They're both drowning, you can save only one... (1 Viewer)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But it's immoral to allow the stranger to die and save the dog. That's obvious.

If you haven't realized yet that this much disagreement obviously means it is far from obvious, then I think you're misassessing who's likely deficient in this scenario.

There's a lot of disagreement whenever we have gay marriage threads. But I think the moral position on that issue is obvious. Do you?

 

[bostonfred2]

Are there ways to take a life which are always immoral, regardless of whether it's legal or not

Yes.

I disagree.

It's morally incorrect to kill a person who doesn't want to be killed, who has committed no crime, who does not endanger you, who is not part of a group, culture or country which endangers you, and for which there is no greater good accomplished by his death.

 

[Smoo]

But it's immoral to allow the stranger to die and save the dog.  That's obvious.

If you haven't realized yet that this much disagreement obviously means it is far from obvious, then I think you're misassessing who's likely deficient in this scenario.

There's a lot of disagreement whenever we have gay marriage threads. But I think the moral position on that issue is obvious. Do you?

I do. And I'm able to explain why it's obvious in many ways and from many angles, and I do so at great length and anytime I'm asked.That's really all we're asking from Psychopav.

 

[Gringoloco]

The dog will forever remain innocent, unless that innocence is stolen by human by means of provocation, abuse, etc. The child is far more likely to bring negative thoughts, deeds, actions & consequences into the world than the dog. In other words, which species brings more bad, more harm, more evil into the world. A dog, or a human? Would the world be a better place, for all living species, if humans were were eliminated, or if dogs were eliminated?

To assume that dogs are more likely to be "innocent", especially without the nurture of humans, might not be correct. Wild dogs might do plenty of harm based solely on their sole desires for hunger and survival.At least humans have the ability to do unselfish, "good" things.

Is the world a better place with or without humans (as compared to dogs)? Not sure. Certainly humans have the ability to make the world much better and much worse (greater impact). But I never, ever began to debate which species are "better." Only that I, along with most everyone else here, value human life over animal life, thereby making the decision on this thread easy.

 

[Psychopav]

But it's immoral to allow the stranger to die and save the dog.  That's obvious.

If you haven't realized yet that this much disagreement obviously means it is far from obvious, then I think you're misassessing who's likely deficient in this scenario.

There's a lot of disagreement whenever we have gay marriage threads. But I think the moral position on that issue is obvious. Do you?

I do. And I'm able to explain why it's obvious in many ways and from many angles, and I do so at great length and anytime I'm asked.That's really all we're asking from Psychopav.

What you're asking for from me is something that I'm not prepared to offer. Deductive reasoning is not the only way to arrive at truth; in fact, it's not the way most of us arrive at our decisions each and every day.

 

[Grackle Squad]

Goint to lunch. I'll be back.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But it's immoral to allow the stranger to die and save the dog.  That's obvious.

If you haven't realized yet that this much disagreement obviously means it is far from obvious, then I think you're misassessing who's likely deficient in this scenario.

There's a lot of disagreement whenever we have gay marriage threads. But I think the moral position on that issue is obvious. Do you?

I do. And I'm able to explain why it's obvious in many ways and from many angles, and I do so at great length and anytime I'm asked.That's really all we're asking from Psychopav.

That's fine, but I'm just pointing out that the amount of disagreement isn't really relevant to the obviousness of a moral position. The fact that you and Grackle Squad have argued vehemently may just suggest that you're crackpots unable to come to grips with the obvious moral conclusion. Or it could mean you have a legitimate arguument.I'll admit that those of us on the "saving the dog is immoral" side haven't really articulated our position very well. Because it's really ####ing hard. Of course, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question from several pages back, so I'm not sure either side has been that persuasive.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Another reason to vote 'Dog'

 

[Smoo]

Only that I, along with most everyone else here, value human life over animal life, thereby making the decision on this thread easy.

That's fine. And all else being equal, and acceptable decision making rule.But that's not what's being asked. All else is NOT equal. That's why the question was your dog against a stranger. Not just a dog. And it's why follow up questions have dealt with ten dogs versus one stranger. Or a million dogs against one stranger. Or one dog against a child rapist.

The reason these questions are being asked is because it seems to us that to have such a morally inflexible position as "humans are always better than dogs under every possible condition" is a ludicrous thing to say.

 

[Psychopav]

The reason these questions are being asked is because it seems to us that to have such a morally inflexible position as "humans are always better than dogs under every possible condition" is a ludicrous thing to say.

:rotflmao: Sorry, I'm back to laughing again. Statements like this keep me comin' back for more in this thread.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

 

[Smoo]

The reason these questions are being asked is because it seems to us that to have such a morally inflexible position as "humans are always better than dogs under every possible condition" is a ludicrous thing to say.

:rotflmao: Sorry, I'm back to laughing again. Statements like this keep me comin' back for more in this thread.

Tell me this then, does your position have anything to do with religious beliefs? Yes or no.

 

[Smoo]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Nobody ever said you were perfect.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Another angle......What if it was 1 man vs. 2 dogs? Or 1 man vs. 100 dogs? Or 1 man vs. every dog in the world? Or 1 man with a 50% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance? Or 1 man with a 10% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance? Or 1 man with a 1% / 0.1% 0.0000000001% / etc. chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?The answers will vary from person to person......because they are subjective.

The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Maurile- Seriously? You would save the homeless crackhead? The convicted killer who escaped from prison who is set to be executed this week? The man who is holding 20 children hostage and has already killed 20 other kids?Surely you can't lay a blanket statement down that you ALWAYS pick the human? Do you always pick the human?

 

[Smoo]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

And Psychopav hasn't really 'said' anything other than 'I'm right and if you don't agree you're deficient'. That's great, but without a reason, I can generally get more insightful stuff from the bum on the corner wearing beer boxes for shoes.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Maurile- Seriously? You would save the homeless crackhead? The convicted killer who escaped from prison who is set to be executed this week? The man who is holding 20 children hostage and has already killed 20 other kids?

I think you're confusing CrossEyed and Psychopav.

 

[Smoo]

Another angle......What if it was 1 man vs. 2 dogs? Or 1 man vs. 100 dogs? Or 1 man vs. every dog in the world? Or 1 man with a 50% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance? Or 1 man with a 10% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance? Or 1 man with a 1% / 0.1% 0.0000000001% / etc. chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?The answers will vary from person to person......because they are subjective.

The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy.

No, it's really not, and you're not explaining why you disagree any better than Psychopav.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Maurile- Seriously? You would save the homeless crackhead? The convicted killer who escaped from prison who is set to be executed this week? The man who is holding 20 children hostage and has already killed 20 other kids?

I think you're confusing CrossEyed and Psychopav.

Ahh, yes. You are correct.What ever happened to names like Tom, *censored*, and Harry? They were so much easier to remember.

 

[Smoo]

Another angle......

What if it was 1 man vs. 2 dogs?  Or 1 man vs. 100 dogs?  Or 1 man vs. every dog in the world? 

Or 1 man with a 50% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?  Or 1 man with a 10% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?  Or 1 man with a 1% / 0.1% 0.0000000001% / etc. chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?

The answers will vary from person to person......because they are subjective.

The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy.

Also, nice wordplay. The question wasn't "one dog versus one human", although I'd also argue that that's not necessarily easy either (although it's admittedly easier). It's "your dog versus one human". And yes, that's a totally different question from "one dog versus one human".

 

[TheIronSheik]

Another angle......

What if it was 1 man vs. 2 dogs?  Or 1 man vs. 100 dogs?  Or 1 man vs. every dog in the world? 

Or 1 man with a 50% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?  Or 1 man with a 10% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?  Or 1 man with a 1% / 0.1% 0.0000000001% / etc. chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?

The answers will vary from person to person......because they are subjective.

The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy.

Also, nice wordplay. The question wasn't "one dog versus one human", although I'd also argue that that's not necessarily easy either (although it's admittedly easier). It's "your dog versus one human". And yes, that's a totally different question from "one dog versus one human".

I would have to agree. Take the YOUR out, and I save the human in most cases.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Finally, I fail to understand how whatever we would do in a true emergency in which we had to make a choice between a stranger and a dog is relevant to whether we should continue to engage in the activity that consumes the most animal life: the eating of meat.

Eating meat is responsible for all the animal life it consumes. If people didn't eat cows, how many cows do you think would exist? How many chickens? The answer is: way fewer than currently exist.I think there are excellent ethical arguments to be made against current farming practices. But the fact that farming "consumes the most animal life" isn't one of them, IMO.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The question wasn't "one dog versus one human", although I'd also argue that that's not necessarily easy either (although it's admittedly easier). It's "your dog versus one human". And yes, that's a totally different question from "one dog versus one human".

I can understand why this distinction would change someone's choice, but I don't see how it impacts the morality of the decision. Why would it be moral to save your dog, but immoral to save someone else's dog?

 

[Psychopav]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Maurile- Seriously? You would save the homeless crackhead? The convicted killer who escaped from prison who is set to be executed this week? The man who is holding 20 children hostage and has already killed 20 other kids?

I think you're confusing CrossEyed and Psychopav.

Ahh, yes. You are correct.What ever happened to names like Tom, *censored*, and Harry? They were so much easier to remember.

Let's leave **** out of this.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

And Psychopav hasn't really 'said' anything other than 'I'm right and if you don't agree you're deficient'.

Right. And I agree with him on that.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Eating meat is responsible for all the animal life it consumes. If people didn't eat cows, how many cows do you think would exist? How many chickens? The answer is: way fewer than currently exist.

I think there are excellent ethical arguments to be made against current farming practices. But the fact that farming "consumes the most animal life" isn't one of them, IMO.

We've discussed this question before and I don't think this is as clear as you think it is.

 

[Smoo]

The question wasn't "one dog versus one human", although I'd also argue that that's not necessarily easy either (although it's admittedly easier). It's "your dog versus one human". And yes, that's a totally different question from "one dog versus one human".

I can understand why this distinction would change someone's choice, but I don't see how it impacts the morality of the decision? Why would it be moral to save your dog, but immoral to save someone else's dog?

The point I've been making all along is that it's not "immoral" to save someone else's dog. So you're asking the wrong person.

 

[Smoo]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

And Psychopav hasn't really 'said' anything other than 'I'm right and if you don't agree you're deficient'.

Right. And I agree with him on that.

And until you supply a reason, that's an empty statement.

 

[satch]

The dog will forever remain innocent, unless that innocence is stolen by human by means of provocation, abuse, etc. The child is far more likely to bring negative thoughts, deeds, actions & consequences into the world than the dog. In other words, which species brings more bad, more harm, more evil into the world. A dog, or a human? Would the world be a better place, for all living species, if humans were were eliminated, or if dogs were eliminated?

To assume that dogs are more likely to be "innocent", especially without the nurture of humans, might not be correct. Wild dogs might do plenty of harm based solely on their sole desires for hunger and survival.At least humans have the ability to do unselfish, "good" things.

Is the world a better place with or without humans (as compared to dogs)? Not sure. Certainly humans have the ability to make the world much better and much worse (greater impact). But I never, ever began to debate which species are "better." Only that I, along with most everyone else here, value human life over animal life, thereby making the decision on this thread easy.

innocence: n 1: the quality of innocent naivete [syn: artlessness, ingenuousness, naturalness] 2: the state of being free from sin or moral wrong; lacking a knowledge of evil [syn: purity, sinlessness]

Wild dogs fighting for survival, while unpleasant, is still an innocent act. There is no intent of moral wrongdoing or evil. It is natural instinct.

"At least humans have the ability to do unselfish, "good" things."

Would you consider a dog dragging a human out of a pond, or burning building an unselfish, or good thing?

Dogs, unlike humans, do not have the ability to do selfish, bad things.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The question wasn't "one dog versus one human", although I'd also argue that that's not necessarily easy either (although it's admittedly easier).  It's "your dog versus one human".  And yes, that's a totally different question from "one dog versus one human".

I can understand why this distinction would change someone's choice, but I don't see how it impacts the morality of the decision? Why would it be moral to save your dog, but immoral to save someone else's dog?

The point I've been making all along is that it's not "immoral" to save someone else's dog. So you're asking the wrong person.

No, I'm asking the right person. You were the one who criticized Maurile for his "wordplay." But his "wordplay" was completely immaterial. He's saying it's immoral to save any dog. You're saying it's not immoral to save any dog. So why the nitpick?

 

[Psychopav]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Maurile- Seriously? You would save the homeless crackhead? The convicted killer who escaped from prison who is set to be executed this week? The man who is holding 20 children hostage and has already killed 20 other kids?

I think you're confusing CrossEyed and Psychopav.

Nobody actually asked me these ?'s directly, but I'd answer the same way. Yes, the crackhead murderer gets saved over the doggie. :singletear:I also don't know if I would do the right thing or not. I don't have a dog right now, but I've had lots of dogs and it would make me to let one drown.

 

[TheIronSheik]

The dog will forever remain innocent, unless that innocence is stolen by human by means of provocation, abuse, etc. The child is far more likely to bring negative thoughts, deeds, actions & consequences into the world than the dog. In other words, which species brings more bad, more harm, more evil into the world. A dog, or a human? Would the world be a better place, for all living species,  if humans were were eliminated, or if dogs were eliminated?

To assume that dogs are more likely to be "innocent", especially without the nurture of humans, might not be correct. Wild dogs might do plenty of harm based solely on their sole desires for hunger and survival.At least humans have the ability to do unselfish, "good" things.

Is the world a better place with or without humans (as compared to dogs)? Not sure. Certainly humans have the ability to make the world much better and much worse (greater impact). But I never, ever began to debate which species are "better." Only that I, along with most everyone else here, value human life over animal life, thereby making the decision on this thread easy.

innocence: n 1: the quality of innocent naivete [syn: artlessness, ingenuousness, naturalness] 2: the state of being free from sin or moral wrong; lacking a knowledge of evil [syn: purity, sinlessness]

Wild dogs fighting for survival, while unpleasant, is still an innocent act. There is no intent of moral wrongdoing or evil. It is natural instinct.

"At least humans have the ability to do unselfish, "good" things."

Would you consider a dog dragging a human out of a pond, or burning building an unselfish, or good thing?

Dogs, unlike humans, do not have the ability to do selfish, bad things.

I wonder about this:If I was drowing and a compete stranger was drowing, who would my dog save?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Maurile- Seriously? You would save the homeless crackhead? The convicted killer who escaped from prison who is set to be executed this week? The man who is holding 20 children hostage and has already killed 20 other kids?

I think you're confusing CrossEyed and Psychopav.

Nobody actually asked me these ?'s directly, but I'd answer the same way. Yes, the crackhead murderer gets saved over the doggie. :singletear:I also don't know if I would do the right thing or not. I don't have a dog right now, but I've had lots of dogs and it would make me to let one drown.

Not criticizing, but asking:Why the murderer over the dog?

 

[Smoo]

The question wasn't "one dog versus one human", although I'd also argue that that's not necessarily easy either (although it's admittedly easier).  It's "your dog versus one human".  And yes, that's a totally different question from "one dog versus one human".

I can understand why this distinction would change someone's choice, but I don't see how it impacts the morality of the decision? Why would it be moral to save your dog, but immoral to save someone else's dog?

The point I've been making all along is that it's not "immoral" to save someone else's dog. So you're asking the wrong person.

No, I'm asking the right person. You were the one who criticized Maurile for his "wordplay." But his "wordplay" was completely immaterial. He's saying it's immoral to save any dog. You're saying it's not immoral to save any dog. So why the nitpick?

Because there are clearly people in the middle who believe that the ownership does play into the morality. And that's legitimate. Not only legitimate, but supports my other point that there is no hard and fast universal moral rule in play here. My moral position isn't necessarily going to be somebody else's moral position.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Another angle......

What if it was 1 man vs. 2 dogs?  Or 1 man vs. 100 dogs?  Or 1 man vs. every dog in the world? 

Or 1 man with a 50% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?  Or 1 man with a 10% chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?  Or 1 man with a 1% / 0.1% 0.0000000001% / etc. chance of dying vs. 1 dog with a 100% chance?

The answers will vary from person to person......because they are subjective.

The answers will vary from person to person because the questions are hard. Some moral questions are hard and some are easy. One dog versus one human is easy.

No, it's really not, and you're not explaining why you disagree any better than Psychopav.

It's not the kind of thing anyone should have to explain. You should be able to get the answer right on your own just by examining your own conscience.But I can get you pointed in the right direction, I hope, by listing a couple relevant factors to consider:

Which animal, dog or human, has a greater capacity for conscious thought, reflection, appreciation, joy, and so on? (Isn't the reason we don't care about killing ants that the ants have so little capacity for thought, and therefore such a limited quality of life? This is why a hamster life is worth more than an ant life. And a dog life is worth more than a hamster life. And a human life is worth more than a dog life.)

Which animal, dog or human, has more invested in its life in terms of personal relationships, family obligations, and so on? Whose death will cause more suffering to his or her loved ones? (Would you rather lose your dog or your brother? The drowning stranger probably has a brother or sister, not to mention a mother and possibly a wife and children.)I'm sure you can come up with some other relevant factors on your own.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

there are clearly people in the middle who believe that the ownership does play into the morality. And that's legitimate.

What could possibly be the reason for this? I can't think of any.

 

[Smoo]

It's not the kind of thing anyone should have to explain. You should be able to get the answer right on your own just by examining your own conscience.

But I can get you pointed in the right direction, I hope, by listing a couple relevant factors to consider:

Which animal, dog or human, has a greater capacity for conscious thought, reflection, appreciation, joy, and so on? (Isn't the reason we don't care about killing ants because the ants have so little capacity for thought, and therefore such a limited quality of life? This is why a hamster life is worth more than an ant life. And a dog life is worth more than a hamster life. And a human life is worth more than a dog life.)

Which animal, dog or human, has more invested in its life in terms of personal relationships, family obligations, and so on? Whose death will cause more suffering to his or her loved ones? (Would you rather lose your dog or your brother? The drowning stranger probably has a brother or sister, not to mention a mother and possibly a wife and children.)I'm sure you can come up with some other relevant factors on your own.

Yes, those are all great reasons for a single individual person to reach the conclusion that humans should be saved above dogs. But that doesn't make it a universal truism, nor does it acknowledge that other factors, like an existent relationship (like the owner/pet dynamic), may alter that.Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die. If your dog is your loved one then you have a conflict. Maybe your love for your dog is a stronger moral position for you than the whole humans better than animals thing. That's valid.

 

[Psychopav]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Maurile- Seriously? You would save the homeless crackhead? The convicted killer who escaped from prison who is set to be executed this week? The man who is holding 20 children hostage and has already killed 20 other kids?

I think you're confusing CrossEyed and Psychopav.

Nobody actually asked me these ?'s directly, but I'd answer the same way. Yes, the crackhead murderer gets saved over the doggie. :singletear:I also don't know if I would do the right thing or not. I don't have a dog right now, but I've had lots of dogs and it would make me to let one drown.

Not criticizing, but asking:Why the murderer over the dog?

People are more valuable than dogs.

 

[Smoo]

there are clearly people in the middle who believe that the ownership does play into the morality. And that's legitimate.

What could possibly be the reason for this? I can't think of any.

Then you're not thinking very hard. That somebody loves their pet and considers ii immoral to let a loved one die is immediately obvious. There are likely others, but that's for the pet owners themselves to expound on, not me.

 

[Smoo]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Maurile- Seriously? You would save the homeless crackhead? The convicted killer who escaped from prison who is set to be executed this week? The man who is holding 20 children hostage and has already killed 20 other kids?

I think you're confusing CrossEyed and Psychopav.

Nobody actually asked me these ?'s directly, but I'd answer the same way. Yes, the crackhead murderer gets saved over the doggie. :singletear:I also don't know if I would do the right thing or not. I don't have a dog right now, but I've had lots of dogs and it would make me to let one drown.

Not criticizing, but asking:Why the murderer over the dog?

People are more valuable than dogs.

To you.

 

[Funkley]

there are clearly people in the middle who believe that the ownership does play into the morality.  And that's legitimate.

What could possibly be the reason for this? I can't think of any.

My thought is that when you get a puppy or dog you take responsibility for taking care of that animal. Part of taking care of it would be to save it from drowning. I'm not saying doing so over saving the life of a human is the way to go, just my view on the ownership aspect.

 

[Smoo]

there are clearly people in the middle who believe that the ownership does play into the morality.  And that's legitimate.

What could possibly be the reason for this? I can't think of any.

My thought is that when you get a puppy or dog you take responsibility for taking care of that animal. Part of taking care of it would be to save it from drowning. I'm not saying doing so over saving the life of a human is that way to go, just my view on the ownership aspect.

Another good example.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die. If your dog is your loved one then you have a conflict. Maybe your love for your dog is a stronger moral position for you than the whole humans better than animals thing. That's valid.

What distinguishes a "valid" position from an invalid one? Or are there no invalid positions? If you really, really, really love the pencil you're using, and the only way to keep it is to nuke all of Europe, would dropping the bomb be a valid position?

 

[Psychopav]

Psychopav has to be fishing.

I agree with pretty much everything Psychopav has said in this thread.

Maurile- Seriously? You would save the homeless crackhead? The convicted killer who escaped from prison who is set to be executed this week? The man who is holding 20 children hostage and has already killed 20 other kids?

I think you're confusing CrossEyed and Psychopav.

Nobody actually asked me these ?'s directly, but I'd answer the same way. Yes, the crackhead murderer gets saved over the doggie. :singletear:I also don't know if I would do the right thing or not. I don't have a dog right now, but I've had lots of dogs and it would make me to let one drown.

Not criticizing, but asking:Why the murderer over the dog?

People are more valuable than dogs.

To you.

Objectively speaking.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maybe it's immoral to let a loved one die.

The stranger is a loved one as well. Maybe he's not loved by you, so perhaps you have selfish reasons for wanting to save the dog instead; but selfishness isn't generally given as a moral justification.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

there are clearly people in the middle who believe that the ownership does play into the morality.  And that's legitimate.

What could possibly be the reason for this? I can't think of any.

Then you're not thinking very hard. That somebody loves their pet and considers ii immoral to let a loved one die is immediately obvious. There are likely others, but that's for the pet owners themselves to expound on, not me.

To me, this is too malleable. The morality of an action shouldn't be dependent upon someone's motivations. Acts are moral or immoral on their face.

 

[Gringoloco]

That's why the question was your dog against a stranger.

I believe I responded to that question in great detail.

 

[JAA]

I guess it comes down to whether or not you are saving the human life so they may live on or so you dont feel guilty about saving your dog.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

there are clearly people in the middle who believe that the ownership does play into the morality.  And that's legitimate.

What could possibly be the reason for this? I can't think of any.

My thought is that when you get a puppy or dog you take responsibility for taking care of that animal. Part of taking care of it would be to save it from drowning. I'm not saying doing so over saving the life of a human is that way to go, just my view on the ownership aspect.

Another good example.

This is the best argument I've seen so far. I'm still not persuaded, but it is pretty compelling.

 

[Funkley]

Not a hijack, just a comment.Watched my Dad save one of ours dogs from drowning once when I was a kid. Our Golden Retriever got tangled in some decoy lines and weeds. My Dad got the boat too him in time and got him out but it was a helluva thing too watch happen at 10 years old. Sorry, thread made me remember that.