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

[Ieyke]

What I've learned here is that there are numerous people posting in this thread who aren't fit to own pets.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Animals are not sentient. Look it up.

I just did. From the Oxford dictionary:

Definition of sentient:
adjective
able to perceive or feel things

Is a cat not able to feel pain?

How about a dog, aren't they able to perceive when their owner is angry at them?

Do you need me to get you the definitions of pain and perceive too?

 

[Soods]

In the heat of the moment I might save the stranger, but if I had enough time to think I might go for my pet. Also: do I have an audience? That would critically affect the result.

Time to think + no audience -> Save my pet
No time to think + no audience -> Save the stranger
Time to think + audience -> Save the stranger
No time to think + audience -> Save the stranger

I'm sorry, I just happen to make bad calls when under a lot of pressure.

 

[Fitzcaraldo]

The stranger, no question. I really don't see how you could sacrifice a person for an animal.

 

[solemnwar]

In the heat of the moment I might save the stranger, but if I had enough time to think I might go for my pet. Also: do I have an audience? That would critically affect the result.

Time to think + no audience -> Save my pet
No time to think + no audience -> Save the stranger
Time to think + audience -> Save the stranger
No time to think + audience -> Save the stranger

I'm sorry, I just happen to make bad calls when under a lot of pressure.

I find it absolutely hilarious that, whether intentional or not, you're saying that saving a person over your pet is a bad call =P (It's okay, people suck, animals are soft and fuzzy and cuddly and don't judge you).

 

[nylonshred]

I'd save my pet. If I was in that situation I'd go straight for the pet since I'm attached it the most.

 

[Nemesis729]

I just want a good reason as to why I should care about this person that much.

Further, how would -you- feel if you were drowning and someone saved a dog and left you to die? I bet you'd be pretty pissed in those last few seconds alive.

Would you really be that pissed? That you're giving up your life to save another? I'd be honored, especially if it was a dog. No human is as innocent as a canine.

 

[kommando367]

If I could swim better, I'd save the stranger. I think I could have a few uses for someone that owes me their life.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Pssh. My pets have all known how to swim, being taken to water repeatedly while they were young, and learned early. I save the dumbass drowning, and my dog is smart enough to know how to get out on her own.

 

[TKretts3]

In the heat of the moment I might save the stranger, but if I had enough time to think I might go for my pet. Also: do I have an audience? That would critically affect the result.

Time to think + no audience -> Save my pet
No time to think + no audience -> Save the stranger
Time to think + audience -> Save the stranger
No time to think + audience -> Save the stranger

I'm sorry, I just happen to make bad calls when under a lot of pressure.

Why would you change your answer based on if people are watching?
Also, "Time to think." This is exactly why this thread exists, so you can think about what you'll do when this inevitably does happen to you.

 

[Spitfire]

It's a nonsensical question. Assuming that you have the swimming skills and body strength required to carry an adult human from water, then clearly you'd be able to do so with your pet as well.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

Its a person... there isn't a choice here.

That was my thought was well. I was clearly wrong. I just hope people would grow up a bit if they ever actually run into this situation.

Kinda sad that Dennis Prager was right. A ridiculous amount of people would save a dog before a human.

A majority would actually, and as sad as it is theres a pretty simple set of reasoning behind it.

Its called degrees of separation, and it starts with your partner, children, parents, pets/other family members, then extends outwards to people you dont even know. People closer in you care about more.

Therefore if you make a decision on who to save, you will almost always pick the person or animal with the closest degree of separation to you.

It's a nonsensical question. Assuming that you have the swimming skills and body strength required to carry an adult human from water, then clearly you'd be able to do so with your pet as well.

A lot of people like you bring this up, but thats basically not the point. Its a hypothetical situation. So assume you are able to swim and save one, and that situations prevent you from saving both, then try and answer it. Trying to pick apart a hypothetical question isnt really the point.

 

[Slayer_2]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me as though you place virtually no value, if any, on animal life.

Correct, I mean I don't condone killing them or hurting them unnecessarily, but I'd shoot a hundred kittens to save one beggar from the same fate. I wouldn't enjoy it, but I've probably been indirectly responsible for more animal deaths in my life so far, just because I didn't pull the trigger doesn't make me exempt. However, if you eat any meat, or use animal products, you probably withhold from judging. Why is your animal better than a cow?

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?

Assuming I somehow know all this and have time (and I don't panic), I'd probably go for the loved one, placing value on human lives is hard. Yes the politician is a person too, but so is my significant other. This is where the comparison falls apart. Your animal of choice is not a person. I'm not doing this to save the world, or for something like that. Like I said, I'd save the crack addict who contributes nothing, and could well be a small time crook. Besides which, you can't say that my significant other or the crack addict won't do something great for humanity in the future, where as I can guarantee your animal will never do anything but what I listed earlier.

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.

You might not be saying animal life has a higher value than human life, but your hypothetical actions speak for themselves. Can you blame me for being a bit depressed about the majority of votes being for saving an animal?

Here is a question for you, a REAL member of your family, whom you love and respect greatly, is in the same drowning pool, along with your furry friend. Again, you can only save one.

 

[Ieyke]

I feel I should point out that "save the pet" is the correct answer in terms of what humans are evolutionary programmed to do.

Humans are social animals.
We bond with each other and even some other types of creatures (certain species more frequently than others).
Our natural instinct is "PROTECT THE PACK", even if the pack member is a non-human adopted into the pack, and even if it's in favor of the non-human pack member over a foreign member of our species.
Members of the SAME species that are foreign to one's pack are instinctively regarded with suspicion and as possible threats to the pack. Pack members are naturally favored over possible threats.

Note that a pet is NOT the same thing as an animal that you just happen to own and regard as replaceable. For example, ranchers own cattle, they DO NOT own cows as "pets".

There are exceptions to everything, and humans are especially adept at subverting the natural order of things (hence the large minority of people saying they'd save the stranger). Nonetheless that's generally just how social animals naturally work.
To expect otherwise is....foolish.
To believe this to be "wrong" is to spit in the face of the millions of years of evolutionary programming that has made humankind the most advanced and civilized species on the planet.

 

[The Ubermensch]

I'd ask myself What Would Mitt Do?

"Let the free market sort it out"

Ok, seriously now... the pet, as most girls around here have implants that would act as a flotation device.

OK REALLY SERIOUSLY NOA, the stranger. I was thinking of making a joke about benefits but... yeah. so it goes like this; Motobike>other people>self>pets.

 

[Olas]

I can't believe the pet is winning, god, this is just sad you guys. Who could possibly choose an animal who's lifespan is probably less than 20 years over an actual human being?
It's not that I don't love my dog, but realistically my dog just isn't going to cause me the hardship that the person's death would to their family. Ah screw it, you misanthropes'll never understand.

 

[Ieyke]

It's not that I don't love my dog, but realistically my dog just isn't going to cause me the hardship that the person's death would to their family. Ah screw it, you misanthropes'll never understand.

The question would be - will someone else's hardship, that has zero impact on your life at all, matter to you more than the supposed lesser hardship that WILL impact your life.

Why should it?
There's a whole infinite universe of stuff out there that you don't care about because it has no impact on you.

If you knew that defeating the Nazis in World War II would save millions of people on Earth, but as a result it somehow caused the extinction of an entire civilized alien race (est. population 20 billion) elsewhere in the galaxy....do you stop the Nazis or save the entire alien civilization?
I bet you stop the Nazis. It may be unfortunate that the aliens will die, but it won't really impact you beyond that basic knowledge.
Basically this is the same question - saving a population you're familiar with is the same as saving your pet, while the alien civilization of strangers drowns.

 

[Vamantha]

I would save my pet. I have a freakish bond with my pet that if I noticed her in a dangerous situation my focus would be only for her. I probably wouldn't even notice the other person until afterwards.

 

[A.A.K]

My pet.
I very rarely find humans worth saving.

 

[Olas]

It's not that I don't love my dog, but realistically my dog just isn't going to cause me the hardship that the person's death would to their family. Ah screw it, you misanthropes'll never understand.

The question would be - will someone else's hardship, that has zero impact on your life at all, matter to you more than the supposed lesser hardship that WILL impact your life.

Why should it?
There's a whole infinite universe of stuff out there that you don't care about because it has no impact on you.

If you knew that defeating the Nazis in World War II would save millions of people on Earth, but as a result it somehow caused the extinction of an entire civilized alien race (est. population 20 billion) elsewhere in the galaxy....do you stop the Nazis or save the entire alien civilization?
I bet you stop the Nazis. It may be unfortunate that the aliens will die, but it won't really impact you beyond that basic knowledge.
Basically this is the same question - saving a population you're familiar with is the same as saving your pet, while the alien civilization of strangers drowns.

I think it's funny that you tried to make the situation clearer by introducing Nazis and an alien race.
If I knew for sure that letting the Nazis go would save 20 billion lives I'd definitely let them go. How could anyone justify killing 20 billion to save 6 million? Only if you refuse to see the bigger picture and choose to be close minded to the rest of the universe could you make such a cruel selfish decision.