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

[BartyMae]

What's the difference between this scenario and you paying for expensive surgery of whatever kind for your animal...instead of paying it for some random human with a similar issue? The only difference here is that it's not a question of time and oney, but a question of time and effort. I would choose my pet, of course - what other choice can there be? I'm neither instinctually inclined to help the stranger first, nor intellectually.

 

[Chibron]

Quite frankly I'd save my cat because it's part of my family also if this hypothetical stranger couldn't swim then they have no business going anywhere near large hypothetical bodies of water...or whirlpools, they're definitely bad.

 

[Dangit2019]

You know, I'm kind of fear for my own future if so many people are willing to choose the pet option without even the slightest bit of guilt towards leading a person to die. I mean, I love my dog, but as much as it pains me to admit, he's old as shit and he's probably going to be dead within years. As much as I love him, I can't just take a person's many years of life away from them just so that I can enjoy a few years of watching him running around my yard.

I mean damn. It's like you guys are willing to indirectly kill a man just because he's a stranger who hasn't proven his worth to you. That's fucking insane. By that logic, we shouldn't even have ambulances try to save anybody, because who knows? The people they're saving could end up being "evil" as if that's some black and white label that people receive at birth.

Also, some of you guys need to take swimming lessons or something. Before you know it, you're going to trip into a pond or something and die the most embarrassing death.

 

[the December King]

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.

I quite agree with you but some people seem to think animals have MORE rights then people.

I started a thread a few months back and some people said that people are worse then animals and should die.

I know right

Are we so surprised? How many atrocities and genocides is it going to take? Perpetrated not by a tiny minority of psychopaths but huge numbers generally typical people all stirred by "strong feelings" to put their selfish desires and intentions above the lives of "people I don't even know".

It's interesting this idea of the "connection" that until we relate to other human beings on some personal level there is no inherent sympathy for them.

I don't think these people think "animals" have more rights than humans, if they got a rat infestation they wouldn't hesitate to call the exterminator. They care about THEIR pets, the animals that fawn over and love THEM, are more important than humans who don't adore them and are not utterly loyal and dependent to them.

I don't think that's entirely fair.

I'd be terribly sad that someone died instead of my pet. I would be traumatized. Shocked. Depressed for a long, long time. In short, sympathetic.

But to say something like 'loving pets over asshats on the street leads to genocide' is ridiculous, in my opinion. Atrocities seem to be commited by people against people, and usually over money, or ethnic differences.

I'm not a psychopath. I love my pet. Why would I throw that love and trust away, that companionship and shared life, all in an instant for a complete stranger?

 

[DRes82]

Snip

Wow, maybe I should have tried my argument with you instead of the OP. Its rare to see such vitriolic intolerance of other peoples' opinions. I could try to repeat what I've said in several threads already, but I feel like it would be a pointless expense of effort.

I value my dog as a family member. As such, I value her life above any random human stranger's life.

 

[217not237]

Save a human being who can benefit society in some way.

 

[Semudara]

You ask me, in this dire situation, if I would risk my life and limb to save a stranger, or a member of my family.

I chose my family.

I will not apologize for this choice, nor am I ashamed of it. It is proof that I can value the life of another even if they have a much shorter lifespan than I do, even if SOME other people can't understand why I love him the way I love any other person.

I'm only human, and I chose someone I love over someone I don't know. If I could have, I would have saved the woman too, but I would assume she's just as capable of swimming to safety as I am anyway. My cat, on the other hand, probably isn't so lucky.

That's all I have to say. If you think I'm a sick person because of my choice then maybe I'm not the one who's missing a heart.

 

[DugMachine]

Sociopaths or psychopaths can do all those things, they're still broken people. They do it for their own reasons, not because it's the right thing to do.

Sociopaths and psychopaths also tend to view animals as disposable and torture and kill them for their own pleasure and satisfaction. In your case you'd let this animal die just so you can have the satisfaction of being righteous and staying true to the moral codes of humanity or whatever bullcrap you're spouting. I'm done, you're not going to change your mind and neither will I. I'm a good person, and i'm sure you are too. Good day.

 

[the December King]

Better question, you have been abducted by aliens in the middle of a local flood you've been caught in but they are friendly and won't hurt you they are trying to follow objective values of morality to avoid war between planets.

The aliens point out to you two organism below that have survived the flood, a random person holding your pet in the slowly encroaching flood. The aliens have one last teleport zap before they leave that can only take one organism but very soon both will fall into the churning flood and die. It is technically totally impossible for the aliens to rescue any other discrete organism, so no debate there.

The aliens didn't want to teleport you up in the first place, now you have to convince them to save one, or the other in terms even these aliens would accept. You cannot appeal to "it's another human" or "it's MY pet" they are completely neutral, in the most extreme sense, they have no vested interest other than not to be deliberately malicious.

What could you possibly say to convince them?

Cool!

If I wanted to save the stranger, I'd totally explain that they might need a breeding pair of us to begin to understand us (assuming they understand english, or read my mind, or some such thing).

If I wanted to save the animal, I'd probably explain that it would provide a wider sample of genetic material for study.

...

Either way I'm getting probed, aren't I?

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Depends on the size of the stranger.

If they were large enough, I would have zero chance of saving them, so I'd go for the pet.

If I though I COULD save them, I might just save the person. I'd have to think about it.

It also depends on which pet. If it was my fat, aging dog I'd save the person. If it was my cat, I'd have to think even harder.

 

[Callate]

I'd save the stranger (and voted as much), but honestly, I'd feel lousy afterwards.

I'm not surprised that a poll might skew the other way, though. I don't think it's a liberal thing- people just get a little nuts as far as their pets are concerned.

 

[Basement Cat]

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.

Actually Rush Limbaugh---a man whom I am in NO way endeared towards---gave some high school kid who called him asking for an opinion on something a full thirty minute interview about his views of liberal media. It was sometime after the Martin Trayvon incident (or is it Trayvon Martin? I dunno). You can probably find it on YouTube. It's been a while for me, too, so roll with me on specifics. The gist is there.

In the course of the interview Limbaugh gave some DAMNED good factual examples of how some very notable senior media types publicly make no bones about how they believe news "should" be reported. One of them from NBC said, on the record, that "Racism is in America's blood."

The point of it was that NBC pursues certain stories with blatant, unabashed bias. Essentially they are dogmatically determined to color certain stories with accusations of racism, etc. And they were willing to go on public record saying so, though they qualified much of how they said it to not completely scuttle their own credibility.

As I said, I'm NO fan of Rush Limbaugh, and I personally find most of what comes out of his mouth both ridiculous and offensive. BUT WE MUST ALWAYS BE WILLING TO GIVE THE DEVIL HIS DUE, as they say.

NOTE: I don't know how to do italics--I'm not yelling.

OT: Prager's taking the poll among apparent liberals without doing the same with conservatives effectively mitigates its legitimacy persuant of proving his point that non christian liberals are inherently immoral, etc. It's almost a case of entrapment: "Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer 'Yes' or 'No'".

Back to my first post where I said the stranger could bite the dust. I don't have a pet now, but my last one was a cat that had been in my family 21 years before she died. Yep, you read that right--TWENTY ONE YEARS.

EDIT: That one was a HOORAH!!! yell.

Damn right my spinal reflex would be to go for her. The stranger might not even register to me. But since the question requires us to have done so--yes, upon consideration, I might very well ignore the plight of another human being and reflexively go for a loved family member--even if that family member is a cat.

Just being honest.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, my reasons are selfish. Yes, I am doing it purely out of my relation to which is dying. Yes, only self-gain would motivate me to save the stranger. Yes, I would still do exactly the same.

You seem to think of pets as completely different things than humans, things that people won't care about the loss of, and won't suffer when they die. An animal will suffer when drowning just as much as a human would. You also seem to think that one, lets say dog, is just as good as any dog. That simply isn't true. By spending time with said dog, raising it, caring for it, you grow a bond with it. If one dog truly is the same as any other dog then the same could be said for humans.

Just out of curiosity, you say that my feelings of guilt and loss are trivial, so then why is it that later on you attempt to guilt-trip me with a hypothetical life that the person has lives, or their family?

I don't think a dog's life is "completely different" I do deeply consider the similarities and the suffering of drowning will be severe for both, I abhor cruelty to animals, pain is as vivid and profound to a human, chimp or dog it's effects on each mind are ultimately indistinguishable. Pain is a fundamental thing, the simplest animals feels it profoundly as the WORST thing. Still, death as the antithesis of life is different for a human from a dog just as the life of a human is different from a dog. A dog's life is far from worthless, but I think we can agree if there are dozens of rats in your habitation you won't consider each of their several month-long lives that valuable.

But those are irrelevant if your motivation is selfishness, not altruism for their wellbeing.

Why the guilt trip? Because as you admit your loss for your pet is selfish self-pity at not having your dog any more. I am asking you to feel empathy for a being you aren't going to directly get anything out of. Why? Because if YOU were in the water, and you never had any reason or ability to help your saviour, wouldn't you want him to show some empathy? Empathy is what dragged us out of the stone age.

Empathy is what sociopaths like Ayn Rand didn't understand so mistrusted and railed against.

Empathy works for every living thing, really it's a matter of stepping out of your perspective without becoming detached, it is quite an amazing and unique ability of the human brain to perform the thought process of empathy, to think about someone else's thoughts. This is an amazingly influential cooperative ability.

All you say about raising a dog, that only shows how much YOU are attached to it. Not why it's life is more important.

Dogs don't do empathy, they do pack loyalty. That's the way their brains work, they are obedient, subservient and dependent. Man's best "friend" but that's not what a real friend is, a friend is a confidant, who will support you yet challenge you, give you the hard truths and talk things over. Dogs are smart, they'll drag their owners out of burning buildings... and they'll do this even if you beat them, even if you give them no love they will love you.

What life is there to save with a human compared to a dog.

I cannot say a dog's life is worthless, but you must consider that your dog likely only has a special connection with you and could only be with you and it would only ever have been for a short time. While a human has a special connection with dozens of people for a long life, with their parents, with their spouse, with their offspring, with their work, with their art, with their contribution to society in general.

Ideally both would be saved, the dog and the stranger, and you all get to pose for the local newspaper. But which life is most valuable.

But If I'm the winchman on a light rescue helicopter and we are loaded to stall capacity and there is your dog and a child (of the same weight as your dog) as the last few kilos to save before the wave comes... the kid is getting on and your dog is not.

Big question, would you get off the helicopter to stay and die with your dog, or would you get off and let your dog go on the helicopter his/her weight in your place so you'd die alone but your dog would live another few years?

If you think another human's life is less than a dog, is your own human life less than your dog?

I know, if my sister or my mother and I were to be one of the last people out of the jaws of death I'd ask the winchman to lie and tell her that I'd catch my sister on the next flight out.

 

[CarlMin]

Save a human being who can benefit society in some way.

Are humans more likely to benefit humanity? Considering how the world looks today, I'd say that a human being is just as likely to invent a new agent of biological warfare as curing aids. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that humans are inherently good, and that premise is needed for your argument to work.

I'm just being realistic.

 

[DRes82]

The hypocrisy of course is that you'd be pissed beyond words if the same thing happened to you...

God damn, your assumptions are obnoxious. I would say that your experience dealing with people is limited and that is why you're so presumptuous and self-righteous, but that's obviously not true if you work at a night club. So I'll just guess that you're naturally intolerant and hateful towards people who disagree with you.

As a note, I wouldn't expect a perfect stranger to rescue me over their pet if that situation ever came to be. I sure as fuck wouldn't be pissed if they didn't choose me.

 

[the December King]

It's really about one thing and one thing only. Are you gonna care about yourself, or are you gonna care about your fellow man? You're not saving that animal for the sake of the animal, you're saving it for your own sake. Because of YOUR connection to it.

That's the thing that keeps coming back in this discussion. ME, ME, ME. Number 1 comes first. That's the biggest wrong in modern society.

There are too many questions to answer in the blink of an eye. A loved one is in distress, my pet that I am the unwritten protector of. That's all I need to make my descision. Since you're so inclined, you save the stranger. I'm not going to tell you that it's the wrong choice. But it would be for me.