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

[Ashadowpie]

i'd save my pet first, then once my baby was safe then i'd help the stranger. pets are more important to me than a total stranger. this question would be the same as " would you save your child or a stranger first?" of course you'd save your child first. right?

thats how i feel anyways.

 

[theblindedhunter]

So I hope people have discussed this whole "humans are inherently more worthy than animals" vibe, because it seems kind of crappy to me.

We are. It's okay. We can say it. Animals can't read. It won't hurt their feelings.

Um? Sure, it's a joke, but suggesting even in jest that I have the feelings I do because I'm worried others will feel bad if I don't is kind of dishonest.
I see personality, life, and worth in a lot of animals. Humans yes, but cats too, for example. To dismiss the worth of entire groups of life in a joke is exceedingly arrogant.

Priorities of life:
Humans > other sentient races (if they exist) > trainable non-sentient species > non-trainable species > plants.

Sorry, dude. Dogs and cats aren't sentient, don't possess language, and really have no affect on the world as a whole. One person can change the world. One dog can... not.

Ability to alter the world is a bit of an odd position from which to claim superiority grounded in morality. What makes the ability to alter the world, for better or worse (not to mention the ability to have total apathy), morally good? And what in the world makes an animal you can effectively train better than one you cannot? A dog is superior to a wolf because...?

By the way, animals are sentient. Sapient is probably the word you want, and a pretty murky one at that. It doesn't help that you're using automatically biased language to decree what ought to happen to animals.
But to make my feelings more clear, suppose a person is lacking in a great deal of higher cognitive function. Effectively, their mind is more akin to that of an animal. Perhaps even less so. If it is them and another person in the water, are you going to claim that saving the other person is the morally superior act because the one person just doesn't cut it?

No, I see no reason to consider humanity inherently superior to other animals. We are on equal ground, and the decision for me is the social contract I have with those around me. People are important, but I have a duty to my pet to protect them. Strangers are important, but I'm sure you can understand your duty to your family to save them first. Or the social agreement to protect children over others.

 

[Wynaro]

TO:

_

&

_

Thanks for the compliments, A friend showed me this poll and at first I just figured whatever, and let the guy have his opinion. But when I saw him badmouthing everyone who disagreed (Which I believe is against the rules of this site) It sorta set me off... I don't really hate people like that, they just... disappoint me.

 

[Jaythulhu]

I'd save my pet. Sorry if that seems wrong to some of the bleeding hearts here, but my cat and I have been through a lot of shit together, and his life is far more important to me than a random stranger.

If'n I could do something to save the person after my pet was safe, cool. If not, oh well, I guess the drive to work just became a little less crowded.

 

[Reaper195]

A woman in her late twenties or early thirties? I'll save my pet of any length of time any day of the week. Personal connection beats stranger of anything any day of the week.

 

[PhiMed]

No, Dug's trolling.
To ask the question "do you care more about a single (human) loved one than a single random human?" is pointless. Loved one wins in every case. There is no morality that would say otherwise.
Dug doesn't like the fact that most systems of morality that have been put forth by philosophers who didn't eventually inspire oppressive dictatorships place the value of a single human over the value of a single non-human animal.
The only moral answer to this question is the stranger.
People don't always act morally, because no one's perfect, but the only moral answer is the stranger. Dug knows that, but he wants to magically conjure a reason why he should be allowed to act in an immoral fashion, so he's bullshitting.

He's not trolling, he just has an opinion that you don't agree with. Also, I believe it's against the site rules to call someone a troll. Actually, I think your entire post is very insulting and narrow minded.
I'd like to point you to a question that I asked OP earlier, and ask you to consider our side of the argument, rather than dismissing our opinion as "wrong" and claiming that your answer is the only "moral" one, simply because you claim that it is so.
<spoiler=my question>Person A is your mother/girlfriend/brother/someone else who you love and are close to, they're drowning.

So is person B; somebody who does the world a lot of good. This could be the founder of a charity, or a politician who is doing great things for his country. It doesn't really matter.

Who do you save?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect you'd save the person you care about most. Even though person B is a more important person, who'll do the world a lot more good than the person you love, you choose the person you love over the person you don't know.

No. He's trolling. It's not that I disagree with his viewpoint. It's that he's attempting to derail the thread by starting arguments at the periphery.
As for your question: Founder of a charity? Well, depends on what the charity is, how much the person has to do with the actual workings of it, etc. Most contemporary charities are, by their very nature, bullshit.
And as for a politician, there is no politician, in any country, who does their country any good. Ever. I'm not being facetious.
So I guess if I look at your two examples, then yes. You'd be correct. I'd pick my loved one.
If it was someone that I thought actually added value to the world, then I might reconsider.
But this isn't your thread, and that's not the question the OP asked. If you're interested in people's answer to that question, then perhaps you should make a thread along those lines. Otherwise, answering his question with an essentially unrelated question looks an awful lot like an attempt to derail the thread.

 

[PhiMed]

So I hope people have discussed this whole "humans are inherently more worthy than animals" vibe, because it seems kind of crappy to me.

We are. It's okay. We can say it. Animals can't read. It won't hurt their feelings.

Um? Sure, it's a joke, but suggesting even in jest that I have the feelings I do because I'm worried others will feel bad if I don't is kind of dishonest.
I see personality, life, and worth in a lot of animals. Humans yes, but cats too, for example. To dismiss the worth of entire groups of life in a joke is exceedingly arrogant.

Priorities of life:
Humans > other sentient races (if they exist) > trainable non-sentient species > non-trainable species > plants.

Sorry, dude. Dogs and cats aren't sentient, don't possess language, and really have no affect on the world as a whole. One person can change the world. One dog can... not.

Ability to alter the world is a bit of an odd position from which to claim superiority grounded in morality. What makes the ability to alter the world, for better or worse (not to mention the ability to have total apathy), morally good? And what in the world makes an animal you can effectively train better than one you cannot? A dog is superior to a wolf because...?

By the way, animals are sentient. Sapient is probably the word you want, and a pretty murky one at that. It doesn't help that you're using automatically biased language to decree what ought to happen to animals.
But to make my feelings more clear, suppose a person is lacking in a great deal of higher cognitive function. Effectively, their mind is more akin to that of an animal. Perhaps even less so. If it is them and another person in the water, are you going to claim that saving the other person is the morally superior act because the one person just doesn't cut it?

No, I see no reason to consider humanity inherently superior to other animals. We are on equal ground, and the decision for me is the social contract I have with those around me. People are important, but I have a duty to my pet to protect them. Strangers are important, but I'm sure you can understand your duty to your family to save them first. Or the social agreement to protect children over others.

You can train a wolf.
When I said "untrainable" I was saying that dogs are better than worms and cnidarians.
Animals are not sentient. Look it up.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

I just see no option where the pet is not he greediest choice, It's sad letting the animal die but to pass by a fellow human being is sick. Even if I could go back bring back my dog buddy, the best dog I ever had I would still pick the stranger.

I am really disappointed that more people would save there animal over another human being. honestly put yourself in the person's position and thing of how much of an fuckass you are to the drowning person in his last moment's. just think of the horror and rage that person would feel right before his death as you save so weird dog he doesn't know over him.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

That's a fairly complex question, but I do have an answer. It's not really a debate I care to start in this thread.

Again, that's a short question with a really, -really- long answer.
[/quote]
But if we are to have a debate about what is right and wrong, than surely we need to agree on what right and wrong are?
I agree though, it is too long a debate to start. I'm tired too, it's 6 a.m. over here.

To condense it: Net total suffering. A worldview that produces more net suffering is objectively worse ethically than a worldview that produces less net suffering.

This is why I asked you the question about saving your mother, or a stranger who will do the world a great deal of good. Because to save the stranger, will reduce "net total suffering". Despite this, you say you'd save your mother.

I'm going to assume you're a liberal. I think that's a fair assumption considering the content of your posts, but correct me if I'm wrong. Do you respect the beliefs of the conservatives who want to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens?

A fair assumption, and a very valid point. Yes, I'm liberal. No, I don't respect homophobic beliefs.

If we had time, or if I knew you in person, I'd love to have a lengthy debate about this.
However, that's not the case, so I don't think there is any point continuing this argument any further, as it's clear to me that neither of us are going to convince the other.

I will ask you not to call us "monstrous" though, even if you believe we are. It's not a reasonable argument tactic. You've been very polite in your recent posts though, thank you for that.

 

[Basement Cat]

No, Dug's trolling.
To ask the question "do you care more about a single (human) loved one than a single random human?" is pointless. Loved one wins in every case. There is no morality that would say otherwise.
Dug doesn't like the fact that most systems of morality that have been put forth by philosophers who didn't eventually inspire oppressive dictatorships place the value of a single human over the value of a single non-human animal.
The only moral answer to this question is the stranger.
People don't always act morally, because no one's perfect, but the only moral answer is the stranger. Dug knows that, but he wants to magically conjure a reason why he should be allowed to act in an immoral fashion, so he's bullshitting.

He's not trolling, he just has an opinion that you don't agree with. Also, I believe it's against the site rules to call someone a troll. Actually, I think your entire post is very insulting and narrow minded.
I'd like to point you to a question that I asked OP earlier, and ask you to consider our side of the argument, rather than dismissing our opinion as "wrong" and claiming that your answer is the only "moral" one, simply because you claim that it is so.
<spoiler=my question>Person A is your mother/girlfriend/brother/someone else who you love and are close to, they're drowning.

So is person B; somebody who does the world a lot of good. This could be the founder of a charity, or a politician who is doing great things for his country. It doesn't really matter.

Who do you save?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect you'd save the person you care about most. Even though person B is a more important person, who'll do the world a lot more good than the person you love, you choose the person you love over the person you don't know.

No. He's trolling. It's not that I disagree with his viewpoint. It's that he's attempting to derail the thread by starting arguments at the periphery.
As for your question: Founder of a charity? Well, depends on what the charity is, how much the person has to do with the actual workings of it, etc. Most contemporary charities are, by their very nature, bullshit.
And as for a politician, there is no politician, in any country, who does their country any good. Ever. I'm not being facetious.
So I guess if I look at your two examples, then yes. You'd be correct. I'd pick my loved one.
If it was someone that I thought actually added value to the world, then I might reconsider.
But this isn't your thread, and that's not the question the OP asked. If you're interested in people's answer to that question, then perhaps you should make a thread along those lines. Otherwise, answering his question with an essentially unrelated question looks an awful lot like an attempt to derail the thread.

You'd better check your posting guidelines 'toot-sweet'. I just did because someone mentioned that calling someone else a troll is against the rules. In fact it's #1 under "Don't be a Jerk"

I don't know if that includes saying someone is trolling, but if someone flags you it could give you grief.

Just trying to help.

 

[theblindedhunter]

You can train a wolf.
When I said "untrainable" I was saying that dogs are better than worms and cnidarians.
Animals are not sentient. Look it up.

"Able to perceive or feel things: 'sentient life forms'."
"Having the power of perception by the senses; conscious."
"Responsive to or conscious of sense impressions."
Pretty sure all of these apply to animals. Those are definitions 3 major sources.

And yes, wolves can be trained, but it is far more difficult to train them than a dog, and they are much more likely to break training even when you manage to. So if you are using training as a metric, it seems reasonable to conclude that "better at being trained" makes them better by that metric.
The same question can be made about dogs vs cats. Cats are worse because you can't train them like you can a dog?

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

How hot is she, on a scale of 1-10?

Kidding, just figured I needed to say it since I didn't see it on the first two pages.

Assuming I had the means, I'd save the person. While it sucks that my dog has to die, she's just a dog. The fact that more people would save their dog or cat is honestly nightmarish, although not really surprising. The Escapist Forums is one step above No Mutants Allowed. I think it might say something about the Human race - we wonder why the world is so fucked up when you can watch a person die so you can save your fucking dog - but maybe not. Probably does, though, people are shitty wherever you go.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

No. He's trolling. It's not that I disagree with his viewpoint. It's that he's attempting to derail the thread by starting arguments at the periphery.
As for your question: Founder of a charity? Well, depends on what the charity is, how much the person has to do with the actual workings of it, etc. Most contemporary charities are, by their very nature, bullshit.
And as for a politician, there is no politician, in any country, who does their country any good. Ever. I'm not being facetious.
So I guess if I look at your two examples, then yes. You'd be correct. I'd pick my loved one.
But this isn't your thread, and that's not the question the OP asked. If you're interested in people's answer to that question, then perhaps you should make a thread along those lines. Otherwise, answering his question with an essentially unrelated question looks an awful lot like an attempt to derail the thread.

I disagree. Sometimes in a debate it is necessary to draw parallels from a different situation to help the opposing party to understand your point of view. He wasn't trying to derail the thread, he - like me - wanted you to consider the situation from a different perspective, and we were attempting to do that by asking you to consider a different question.

If it was someone that I thought actually added value to the world, then I might reconsider.
Well that is where we differ. I would save the person I love, over the person who adds value to the world. Every time.
And if the roles were reversed, and I were drowning, I would understand if someone chose to save the person they love, over me.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Priorities of life:
Humans > other sentient races (if they exist) > trainable non-sentient species > non-trainable species > plants.

So if we met aliens of equal intelligence to us, they're somehow inherently less important than us?

I know it's a hypothetical scenario, and that we probably wont meet sentient life in our lifetimes, but I suspect beliefs like yours are how racism started.

 

[Slayer_2]

I consider anyone who'd rather save the pet as very misguided, and part of what is wrong with people. And if you'd only save the human to avoid the rage from people like me, you're not much better. WARNING, rant incoming:

I've seen a lot of this kinda stuff recently, people who treat their pet way better than other humans. It makes me want to punch them, and I'm usually not a violent guy. It's an animal. You probably eat a shit ton of them in your daily life, or wear their skins. The point where I hear about animals getting surgeries with 5-figure price tags for their dog is the point where I almost want to pull out that Futurama meme "I don't want to live on this planet anymore". I can do that surgery for about 10 cents, all I need is somewhere behind a shed, and my mosin, cleanup and burial is your responsibility.

The fact that people will pay thousands of dollars a year to take care of an animal destined to die in a decade or two and invest hundreds of hours of time into it, while they'd ignore a fellow human in need speaks VOLUMES about their character and personality.

Also, that "animals are more innocent than humans" crap annoys me to no end. Your animal isn't innocent, it's just stupid (and you might be as well, for confusing the two). All it does is sleep, eat, piss, crap, screw, hunt, and other useless crap.

Even if it was the biggest loser, a crack addict, some guy with no life, or some guy who treated their pet better than a human, I'd save them over any animal, no hesitation. The only thing that'd make me slow up is if I knew they were a murderer/rapist/other evil thing. Then I'd let em both drown, I'm not risking my ass for either.

Anyhow, rant over, I've been saving that one for the right time, sorry if I offended you, but try to use logic and some compassion for your own kind.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

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.

I dont care about the law, or risking my own safety. I cannot allow the death of a human being if there is a possibility that I may prevent it.

Is idealism a crime?

 

[marche45]

Personally,i would save the human.I doubt many people here would be willing to save their pets over humans either.Society inherently values a human over an animal.

However,i could understand why you would save the pet.In one case its another living creature which you love and has probably had a bigger impact in your life then this random stranger,vs someone you've never met and won't probably ever meet.

 

[Wynaro]

In the end, as much as many people hate to admit it, humans are horrible creatures. Plenty of you say that it's better to risk your life for a human than an animal, but you hardly ever hear about a person stepping up to save a stranger in need, or an animal in need. Humans focus more on self preservation than self respect, they always have and, more likely then not, always will. A person who saves anything in danger is considered a hero, be it a person's pet, a person's child, a person's parent, a bear stuck on a telephone pole. They're considered heroes because they did something no one else had the guts to do, and most people DONT have the guts to do. You can claim you'd save the human all you want, you can claim you'd save the dog all you want, but at least 90% of you know that in the end, you'd call 911, and wait for them to show up and do something while you stand there watching in awe as two living creatures drowned and died.

You don't have any right to insult each other until you've saved both a human AND a pet, and seen the effects of each. You have no right to ridicule each other, or insult each other, because the majority of you wouldn't lift a finger if you saw a group of thugs beating some defenseless kid in the park, or watched from a window as some guy stole a parked car, or slashed the tires, and broke the windshield. You'd feel bad, maybe. You'd want to do something, maybe. But most of you, and I'm not saying all, because there ARE people who would step in and risk themselves to help, but most of you would just sit there and watch them die. You can deny it online all you want, because no one here knows your face or your name, but in your heart, in the deepest part of your subconscious, you know what I say is true, and you wouldn't do a thing. I'm not trying to call anyone a monster for it. It's a basic instinct, but you can't talk about morality and ethics, or the superiority of a human to a dog, unless you know for a fact, and you HAVE for a fact, helped someone in need, just because you were there. You don't need to be successful, you just need to try.

And to be honest, a pet dog would DAMN well try to save it's owner if he/she was in danger.

So don't trash talk the animal either. They can be heroes too.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

I consider anyone who'd rather save the pet as very misguided, and part of what is wrong with people. And if you'd only save the human to avoid the rage from people like me, you're not much better. WARNING, rant incoming:

I've seen a lot of this kinda stuff recently, people who treat their pet way better than other humans. It makes me want to punch them, and I'm usually not a violent guy. It's an animal. You probably eat a shit ton of them in your daily life, or wear their skins. The point where I hear about animals getting surgeries with 5-figure price tags for their dog is the point where I almost want to pull out that Futurama meme "I don't want to live on this planet anymore". I can do that surgery for about 10 cents, all I need is somewhere behind a shed, and my mosin, cleanup and burial is your responsibility.

The fact that people will pay thousands of dollars a year to take care of an animal destined to die in a decade or two and invest hundreds of hours of time into it, while they'd ignore a fellow human in need speaks VOLUMES about their character and personality.

Also, that "animals are more innocent than humans" crap annoys me to no end. Your animal isn't innocent, it's just stupid (and you might be as well, for confusing the two). All it does is sleep, eat, piss, crap, screw, hunt, and other useless crap.

Even if it was the biggest loser, a crack addict, some guy with no life, or some guy who treated their pet better than a human, I'd save them over any animal, no hesitation. The only thing that'd make me slow up is if I knew they were a murderer/rapist/other evil thing. Then I'd let em both drown, I'm not risking my ass for either.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me as though you place virtually no value, if any, on animal life.
Below is a question similar to the OP's that I asked the OP a while ago.
<spoiler=my question>Person A is your mother/girlfriend/brother/someone else who you love and are close to, they're drowning.

So is person B; somebody who does the world a lot of good. This could be the founder of a charity, or a politician who is doing great things for his country. It doesn't really matter. Just someone who'll benefit the world a great deal/

Who do you save?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect you'd save the person you care about most. Even though person B is a more important person, who'll do the world a lot more good than the person you love, you choose the person you love over the person you don't know.
I'm not arguing that animals are more important than humans. What I'm saying is that I love my dog. He is another member of my family. If he dies, I can't just go down to the pet shop and buy another one, any more than I could if anybody else I care for died. To me, he's irreplaceable. So I would choose to save him. Even though he'll most likely do less good for the world than a human might.

 

[Jopoho]

Guys, I'm a lifeguard! I totally got this!

That Being said, I would probably tend toward the human first. I think my dog can manage until I get the guy to shore or a wall or something.