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

Recommended Videos

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
ClockworkPenguin said:
ah, gotta love the angry people yelling at how its better to be an 'honest' dickhead than a hypocritical do-gooder.

Its not. If you don't at least pretend to value goodness that you can make good things happen. If we stop pretending we're better than we are, we wont make the situation better than it is.

a rebuttal to the specific analogy of donating all your worldly goods. This is in fact impracticable. It is the equivalent of seeing 100 people in a ditch, and climbing in the ditch yourself. Once you have donated everything, you are no longer in a position to A. help people in need, or B. change the system which causes want and inequality and indeed become a problem yourself. Over a lifetime it is far better to, say, give 15% of your income or to actively work and use your talents and resources to alleviating suffering. One does not need to suffer to be a good person.


Please don't pretend that someone not being perfect all the time is equal to someone deliberately choosing an action they recognise as selfish and the greater evil in a given scenario. It is wholly disingenuous.
Sorry but the two situations are almost exactly the same. One involves you giving away something you might have emotional attachment to and the other involves giving away an inanimate object.

You may be right about being able to donate over a longer period of time by not selling everything but you certainly don't need all of those luxury items. You're on a gaming site are you not? You must have a gaming system. That's awfully selfish of you. Owning something that makes you happy when you could sell it for a bunch of cheap food and save some lives. It's not impractical, it's easy but WE don't do it because everyone in our society is selfish. No, pretending we're not is not the answer, if anything that's why there's no solution yet.

I recognize that everyday I do not sell my laptop and xbox for food to give to others in need I am allowing people to die. You SHOULD recognize this too.

Really what is worse? Not giving up your inanimate object that makes you happy so that you can save multiple lives, or not giving up something you have an emotional attachment to to save one life? The answer should be pretty damn obvious.
 

randomsix

New member
Apr 20, 2009
773
0
0
It's less probable that the pet would cause me to drown when I went to save it.

EDIT: ITT waaaaaaaay after Singer
 

Domoslaf

New member
Nov 10, 2009
41
0
0
randomsix said:
I recognize that everyday I do not sell my laptop and xbox for food to give to others in need I am allowing people to die. You SHOULD recognize this too.
Maybe, but saying that it's the same as not saving a drowning person before you is insane. Even the "inhuman" law system puts a strong emphasis on intentions, but in your world everything is somehow misguidedly "logical" and "mathematical".

You would probably consider a beggar asking for change equally the same as a bleeding person on the street asking for a bandage, I suppose, to go with oversimplified analogies.
 

gNetkamiko

New member
Aug 25, 2010
139
0
0
piinyouri said:
Cannot swim either.
So...they're both SOL.


If I could swim, then the person definitely.
I feel the same way you do about pets, but much like you I'd save the person, and with one good reason: the person might save your life later, or he/she might end up saving the lives of many others.

Altruism at it's finest.
 

game-lover

New member
Dec 1, 2010
1,447
1
0
Froggy Slayer said:
game-lover said:
Froggy Slayer said:
By the way guys, if I'm ever drowning, and you choose your pet over me, you better choose me or I will haunt you. I will haunt the living shit out of you.
This is a wonderful post. Thank you for writing it.
Sarcasm or not, good sir? Sarcasm or not?
Not. It's hilarious! But I didn't wanna just put "LOL" on there.

Also, 'tis good ma'am.
 

kgpspyguy

New member
Apr 18, 2011
96
0
0
I'm kind of shocked by how many people are saying they cant swim, but I wouldn't hesitate to save the person, I love my dog but he isn't worth a human life...besides you couldn't drown my dog hes a duck hunting black lab.
 

Spy_Guy

New member
Mar 16, 2010
340
0
0
Asking me to save a random stranger instead of my cat is the same as asking someone to save a random stranger or their own kid.

Also, realistically speaking... swimming out into the water to save a panicked human is A Very Bad Idea indeed, because they're incredibly liable to drag you down with them.
So, by my "inaction" I'm more likely to save two lives, that of my cat, and my own.
 

ClockworkPenguin

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2012
587
0
21
Wakikifudge said:
There is a great deal of difference between the scenarios. For a start, one is literally a dilemma (only two courses of action- choose) whereas the other is not (even if I did give up all my possessions- how do I utilise them/who do I help?).

Furthermore, I don't know what you base your ethics on, based on your arguments you seem to shun attempts at morality altogether. I am a utilitarian so I would endeavour to do the course of action that resulted in the greatest net good. (I tend to interpret good as overall quality of life). In the first case it is very simple how to maximise this- saving the human, allowing them the rest of their life and avoiding grief from all their friends and relatives.

In the second it is not so simple. It is unlikely that sending £60 worth of food is the best way to utilise my talents and resources for the greater good, especially as it comes at the expense of such a useful tool (my laptop is my only gaming device, and my only internet enabled device.

Arguably I'm letting x people die today, to save many times that tomorrow*.

Also, to reiterate my main point. If people accepted your argument, it would lead to a reduction in charitable giving. No-one is prepared to go to that extreme, and presenting it as an all or nothing would incline people towards nothing. You might say this proves your point that we are all selfish deep down. I say it proves my point that that attitude is ultimately detrimental to positive change.

*(time-scales may be inaccurate)
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
Domoslaf said:
randomsix said:
I recognize that everyday I do not sell my laptop and xbox for food to give to others in need I am allowing people to die. You SHOULD recognize this too.
Maybe, but saying that it's the same as not saving a drowning person before you is insane. Even the "inhuman" law system puts a strong emphasis on intentions, but in your world everything is somehow misguidedly "logical" and "mathematical".

You would probably consider a beggar asking for change equally the same as a bleeding person on the street asking for a bandage, I suppose, to go with oversimplified analogies.
It's not mathematical. It's me being selfish. I get that. What I don't get is that you somehow think you're better than everyone who chose the pet option. You're not.

Your analogy doesn't work at all. It's completely different. One of the people is in serious danger while the other is living a very uncomfortable lifestyle. Uncomfortable but livable. In the two situations I provided, you are either way giving something away to save someone's life. One you are giving up something you might have an emotional attachment to, the other you are giving up an inanimate object that makes you happy and more comfortable. The only difference between the drowning person and the millions of people dying of starvation is the distance they are from you. Your inaction right now is killing people. So is mine. So is everyone else's in our society.
 

Spambot 3000

New member
Aug 8, 2011
713
0
0
Dwarfman said:
Lonely Packager said:
Dwarfman said:
Lonely Packager said:
Dwarfman said:
Lonely Packager said:
Pandabearparade said:
Lonely Packager said:
Apparently all the fucking white-knights
Us horrible white knights that call you immoral for picking the life of a dog over the life of a person?

Sure. I'm a white knight, complete with lance and shiny armor.
Maybe you should ask the King to be invited to the Round Table of Retards to have tea and discuss how people are soooooooooo selfish to save the life of something they love and priortise themselves over a stranger.
Seriously, go back to the question you were asked that involved saving the life of your mother or the life of histories greatest nobel prize nominee in the field of medicine. And I mean actually ANSWER it and have a great big fucking think WHY you reached that conclusion. Don't just dance around it and say 'nah, thats off-topic, thats flamebait, I dont have to answer that.' Because I dont know any other way to show you how backwards-thinking it is to tell someone they are a monster for saving something they love over something that has more 'value'. God knows how many others have tried.
Within the murky depths of history, great thinkers and Noble prize nominees are a dime a dozen - and often die horribly. The person who gave you life is unique and deserves at least some priority. That being said If the OPs question was two humans are drowning, ones your Mum and the other is some smart dude and I only had time to save one. My answer would be the same as the last time someone asked such a simple question. Whichever one is closer to my available resources.
Okay lets actually pretend the nominee is the bloody nicest President in the world. Or he WON the prize. Or whatever makes him more accomplished than your mother without you having to answer the question without copping out and going into details.
And nah mate, you HAVE to pick the one that has more societal value. His life is more valuable. Don't pick the one you have a strong emotional
attatchment to at all, that would make you a monster.
Then I'll answer the question - again - and your childish sarcasm the same way I answered last time and everytime. Whichever one is closer. A human is a human. From a societal point of view they are equal in measure.
So if it was a choice between your mother and criminal you'd pick either one right?
Anyway forget all that and let me just drop the whole hypothetical question and say:
'What would you rather save - something that you have powerful emotional attachment to and it in return or something that is socially accepted as having more value?'
And don't worry, there's no wrong answer. I cannot believ anyone would turn to someone on this thread whose pet might mean the whole WORLD to them (try to find my post about Jim from down the road if you would like to see more about what I mean by that) and flat out say, 'you're selfish'. Anyone would think they had no emotions or something.
By all means, if you pick the socially valuable thing, thats fine, but are you really such a monster for saving what you love instead? I mean, is it that bad to think about yourself (to some sort of rational standpoint, I mean, only someone who was bonkers would save their pet rock) in these situations? I mean, it's a lose-lose scenario they're gonna feel like shit afterwards either way. Is priortising what you love that selfish? Can you empathise with THEM?
To answer your first question. Yes you are right. It is regrettable but if the criminal is closer then so be it. It is not my place to judge a person by their crimes if they are in dire need. That would be hypocritical.
To answer your second question. That would depend on society's point of view. If it is indeed for the greater good then so be it, although I suppose 'the greater good' would have to come from my own perspective and that would indeed make me a selfish person, which I am. Of course in context with the
original hypothesis - in my mind - the decision to jump in and save somebody is a snap 'right here right now' decision. I'm an act and react kind of person
in these cases so the original answer still applies. Which ever is closer or path of least resistance. I will admit this philosophy has bitten me on the arse as many times as it's helped but it's how I roll.
And believe me I'm not worrying. And as yet I haven't turned on anyone for choosing their pet over the human. Their decision is their decision and mine is mine. Although my original post featured a high horsed lament that if people felt the same way about their fellow human beings as they do over pets and prized possessions the world would probably be a better place. A personal belief of mine which I hold to.
To answer your third and fourth questions. No it does not make them monsters to save what they love over whatever. From a religious and social point of
view that would even make them the better person to a point. Unfortunately as the Rolling Stones would say 'you can't always get what you want, but you
might just find you get what you need'. Sometimes sacrifice is required.

To answer your fifth question. Yes. But as contradicting as it may sound, that's what makes us human.

Hmmmmmm. To answer your last question. No. Although when I was young I was very materialistic and often likened inanimate objects to living things - I would cry if a glass broke, because the glass was dead for example. I have met in my life animals - stray cats for the most part - that I would consider my aquantances, but never my pets. I did not own them, they were themselves. And as regrettable as it is I would still choose the fellow member of my species over the animal because - and believe me when I say this honestly - I LITERALLY CAN SEE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.
Well at least you seem to at understand what I'm trying to convey at least. And I can respect your viewpoints. I think maybe if more people had pets that were more important to them then all this 'why would you save a dumb animal' abuse thats being hurled wouldnt have happened (which I thank you for not participating in). I suppose it is selfish somewhat to put yourself in a lose-lose scenario but then again, anyone who calls someone else a 'monster' for that should go take a bullet for someone if they're such a high and mighty good samaritan.
If you respect someone elses choice and I respect someone elses choice, then I think we're pretty good here. Its up to the audience to decide for themselves now. Again, thanks for at least not acting like NotALiberal.
 

Slayer_2

New member
Jul 28, 2008
2,475
0
0
Angry_squirrel said:
So in your opinion, the life of a species of equal intelligence to us is worth less, because it was born different? I suspect thought patterns like this are how racism started.
This line of "reasoning (used very loosely) really grinds my gears. It's not at all like racism. Let me get you a definition so you can understand what racism is: "Racism is generally defined as actions, practices, attitudes, or beliefs that reflect or support the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others."

If you want to call it "speciesism", sure, that is reasonable and true. I suggest you read this article, particularly the first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

Calling me equivalent to a racist because I support my own species first is misinformed and insulting. Humans are born superior to any animal on the planet by a long shot. The hypothetical alien race scenario is interesting, but not very likely at this time, hence, not really worth arguing about. Races, however, are all almost the same. We have different skin pigments, and slightly different physical features, but our anatomy and organs are the same. A black man can do anything a white man can do, a white man can do whatever an Asian man can do, etc. A chimp cannot do what a human can do, hence they are worth less.

And there is your problem. I suspect you're someone who has either never owned a pet, or at least never grown attached to one. Not only that, but you've already said that you place virtually no value on animal life. It's really not all that surprising you'd save the stranger then. So I think it's not unreasonable to assume that you simply find the idea of having an attachment to a pet so unusual, that you're having trouble empathizing with the point of view of a pet owner? You're about as biased an one could possibly be.
And you aren't biased? I think you're just as biased, but on the other side of the stick. I wouldn't be happy to see the animal drown, but if it meant saving a human life, I feel that any decent human would choose to save the person.

That is just an opinion, and while I agree with the part I've highlighted, I disagree with the rest.

So, in your opinion, humans are inherently more important than animals. Why?
Most people would answer "because we're more intelligent" and I would agree with that. But why then, would a hypothetical alien species of equal intelligence to us, be less important? What exactly gives us more inherent worth than another species of equal intelligence, simply because we're born to a different body.
You could also argue that "murder is bad" is just an opinion. Does that make such an opinion invalid?

The list of why we are superior is more than one item long. Intelligence is important, but some humans are arguably dumber than animals. With our technology, we are also vastly faster, stronger, and control most of the planet. As for aliens, that's too hypothetical to answer. We have no idea what kind of life forms are out there and how much they differ from life here on earth.

I have a question for you related to this, would you eat a human? Would you condone raising and killing humans in a slaughterhouse for food? Assume you aren't a vegetarian, of course. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you wouldn't. So, why? Extreme example, maybe, but hardly worse than your racism idea.

This is why I drew the parallel about someone of great value to the world, verses a close family member. Saving the close family member will cause much more suffering, but you save them anyway, because you love them.
Perhaps, but they are still both human. Either way, someone is mourning their loss and will be affected by it for years to come. Is your pet dying gonna send you into depression for years of your life? I hope not, since most dogs live less than 15 years and I hope you live longer than that.

If my pet died, my family and I would mourn him, in exactly the same way the stranger's family might mourn the stranger's death. Yes, it likely wouldn't be as bad for us as it would be for the strangers family, but it'd still be bad.
You might be sad for a few weeks, but you seemed pretty vehement that you'd save a human member of your family over the animal variants, so your grief wouldn't be on the same scale. I've seen many friends lose their pets, and one mother lose her son. The latter was far too horrible to be compared to the former.

Tell you what, in the quote below, I'm going to replace the word "human", with "white" and the word "animal" with, I don't know, "Asian".
Order of importance. I still believe that a fundamental part of being white is that first priority should be our own kind until such a time that it's proven that the whites cannot coexist peacefully with other whites. Regardless of the amount of attachment, that should be a secondary way to determine whom to save. The fact that anyone would place ANY Asian life over a white's bothers me immensely.
It sounds really quite disgusting when I put it like that, doesn't it?
I'll tell you what, 50 years ago, the quote above would have seemed normal. It's good we got past that way of thinking, isn't it?
I know it's an extreme example, but the principal remains the same: What you're saying is extremely prejudice.
Well yes, when you totally modify the meaning of my sentence, it seems like a racist viewpoint. And I'm sure I could modify your words to make it seem like you are one of those wackos who values animal life over human life.

Let me make it simple for you, humans are all more or less equal. Some are born weaker, smarter, etc, but it's not determined by race, but by fate and DNA. Animals are always born dumber and (if you count our technology, which you should) stronger and faster. We are superior. Blond hair, white skin, and blue eyes does not make you superior to all people with brown hair and brown skin, in fact, they are genetically stronger. This animals right movement is nothing like the racial equality movement, trying to tie the two together is inherently offensive, and trivializes the suffering of other races.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
ClockworkPenguin said:
Wakikifudge said:
I am a utilitarian so I would endeavour to do the course of action that resulted in the greatest net good.
Most of what you have said are your opinions and I get that but this statement I just couldn't leave alone.

If you truly are going to choose the action that benefits the most people then yes you would sell your laptop (or at least downgrade to one with the bare minimum). You would then not buy anymore games and instead use that money to save lives. You won't do any of this because you value your comfort over the lives of many people.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Ieyke said:
OlasDAlmighty said:
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.
Nah. I see the bigger picture. I just don't care.
I'm not cruel or selfish, just pragmatic and coldly logical.

You folks can waste your time acting like White Knights for all I care. I've been there, done that, and now I know better. I'm a Knight In Sour Armor with jade-colored glasses.
Proud of that are you?
In case you didn't realize, not caring is exactly what I'm chastising here. Every choice, even the choice to do nothing or ignore a problem, is a conscious decision that your brain has to make. If you just sit and watch a house burn instead of doing something you are choosing to let it burn. You can't hide behind jadedness.
So when you choose to act "pragmatic and coldly logical" you are doing it for a reason, in your case I'd guess just plain laziness.
 

ClockworkPenguin

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2012
587
0
21
Wakikifudge said:
ClockworkPenguin said:
Wakikifudge said:
I am a utilitarian so I would endeavour to do the course of action that resulted in the greatest net good.
Most of what you have said are your opinions and I get that but this statement I just couldn't leave alone.

If you truly are going to choose the action that benefits the most people then yes you would sell your laptop (or at least downgrade to one with the bare minimum). You would then not buy anymore games and instead use that money to save lives. You won't do any of this because you value your comfort over the lives of many people.
I believe that I have already made satisfactory arguments regarding that point. Clearly you do not accept these arguments. Therefore we are at an impasse so I feel the best course of action is to agree to disagree.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
Ieyke said:
OlasDAlmighty said:
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.
Nah. I see the bigger picture. I just don't care.
I'm not cruel or selfish, just pragmatic and coldly logical.

You folks can waste your time acting like White Knights for all I care. I've been there, done that, and now I know better. I'm a Knight In Sour Armor with jade-colored glasses.
Proud of that are you?
In case you didn't realize, not caring is exactly what I'm chastising here. Every choice, even the choice to do nothing or ignore a problem, is a conscious decision that your brain has to make. If you just sit and watch a house burn instead of doing something you are choosing to let it burn. You can't hide behind jadedness.
So when you choose to act "pragmatic and coldly logical" you are doing it for a reason, in your case I'd guess just plain laziness.
You have been judged, Ieyke. There is no arguing against such moral self-righteousness. These people seriously sound like fundamentalist christians ffs.
 

randomsix

New member
Apr 20, 2009
773
0
0
Wakikifudge said:
ClockworkPenguin said:
Wakikifudge said:
I am a utilitarian so I would endeavour to do the course of action that resulted in the greatest net good.
Most of what you have said are your opinions and I get that but this statement I just couldn't leave alone.

If you truly are going to choose the action that benefits the most people then yes you would sell your laptop (or at least downgrade to one with the bare minimum). You would then not buy anymore games and instead use that money to save lives. You won't do any of this because you value your comfort over the lives of many people.
It could be that in the long run being a participating part of a technological consumerist society IS the way to maximize utility.
 

llew

New member
Sep 9, 2009
584
0
0
im 50/50, but i said the person because i probably would despite feeling like an absolute twat about it seeing as there are already too many humans on this earth so one dying might help us out economically (if only in the most miniscule way) and it also doesnt help that i generally hate people and think that as a race we deserve slow suffering... but then i would think about the possible little children crying about this person dying and im fucked
 

Brandon237

New member
Mar 10, 2010
2,959
0
0
Pandabearparade said:
BathorysGraveland said:
Well I can't swim, so I guess I'd yell for someone to help. My first instinct though if I COULD swim, would be to save my pet. I'm sorry, but people/things I care about come before things I don't.
I bet you'd find that a little hard to explain to the family of the dead human.
I'd choose the same as him, and yes I would. But at the same time, the pet is close to me and has made an impact in my life. A stranger has not. No argument will swing more heavily in what I would do than the fact that that pet is a part of MY family and has made a non-negligible contribution to my life. Yes, I know, I am letting the person die, I would lose sleep over either choice, but I would still save my pet (unless it was something silly like a fish, I am talking cat or dog here) simply because of what having been with them and keeping them alive means to me.