They're both drowning, you can save only one... (2 Viewers)

[saintsfan]

I didn't read every single post, but that stranger is somebody's father, mother, or child. What if somebody chose the life of an animal over YOUR mother, father, or child?I can't prove that a human life is more important than a dog's life and I can't prove that saving the dog is immoral or unethical, but I know, as a family man and a human that it wouldn't feel RIGHT if I had the chance to save someone's life and prevent a family tragedy, and I chose to save an animal which can be replaced the same way you replace a toaster.I don't have a dog, so maybe I can't comprehend how it feels to have one, but I can say that if I could replace all of the mothers and fathers that died on September 11 with dogs, even dogs that I know, I would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That doesn't make saving the dog immoral. You can say it makes it less moral, but not immoral.

I can say it makes it immoral. If I see someone rescue a dog while letting a human die, when either could have been saved as easily as the other, I'd consider him a schmuck.

Yes, fine. You'd consider him a schmuck. I'm not taking that away from you. But your position seems to be that everybody should consider him a schmuck, and that's where we will continue to disagree.

When I consider someone a schmuck, I try to make sure it's because he really is a schmuck. And if he really is a schmuck, then yeah, everyone should consider him so.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Maurile- I'm not trying to antagonize you. Just wanted that to be known. I got it from your post:

It's selfish to want to save your own dog instead of someone else's husband because your motives focus on the 'your own' aspect of it.

It just seems like you have a rule, but many different aspects on to how that rule applies. All I'm saying is that there is no clear cut answer. I understand that there is for you, and that you know what you should do, but I think its wrong to tell people that your way is the correct way. Don't you think that's a little oppressive?(Once again, this isn't a yelling debate. Just a debate. )

 

[Smoo]

That doesn't make saving the dog immoral.  You can say it makes it less moral, but not immoral.

I can say it makes it immoral. If I see someone rescue a dog while letting a human die, when either could have been saved as easily as the other, I'd consider him a schmuck.

Yes, fine. You'd consider him a schmuck. I'm not taking that away from you. But your position seems to be that everybody should consider him a schmuck, and that's where we will continue to disagree.

When I consider someone a schmuck, I try to make sure it's because he really is a schmuck. And if he really is a schmuck, then yeah, everyone should consider him so.

That's assuming somebody can objectively be a schmuck. Maybe schmuckiness depends on your frame of reference.

 

[Psychopav]

Maurile- I'm not trying to antagonize you. Just wanted that to be known. I got it from your post:

It's selfish to want to save your own dog instead of someone else's husband because your motives focus on the 'your own' aspect of it.

It just seems like you have a rule, but many different aspects on to how that rule applies. All I'm saying is that there is no clear cut answer. I understand that there is for you, and that you know what you should do, but I think its wrong to tell people that your way is the correct way. Don't you think that's a little oppressive?(Once again, this isn't a yelling debate. Just a debate. )

DUDE! You are soo banned for talking that way to MT.IN.

 

[J-Co]

No need to pounce. Cross-Eyed's opinion became impotent as soon as he needed some fictional text and ancient superstition to back it up.

:rotflmao: This is sig worthy.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maurile- I'm not trying to antagonize you.  Just wanted that to be known.

Thanks. Same here.

I got it from your post:

It's selfish to want to save your own dog instead of someone else's husband because your motives focus on the 'your own' aspect of it.

Yes. But how does that make rescuing your own daughter instead of my dog selfish? It's not like dogs are inherently more worthy of rescuing than humans and you're overriding that general principle in this case just because the daughter happens to be your own. If that's what you were doing, then you'd be focusing on the 'your own' aspect of it, and you'd be acting selfishly. But that's not what you're doing. Dogs aren't inherently more worthy of rescuing than humans, so you're not overriding a general principle just because the daughter happens to be your own.

All I'm saying is that there is no clear cut answer.  I understand that there is for you, and that you know what you should do, but I think its wrong to tell people that your way is the correct way.  Don't you think that's a little oppressive?

Oppressive? No. But I'm not a moral relativist. I believe there are right and wrong answers to many moral questions, this being one of them.

 

[J-Co]

MT, I've only skimmed a lot of the recent posts but just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the more extreme hypothetical example I gave earlier......where you have the choice of saving the man or many dogs (10/100/1000/all dogs in the world). Do you have a breaking point where you think letting the man die to save the dogs would be (morally) acceptable? TIA

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT, I've only skimmed a lot of the recent posts but just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the more extreme hypothetical example I gave earlier......where you have the choice of saving the man or many dogs (10/100/1000/all dogs in the world). Do you have a breaking point where you think letting the man die to save the dogs would be (morally) acceptable? TIA

Those are harder questions whose answers aren't so obvious. I do think there's a breaking point, but I don't know what it is.

 

[TheIronSheik]

MT-

Dogs aren't inherently more worthy of rescuing than humans, so you're not overriding a general principle just because the daughter happens to be your own.

I think I know your answer, but wouldn't you say that this is a debatable statement?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT-

Dogs aren't inherently more worthy of rescuing than humans, so you're not overriding a general principle just because the daughter happens to be your own.

I think I know your answer, but wouldn't you say that this is a debatable statement?

Debatable how? Is there a reasonable argument for the proposition that dogs are inherently more worthy of rescuing than humans?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maybe schmuckiness depends on your frame of reference.

Schmuckiness is a unary predicate, not a binary predicate. That is to say, when Sally claims that Hitler was a schmuck, the truth or falsity of her claim depends only on the properties of Hitler; it does not also depend on the properties of Sally.

 

[IanTucker]

Very interesting thread. Its nice to see some of the folks who are usually on the same side of things debate instead. I thought Fatguy made a very interesting point: at what point is saving a non-human animal the immoral thing to do? Many folks seem willing to say that your beloved dog would be saved over a stranger? But what about a cat? a hamster? a goldfish ? At what level of intelligence does another animal become less important than a human?

The level of intelligence is not the point. The intensity of the relationship is. What some people keep forgetting is that is not "a" dog, or "some" dog, but rather MY dog.

 

[TheIronSheik]

MT-

Dogs aren't inherently more worthy of rescuing than humans, so you're not overriding a general principle just because the daughter happens to be your own.

I think I know your answer, but wouldn't you say that this is a debatable statement?

Debatable how? Is there a reasonable argument for the proposition that dogs are inherently more worthy of rescuing than humans?

In my eyes or yours?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The level of intelligence is not the point. The intensity of the relationship is. What some people keep forgetting is that is not "a" dog, or "some" dog, but rather MY dog.

It's my pet rat. It's my ant farm. See where I'm going with this?

 

[TheIronSheik]

The level of intelligence is not the point. The intensity of the relationship is. What some people keep forgetting is that is not "a" dog, or "some" dog, but rather MY dog.

It's my pet rat. It's my ant farm. See where I'm going with this?

No. But you've definitely intrigued me. Go on.

 

[snorlax]

The level of intelligence is not the point. The intensity of the relationship is. What some people keep forgetting is that is not "a" dog, or "some" dog,  but rather MY dog.

It's my pet rat. It's my ant farm. See where I'm going with this?

No. But you've definitely intrigued me. Go on.

my pencil...

 

[jamny]

I'm saving my dog...sorry if that makes me immoral, in your opinion. edit: Sure you don't know the stranger, but you also don't know if that person will drown. I would hope to save them both. But my dog first :grin:

 

[the rover]

This may not help, but this guy killed his friend for sitting in his dog's chair.

 

[IanTucker]

The level of intelligence is not the point. The intensity of the relationship is. What some people keep forgetting is that is not "a" dog, or "some" dog, but rather MY dog.

It's my pet rat. It's my ant farm. See where I'm going with this?

I do not.

 

[Gambler]

I believe the answer is that dogs are excellent swimmers and rarely drown,if ever? So I picked the stranger. Sorta a no brainer to me as the choices seem flavved.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Even if you don't get into the soul vs. soulless argument, I (and I hope most others) wiwould save the life of a human being over the life of a dog no matter how wonderful a companion the dog was. Look at it this way - the longest a dog will live is around 20 years and that is for one of those pesky small breeds. Meanwhile humans live upwards of 70 years. Far too much good stuff could be accomplished in the difference between those years.Then again a large percentage of people would kill a human (abortion) so I guess I won't be shocked if a lot will save the dog.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The level of intelligence is not the point. The intensity of the relationship is. What some people keep forgetting is that is not "a" dog, or "some" dog,  but rather MY dog.

It's my pet rat. It's my ant farm. See where I'm going with this?

I do not.

Lots of people are apparently comfortable with letting a human drown and saving their beloved dog (I have 2). But would you be comfortable with letting a stranger drown if it was your pet cat, pet rat, pet snake, lucky rabbit's foot, etc. I'm trying to find the line that the dog savers would reach before they finally chose the stranger. And then I would like to examine that line and find out what it means.I think their is an inconsistency when you say you will save your family dog but not save the family parakeet. What is the difference?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I would save a chimpanzee over a dog. Also, I would save a ferret over a gerbil, a zebra over a field mouse, and a pelican over an aardvark unless it was a cute, baby aardvark.

 

[Smoo]

I would save a chimpanzee over a dog. Also, I would save a ferret over a gerbil, a zebra over a field mouse, and a pelican over an aardvark unless it was a cute, baby aardvark.

C'mon, tell the truth. You've spent all evening making a species hierarchy haven't you?

 

[IanTucker]

I would save a chimpanzee over a dog. Also, I would save a ferret over a gerbil, a zebra over a field mouse, and a pelican over an aardvark unless it was a cute, baby aardvark.

Yes but would you save the chimpanzee over YOUR beloved dog?

 

[IanTucker]

The level of intelligence is not the point. The intensity of the relationship is. What some people keep forgetting is that is not "a" dog, or "some" dog,  but rather MY dog.

It's my pet rat. It's my ant farm. See where I'm going with this?

I do not.

Lots of people are apparently comfortable with letting a human drown and saving their beloved dog (I have 2). But would you be comfortable with letting a stranger drown if it was your pet cat, pet rat, pet snake, lucky rabbit's foot, etc. I'm trying to find the line that the dog savers would reach before they finally chose the stranger. And then I would like to examine that line and find out what it means.I think their is an inconsistency when you say you will save your family dog but not save the family parakeet. What is the difference?

Pet cat, probably not, pet snake...nope. Lucky rabbit's foot? If it were indeed lucky I would have to save it The difference is I'm not talking in generalities. I'm talking about a specific dog with whom I had a very special relationship. I had a parakeet once, but no special relationship with it.

 

[scoobygang]

Oh to be on timeout during this thread...To paraphrase Shining Path:This was like a great Socratic dialogue, except with ######ed people.

 

[J-Co]

The level of intelligence is not the point. The intensity of the relationship is. What some people keep forgetting is that is not "a" dog, or "some" dog,  but rather MY dog.

It's my pet rat. It's my ant farm. See where I'm going with this?

I do not.

Lots of people are apparently comfortable with letting a human drown and saving their beloved dog (I have 2). But would you be comfortable with letting a stranger drown if it was your pet cat, pet rat, pet snake, lucky rabbit's foot, etc. I'm trying to find the line that the dog savers would reach before they finally chose the stranger. And then I would like to examine that line and find out what it means.I think their is an inconsistency when you say you will save your family dog but not save the family parakeet. What is the difference?

As I've said, I would save my dog. I also don't fault anyone that said they would save the person. As far as adding other variables such as the dog being very old or sick, I would consider saving the person. As far as other animals, I would possibly save a pet cat, kind of depends on the cat. Some are very personable; others aren't. Most other animals, no I would let them die. There's a matter of intelligence and capacity for a mutual relationship. I don't think a snake has much intelligence beyond survival instinct and I am relatively sure that it has basically zero capacity for affection toward its owner. Gerbals, rats, other vermin.....they have more than the snake but are still relatively worthless imo compared to the life of a human being. Having had dogs my entire life, I put them on a bit of a pedestal. I don't expect everyone to share that same opinion but I do think the few people shooting their mouths off about 45% of the responants being immoral or worse, are being unnecessarily disrespectful of a completely valid opinion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Pet cat, probably not, pet snake...nope. Lucky rabbit's foot? If it were indeed lucky I would have to save it The difference is I'm not talking in generalities. I'm talking about a specific dog with whom I had a very special relationship. I had a parakeet once, but no special relationship with it.

But if you had that very special relationship with your pet rock, why wouldn't you save it instead of the stranger? What makes the relationship with your dog so special that you would let a human life expire in order to save it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But if you had that very special relationship with your pet rock . . .

I don't think rocks are big on relationships.

 

[J-Co]

Pet cat, probably not, pet snake...nope. Lucky rabbit's foot? If it were indeed lucky I would have to save it The difference is I'm not talking in generalities. I'm talking about a specific dog with whom I had a very special relationship. I had a parakeet once, but no special relationship with it.

But if you had that very special relationship with your pet rock, why wouldn't you save it instead of the stranger? What makes the relationship with your dog so special that you would let a human life expire in order to save it?

I think the rock is kind of a frivolous example. Here's one that is a little easier to relate to:random stranger dies vs. your livelihoodFor the sake of argument, you basically lose your life savings and for whatever reason will not be able to re-aquire much of it. You will have to live out the rest of your life extremely modestly, in fact near poverty level. Let's not try to circumvent the concept here by looking for some sort of loophole. The dilemma is are you willing to allow a random person to die to preserve your lot in life. It's an interesting question and I think it actually does have some real life significance, historically. If you don't like that one, maybe consider - a person dies or your wife divorces you; or a person dies or you will never be able to see your brother again (he doesn't die but you just can never see him again).

 

[Smoo]

Oh to be on timeout during this thread...To paraphrase Shining Path:This was like a great Socratic dialogue, except with ######ed people.

Umm, welcome back?

 

[Ruffian3451]

All you uptight "Moral Majority" people make me laugh. Anyone in this thread who has said "You dog voters are morally wrong", I ask you: Why is it morally wrong to save a dog instead of a person? Why are we so much better than dogs? Because we can drive? What if the dog was really God, and it just looked like a dog? Or what if dogs are really superior beings to us? How do you know that they aren't? What makes you so much smarter that you know all the answers?Basically, my point is this - nobody knows all the answers, especially not you. Just because somebody doesn't look at things the way you do, doesn't mean that they are wrong. You are not always right. The sooner you realize that, the happier you will be.You can make all the arguments that you want. I'd still save my dog.

 

[rolyaTy]

Can't believe this thread made so many pages. It's simple: If you choose to save the dog you're inhuman and are a horrible person. If you choose to save the human you made the only acceptable choice and shouldn't be commended or anything.Only sociopaths and really messed up people would seriously save the dog. So like I said, if you chose to save the dog, and you weren't joking, you're a horrible person...it's that simple.

 

[J-Co]

Can't believe this thread made so many pages.

It's simple: If you choose to save the dog you're inhuman and are a horrible person. If you choose to save the human you made the only acceptable choice and shouldn't be commended or anything.

Only sociopaths and really messed up people would seriously save the dog. So like I said, if you chose to save the dog, and you weren't joking, you're a horrible person...it's that simple.

So......you think that 43% of the respondants are inhuman sociopaths? You never know, but I'd bet it's more likely you are for being overly rigid and opinionated (coming from me that's pretty bad )

 

[rolyaTy]

I think there could be no better definition of an immoral person than "One who chooses the life of an animal over that of a human."If you fit that category, you're a bad person. It's that simple.

 

[J-Co]

I think there could be no better definition of an immoral person than "One who chooses the life of an animal over that of a human."If you fit that category, you're a bad person. It's that simple.

oh, I don't know. How about mass murderers? Child molestors? Sadists? Maybe even you for being so judgmental of people who love their dogs.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I would save a chimpanzee over a dog. Also, I would save a ferret over a gerbil, a zebra over a field mouse, and a pelican over an aardvark unless it was a cute, baby aardvark.

Yes but would you save the chimpanzee over YOUR beloved dog?

Do I know the chimp?

 

[TheIronSheik]

The level of intelligence is not the point. The intensity of the relationship is. What some people keep forgetting is that is not "a" dog, or "some" dog,  but rather MY dog.

It's my pet rat. It's my ant farm. See where I'm going with this?

I do not.

Lots of people are apparently comfortable with letting a human drown and saving their beloved dog (I have 2). But would you be comfortable with letting a stranger drown if it was your pet cat, pet rat, pet snake, lucky rabbit's foot, etc. I'm trying to find the line that the dog savers would reach before they finally chose the stranger. And then I would like to examine that line and find out what it means.I think their is an inconsistency when you say you will save your family dog but not save the family parakeet. What is the difference?

Why is my families parakeet out swimming in a pond with a stranger? Who has an unleashed parakeet?

 

[scoobygang]

Umm, welcome back?

Thanks!Now quick, if it were a uncommonly friendly guinea pig or Chris Pronger...Who do you save?

 

[Village Idiot]

Umm, welcome back?

Thanks!Now quick, if it were a uncommonly friendly guinea pig or Chris Pronger...Who do you save?

Aren't those identical choices ?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Umm, welcome back?

Thanks!Now quick, if it were a uncommonly friendly guinea pig or Chris Pronger...Who do you save?

Do I know the guinea pig?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

But if you had that very special relationship with your pet rock . . .

I don't think rocks are big on relationships.

You haven't met my little best buddy "Shaley".

 

[CrossEyed]

No need to pounce. Cross-Eyed's opinion became impotent as soon as he needed some fictional text and ancient superstition to back it up.

:rotflmao: This is sig worthy.

So knock yourself out. I'm quite used to the fact that some people around here ridicule my belief in God and in Scripture. You won't be the first.

 

[CrossEyed]

So......you think that 43% of the respondants are inhuman sociopaths?

Yes.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Animals are great. As pets they are wonderful. As meat, they are great sustenance. As a labor source, relatively cheap. As something to make you appreciate nature, great. As a provider for skins to keep us warm, the best. I am sure I am missing out on other uses for animals as well.But I am going to throw up in my mouth if I read any more about how animals are equal to humans in importance. As a specie, it is mind boggling to me how we would devalue a member of our own specie over that of a lower specie.I don't advocate the mass extermination of any specie, but I would certainly choose the worst scumbucket of my own specie over the most noble of another specie because it is the right thing to do.Have we been infiltrated by treehuggers to such a degree that animals (non-human) have now taken precedence over humans. If this is the case, by all means go live with a Gorilla tribe in the African lowlands, Jane Goodall.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Animals are great. As pets they are wonderful. As meat, they are great sustenance. As a labor source, relatively cheap. As something to make you appreciate nature, great. As a provider for skins to keep us warm, the best. I am sure I am missing out on other uses for animals as well.But I am going to throw up in my mouth if I read any more about how animals are equal to humans in importance. As a specie, it is mind boggling to me how we would devalue a member of our own specie over that of a lower specie.I don't advocate the mass extermination of any specie, but I would certainly choose the worst scumbucket of my own specie over the most noble of another specie because it is the right thing to do.Have we been infiltrated by treehuggers to such a degree that animals (non-human) have now taken precedence over humans. If this is the case, by all means go live with a Gorilla tribe in the African lowlands, Jane Goodall.

I would save the human over the tree.Unless the tree was mine. Is the tree mine? More info is needed before I can answer this, I think.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Animals are great. As pets they are wonderful. As meat, they are great sustenance. As a labor source, relatively cheap. As something to make you appreciate nature, great. As a provider for skins to keep us warm, the best. I am sure I am missing out on other uses for animals as well.But I am going to throw up in my mouth if I read any more about how animals are equal to humans in importance. As a specie, it is mind boggling to me how we would devalue a member of our own specie over that of a lower specie.I don't advocate the mass extermination of any specie, but I would certainly choose the worst scumbucket of my own specie over the most noble of another specie because it is the right thing to do.Have we been infiltrated by treehuggers to such a degree that animals (non-human) have now taken precedence over humans. If this is the case, by all means go live with a Gorilla tribe in the African lowlands, Jane Goodall.

I would save the human over the tree.Unless the tree was mine. Is the tree mine? More info is needed before I can answer this, I think.

Weeping Willow, roughly 35 years old, no noticeable signs of disease.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Animals are great. As pets they are wonderful. As meat, they are great sustenance. As a labor source, relatively cheap. As something to make you appreciate nature, great. As a provider for skins to keep us warm, the best.

You could say the same about humans though.