people trying to defend the standpoint that they value their own pet's life more than an actual person's is somewhat jarring, I think.

Well, likewise it's a little jarring to me that so many are saying they really don't give a damn about their pet's life at all and that anyone who does doesn't have their priorities straight. I am afraid that the extreme end of that sort of thinking leads to people like Michael Vick who took great pleasure in hanging dogs from trees and smashing their heads into the pavement because they didn't fight well enough.

So I guess that's different minds, different morals.

 

[NotALiberal]

I'd rightfully call you a shitty human being, and further expand on this by saying not a single fuck would be given if you were to drop dead right now. The world needs less selfish assholes.

But would you still save him instead of your dog if they were both drowning?

Yes, yes I would. He is still smarter than a dog, maybe only marginally though.

 

[Charli]

I've always been a pretty strong swimmer so... pets can hold out, Save the stranger, get him to shallow water/land, Dive back like a loony for my pet.

 

[Raven_Operative]

Why isnt there a 'do nothing' option?

Standard procedure for lifeguards is to not put yourself in extremely dangerous circumstances, because chances are, you'll just end up getting hurt as well.

If it was in a pool, I'd try to save the stranger, but in a whirlpool (provided there were no branches/things to reach out with), I'd probably end up drowning with them. The turbulence of the whirlpool would make it difficult to maneuver, and drowning people have the tendency to try to climb on top of their rescuers. As much as I'd hate to say it, I'd call 911 but would not attempt a rescue. Nothing gets accomplished if I drown in the attempted rescue.

 

[Mikejames]

Well, likewise it's a little jarring to me that so many are saying they really don't give a damn about their pet's life at all and that anyone who does doesn't have their priorities straight. I am afraid that the extreme end of that sort of thinking leads to people like Michael Vick who took great pleasure in hanging dogs from trees and smashing their heads into the pavement because they didn't fight well enough.

So I guess that's different minds, different morals.

Saying "I value human life over an animal's," doesn't equate to saying "I want to kill random dogs."

 

[zf6hellion]

So the way I've been taking this is that its supposed to be more practical, probably the wrong word, to save the stranger because if they died it would cause more suffering and such for their family and all that.

Well taking it that way, I'd still save my dog. Why? Because my family love my dog. And they'd be heartbroken if he died. So, no matter who I chose someone dies and someone is left grieving. So, I'd still save the dog. I know my dog, I care about my dog. Selfish? Hell yes. Doesn't change the fact that the outcome is the same regardless (Okay, one is likely to have more hair than the other but you get what I mean).

Huh. Capcha: Be serious now.

 

[orangeban]

...I can't swim.

But if I could, I would save the human. I love my dog, but it's just a dog.

 

[Stasisesque]

It relates more, I think, to the fact we know our pets; we know they're not capable of harm, we know they've never caused someone pain, emotional or physical. A stranger could be anyone from Mother Teresa to Hitler; we might jump in to save the former, but most people would let the latter drown. It has little to do with the value we place on human life, but more the value we place on the goodness of strangers.

If I jumped into a whirlpool to attempt to save anyone, all three of us would drown. I'd like to think I'd save the stranger, but it is a surprisingly hard choice to make.

Personally knowing the person isn't the point.

People here are comparing the pain of burying their cat to letting someone bury their child.

No that isn't the point I was making. My point was that when we do know someone, we know how good a person they are or how bad a person they are. If we don't know the person, we cannot judge (no, not even with the innocence of childhood, there are numerous cases of 'innocents' doing despicable things) and thus we must rely on the likelihood of a stranger being someone worth saving.

If you saw Hitler drowning but did not know it was Hitler, and you saved him, you'd have to live with the fact you saved Hitler from drowning. But you could also live with the knowledge you saved another human's life. Balancing those two extremes is not something most of us can do. Saving a life is inherently good, allowing someone to commit genocide is inherently bad. Do you see what I'm trying to say now?

When you see a stranger drowning, you immediately help. We all would, it's human nature to want to protect others. But making a conscious decision to save someone is not something most of us do - we act on instinct. All these people saying they'd save their pet because they don't know the person are only saying so because they know their pet, they understand what it would be like if they lost their pet. It is not about not knowing the stranger, but all about knowing their pet.

 

[Tiamattt]

I'm sure a LOT of people love their pets dearly and see them as real members of their families, so it's really not that hard to see why they would choose them over someone they don't know. Especially in a split second situation like this scenario where there's no time to really think about what's truly right or wrong.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

To allow the death of another Human Being, through action or inaction, is murder.

Plain and simple, the pet will have to die, unfortunately.

EDIT: Had to make it clear which being.

 

[jordanredd]

Well, likewise it's a little jarring to me that so many are saying they really don't give a damn about their pet's life at all and that anyone who does doesn't have their priorities straight. I am afraid that the extreme end of that sort of thinking leads to people like Michael Vick who took great pleasure in hanging dogs from trees and smashing their heads into the pavement because they didn't fight well enough.

So I guess that's different minds, different morals.

Saying "I value human life over an animal's," doesn't equate to saying "I want to kill random dogs."

I also value human life over animals, in general. I was referring to those who are implying that an animal's life is *worthless*, that they care no more for their dog than they do their clothes or their computers.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I can't swim (well, not well - certainly not well enough to save anyone).

My cat can swim. She doesn't like to, but she can.

So I guess that person is screwed, unless I can shout loud enough to find a proper swimmer.

 

[Mikejames]

No that isn't the point I was making. My point was that when we do know someone, we know how good a person they are or how bad a person they are. If we don't know the person, we cannot judge (no, not even with the innocence of childhood, there are numerous cases of 'innocents' doing despicable things) and thus we must rely on the likelihood of a stranger being someone worth saving.

If you saw Hitler drowning but did not know it was Hitler, and you saved him, you'd have to live with the fact you saved Hitler from drowning. But you could also live with the knowledge you saved another human's life. Balancing those two extremes is not something most of us can do. Saving a life is inherently good, allowing someone to commit genocide is inherently bad. Do you see what I'm trying to say now?

When you see a stranger drowning, you immediately help. We all would, it's human nature to want to protect others. But making a conscious decision to save someone is not something most of us do - we act on instinct. All these people saying they'd save their pet because they don't know the person are only saying so because they know their pet, they understand what it would be like if they lost their pet. It is not about not knowing the stranger, but all about knowing their pet.

No, many people here are saying, "Why should I care about a stranger or the feelings of their family?" Which is frankly depressing.

Debating what kind of person the stranger is shouldn't be what's going through your head if they're drowning. What if rescue workers had that mentality? Would you feel indignant at the idea that the majority of people would consider letting you die based on the idea that they didn't know what kind of person you were?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

To allow the death of another Human Being, through action or inaction, is murder.

Not true, or at least not true in any legal code I've ever heard.

Inaction is never murder if risk to yourself is involved.

If you can't swim, or don't wish to risk your own life (it is VERY hard to save a drowning person by swimming out to them - it is, in fact, nearly suicidal), you are not required to do so. In fact, you are encouraged NOT to because, if you aren't a good swimmer, then you've just put a SECOND person in danger (yourself) forcing someone else to come save you.

The same thing if you see someone being murdered and you are unarmed. You are not expected to risk your life to help the person - because you'd probably only succeed in getting yourself killed too.

In both cases, you would be expected to call 911 (or your local version) and get the police/fire dept/medical teams on the scene ASAP.

Hence why I voted "call someone who can swim".

Edit: Actually, your comment there sounds like one of Asimov's Laws of Robotics. That is the only time I've ever heard of inaction being in a definition like that - and that's because, in that assumption, a Robot's "life" is worth less than a human life, so they are expected to risk themselves.

 

[Saviliana Negalister]

I don't think a pet seal can't swim, and I can't swim.

 

[Kevka]

I understand everybody in this thread who says that they'd save their pet. I had several pets that I grew up with that I viewed as true family members. And in that way I cannot judge anybody who would choose such a pet over a stranger.

But, I dunno, I'm reading through the responses and seeing a lot of language of justification, often to the tune of "Humans don't have a choice to rescue the thing that's actually important to them."

Don't say that. You're making a choice. That's what this poll is about, the idea is "If you were forced to choose between your pet or a stranger who would you choose." My choice was a person. That's it. That's my choice. I don't need to justify or defend my position beyond "I value human life above other forms of life, regardless of what that person might be".

Granted, I understand the defensive posture many of you pro-pet guys are adopting: the OP basically attacked anybody who was pro-pet at the beginning. But you don't need more than "I don't see my pet as worth less than a human, not after I've bonded with it much closer than most other humans I've known." Anything else sounds like you're trying to convince yourselves as much as us. And that's where I see people shoot themselves in the foot, like with the "I don't care about strangers" stuff.

EDIT: Also, the people trying to dissect this scenario and saying stupid shit like "I can't swim, it's the person's fault for not being able to swim" are assholes. The situation isn't important, it's the choice the situation is trying to force you to make.

 

[jordanredd]

Debating what kind of person the stranger is shouldn't be what's going through your head if they're drowning. What if rescue workers had that mentality? Would you feel indignant at the idea that the majority of people would consider letting you die based on the idea that they didn't know what kind of person you were?

A rescue worker's job is to save people. If they consciously make the decision not to do so, at a minimum they'd be fired. They have a vested interest in saving people that has nothing to do with their moral compass.

We already know, more or less, that most people would happily consider letting me or you or any other stranger die without a second thought. We know this because there is an ample amount of video evidence showing some poor bastard dying on the street somewhere while hundreds of people walk by and do nothing.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I would save my pet. I don't even particularly like my pet, but I have a duty of care towards her. I'm not responsible for the stranger.

That's not to say I wouldn't try to save the stranger; I would just prioritise my dog's life because I don't see what's reasonable or noble about letting a creature which is entirely dependent on me for its existence drown. I made a commitment to look after my dog when I took her in, even if she is an asshole. The fact that no one would mourn her if she dies just makes me more determined to protect her.

 

[frizzlebyte]

You know, I think as heartbroken as I would be to lose my pet, I'd have to save the human. Sorry, but in that situation a human stranger trumps my dog.

EDIT: Referencing the rant in the OP, I consider myself a liberal, albeit not totally sold on the whole 'socialism' thing that the core of the Democratic party seems to be polarized around. Great idea, but in theory, I think it could lead to more intrusive government, which I am against.

At the same time, I am not for the core of the Republican party, either, with Norquist and his Ayn Randian loonacy taking over these days.