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

[Mikejames]

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.

You think that would justify such behavior in yourself?

The problem arises when people are asked to make a conscious decision to save someone whilst letting someone else drown. People focus more on the latter than the former. Saving is positive, drowning is negative - we focus on the bad, and that bad would be our pets, animals we love and cherish, die. In this sort of situation, even thinking "but a stranger would live" doesn't change the fact something we love has had to die.

We are only debating this because we can. It is no different to the endless debates about killing one to save a thousand, or killing someone if you are guaranteed not to get caught. If these scenarios were playing out in front of us, most wouldn't kill one to save a thousand as killing is not in our nature. Most would not commit murder if they were guaranteed to get away scot free, either, for the same reasons. And most would save a human's life over an animal's.

But we're still talking about an animal. I can't fathom someone comparing how much they care about losing a cat to someone mourning the loss a daughter.

I realize I probably shouldn't get this worked up over a hypothetical, but it bothers me. I would have thought the choice was simple hypothetical or no, but people are claiming indifference to a stranger's life as opposed to their pet's. An animal that wouldn't realize or care if someone died so it could live.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I would save the stranger, as they invariably have much more power to affect others and influence the state of the world than a pet could unless my pet, is a human being, in which case the better the devil you know than the devil you don't thing comes into play.

Simply put, a cat or dog dies, the world is minus one cat/dog, a human dies, especially one young enough to have any sort of career ahead of them, we lose a potential genius or world changing personality. Also having your life saved by a stranger is indeed the strongest way to cause a decidedly altruistic viewpoint in someone, therefor almost guaranteeing that that person's affect on others will be over all a positive one.

 

[CarlMin]

I would probably go with the pet. Haven't really heard a compelling reason as to why simply being a member of homo sapiens means I must value the life of a human being more than a sentient mammal. I don't really make that distinction, so I'll go with the being that I have the most emotional connection to.

 

[renegade7]

My pet is a fish, he's drowning all the time, doesn't seem to bother him. I'd save the stranger.

 

[viranimus]

Pet.

I cant swim for shit, and my pet would weigh less than 20lbs. The person weighs entirely too much for my swimming skill.

Beyond that even if I were Phelps, it would still be pet. Its something I have personal connection to.

Beyond even personal connection it would STILL be pet. I know my pet has never caused any sort of pain or misery in any one or anythings life bigger than a mouse.

Beyond even that.... It would still be pet. Because honestly, weve got entirely too many people running around as it is, and it being a woman in fertile age, makes for a good point to let go to help the population do what it refuses to do, thin the herd.

In short, people suck, theres too many of them as it is, and its a pretty safe bet that we arent losing the cure for cancer. While we might have too many pets in this world, at least they arent hurting other people by their mere existence.

 

[Pandabearparade]

My pet, however, has no chance of doing that.

Because it's highly likely a random person you come across is a serial killer. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[Pandabearparade]

and you keep adding on things that doesn't really make sense in this scenario.

People keep asking questions. What race is she? How old is she? So I made it more specific.

 

[Ryotknife]

hmmm

well it is more dangerous to save the stranger than the pet (although i guess that DOES depend on the pet). The stranger is just as likely to try to kill you when you rescue them due to panic.

rationally, the pet is the better option.

morally, the stranger.

I guess it comes down to which is more important to you? This kinda reminds me of the dog and the bear scenario. Bear attacks a guy, his dog comes in and fights the bear, trying to save his owner. Do you run away and leave your dog to die or do you try to save the dog and risk certain death (with only your fists and whatever you can find)

 

[the December King]

So you're walking along a dirt path next to a river that's about 3 meters down. with one random stranger and his dog. While you're walking ahead of him his dog comes closer to you. Suddenly part of the road gives away and you and the dog fall down into a nearby river. Normally you would be able to swim out but the fall broke something. The river is deep and you're being carried away to drown. The guy climbs down and goes into the river but saves his dog while you float off hitting rocks and such screaming for help. Your life flashes before your eyes as you see all the good times you had with friends and your relations with your family. Maybe you have your own pet that loves you too at home. They'll all never see you again. You get carried away as the freezing water hurts your wounds and the current crashes you against hard rocks. You now no longer exist as your lifeless carcass floats down the river.


Yeah i doubt most of you would actually go for your pets. It's similar to the whole video game debate. You can murder hundreds of people in a game but you probably won't be able to kill anyone in real life because when the situation comes up you will think differently. All sorts of things you never expected happen and suddenly your ideals change.

When I am in trouble in the water, I don't expect any help from anyone- I'm too busy trying like hell to save myself.

Although I totally agree with you on the video game thing- I doubt that I could kill anyone myself, or rather, I don't know what exactly I would do in a situation where I actually had to kill someone.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Pfffft... I bet you don't even know that, based on FBI estimates, approximately 0.000000967% of the global population ARE SERIAL KILLERS!

Orrr.. you know, 58 people, max... and 50 of them would be American.

 

[the December King]

"You see a dog drowning and you see a human drowning... what do you do?"

Is this a peer pressure question? Like I'm not supposed to jump in and drown too just because others are drowning, right?

I want to say "Go with the flow", but it's so wrong!

Oh...

I guess I just did say it.

 

[Pandabearparade]

You are a shining beacon of humanity. Why can't everyone be like you?

I agree. You people need to work on doing some good deeds so you can get your karma as high as mine. Right now my karma is so in the white that it broke my Pip-Boy.

 

[Hagi]

Save the stranger of course.

1. It's a freaking human being, of course it's more important than a pet.
2. Most animals can swim better than I can, I'm pretty sure my cat wouldn't need my help. And if he did? Tough luck, I'll mourn his loss greatly but it's still not the same as a human being.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

You are a shining beacon of humanity. Why can't everyone be like you?

I agree. You people need to work on doing some good deeds so you can get your karma as high as mine. Right now my karma is so in the white that it broke my Pip-Boy.

And how any times did Dogmeat save your arse, huh?

Ungrateful swine.

 

[DugMachine]

So much self righteousness in this thread it's hilarious. This all comes down to "it's just an animal, buy another" and to you all I say FUCK YOU. Which is why I wanted to change this scenario to "save your mother or save the stranger" but according to Pandafuck here that's going offtopic when it's pretty much the same thing. Save someone you love or save a stranger.

Your mom dies and your family is devastated and hates you for picking the stranger. You save your mom and the strangers family is devastated. There is no winning in this situation it's all a matter of what's more important to you.

 

[Pandabearparade]

P.S.: Did Prager consider the fact that plenty of conservatives love their pets, too? Did the poll he was condemning ask people to identify themselves as libs/cons in the course of answering whether they would go for their pet or the stranger?

These are legitimate questions.

His assertion, if I recall correctly (it has been a long time), was that the poll was conducted among liberal college students, and the results were proof of the moral superiority of Christianity because the 'libs' would let the human die to save Fido.

He was apparently right, and this is the first time I've ever, -EVER- heard a conservative talk show host make a strong, effective, factually-accurate argument.

 

[Godhead]

Going on a split second decision, I would save my pet. I've had it for many years and consoled me in tough times and on the other hand there's a person I've never met before. If I don't have time to think I would instinctively go for the thing I care about more. If I had time to sit down and think then I might lean to the person but I'm still not 100% sure.

(Either way I'd have a massive guilt trip, the only thing that I can think of if I saved the stranger is my pet going into the vortex with desperation in its eyes wondering why I had forsaken it. Fuck it I'm saving my pet, I don't care if I'm a monster anymore just let me keep my kitty.)

Edit: Also how is it that we are all deemed to be liberal, if anything this site seems more moderate to me.

Double Edit: Also if this is a whirlpool and I have no form of equipment to throw to either of them then I wouldn't save either. I value my life over either my pet's or a stranger's.

 

[Nieroshai]

How old is this stranger, exactly? It's going to inevitably come up, so just get it over with.

A fair question. For the sake of this little test let's say it's a woman in her late twenties to early thirties.

----

Note: Please don't read below until you answer the poll. I don't want to tilt the results with my angry rantings.

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.

Often "loud-mouthed imbeciles" are just people you disagree with or don't like, so everything they do seems more severe to you. Or it's also possible that people can share common beliefs even across party lines. You decide.


Personally, I believe my own species to be more important in any case where one or the other must die. To me, self-preservation extends to communal preservation. It's the same as whether it's a stranger or family who I have to choose: I will choose the one I care about more. I love my dog, but my brothers are family. I can live without my dog. I'll be sad, sure, but I'd miss my brothers more.