They're both drowning, you can save only one... (3 Viewers)

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Then again I am a guy who is against both the death penalty and abortion, so my views are somewhat shaded.

I must be Satan....I would save my dog....I'm for the death penalty....against abortion....

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I think it either applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. A maxim isn't any good unless it applies across the board, or not at all. Maybe you should adapt the maxim to being "Do unto those you love as you would have those you love do unto you"...a case can be made that you should love all man, but I think that point would be lost here.

Sorry, I didn't word that well. When I said I apply it mostly to humans, I mean I apply it to all humans + a very small, select group of animals.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Sounds like we have a bunch of whacko tree huggers in here...

 

[rolyaTy]

I think it either applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. A maxim isn't any good unless it applies across the board, or not at all. Maybe you should adapt the maxim to being "Do unto those you love as you would have those you love do unto you"...a case can be made that you should love all man, but I think that point would be lost here.

Sorry, I didn't word that well. When I said I apply it mostly to humans, I mean I apply it to all humans + a very small, select group of animals.

Same thing, I think it either applies to all animals, or none of them.

 

[J-Co]

Yes, there are reasons, and I agree there are situations where my choice may be different (if my dog is old and sick for instance).While I see "do unto others" as a good principle, I don't read it as "hurt yourself so others don't get hurt" and that's what I would be doing if I save the stranger instead of my dog. It would be wrong of me to drown a stranger so that I can rob him and better my financial situation and I certainly would not want someone to do that to me. But in the scenarios I have given, I could not fault someone for saving their own child instead of mine and other children; I could not fault them for saving their own $100 instead of my $1000; and I could not fault them for saving their dog instead of me or a loved one. Self interest plays a role and there isn't anything malicious about. There may be times of course, when I am willing to sacrifice something of my own for the betterment of someone else; if that sacrifice is succiciently small and/or the loss to the other is sufficiently large. But, if you are always willing to fully overlook the self interest side of it, then you are willing to give up everything no matter what (every cent of your $ so more families in Ethiopia can eat; your child to save 2 children elsewhere; I could go on). If this is not the case, then you recognize the relative nature of the situation and the role of self interest.

I see your points. One of them I already talked about and I dont think it necessarily applies in the self-preservation situation. As with all ideals, and I do think this is an ideal, it basically sets up the BEST way to treat people. We all likely fall short of our ideal conduct in relation to other people, but at least this way we have a scale bar by which to measure our action. In the case of saving the dog, the scale bar tells us the best thing we can do would be to save the other human. If we choose differently, we do so knowing that our choice goes against the ideal. If we can come up with sufficient reason to justify our choice, we might be able to sleep at night (which btw, doesn't make it any more "right" or correct). The justification I see occuring most often is that in doing so, they are sacrificing their own hapiness, for the happiness of others. The odd thing is, in doing the right thing, this often occurs. So simply saying that you're having to give up your own happiness in order to do the right thing, isn't enough reason to say that what you're doing is actually right.This is why I asked, how many people who saved the dog actually admit that what they're doing would be going against their moral ideas. If this is the case, they're simply bad people according to their own moral codes. If that's not the case, I wonder what their moral code actually consists of.

Fair enough. To answer your question, no I would not be going contrary to my own morals in saving my dog instead. I would be willing to risk my life to save a complete stranger. I may risk the life of my dog as well. But this question was cut and dry: would I let my dog die, and the answer is no. My morals do not compel me to give up something that is of significant value to me, to help a complete stranger. If they did, I would be living minimally with only what I need to survive, as there is no shortage of people in need. This only addresses part of the question. I've been focusing on it because some people stubbornly refuse to see the relative aspect of it. I commend you for acknowledging that, even if you do still think I am a "bad person". Another part which has already been brought up is the role of responsibility. One could argue that you have a moral responsibility to help another man in need when possible. But in this scenario, it conflicts with the responsibility you have to your dog to care for him and protect him. Which one trumps the other is, in my opinion, a matter of personal morals and I choose to be modest here in believing neither is right or wrong. Anyway, this tug-of-war combined with the issue of losing something vs. someone else losing something of relatively greater value, are in my view the crux of the dilemma. Again, I can understand how different people would reach a different conclusion. My beef is with those that think there is an absolute right/wrong here, particularly those that think that one human life is > the sum total of every dog in existence (it's why I made a separate poll for this -> follow-up poll )

 

[J-Co]

This is truly a worthy HOF post, so I guess I should throw something here.My whole thought is this.Later in the day, after the choice is made, would you rather face an empty house with no dog in it, or the strangers wife, or children, or parents, and answer why you didn't even try to save his life when it was easily possible.Makes it pretty easy for me.

I agree, but most people seem to care more about their own happiness, than that of a group of other people...or even the LIFE of the stranger him/her-self.

Once again, please explain why other people's happiness overrides my family's happiness?

Your families happiness could be easily replaced with another dog (it's true, you'd miss the dog, but you can always BUY another one with similar traits). The other family's happiness COULD NOT be replaced.

Rather, they would be more difficult to replace. Just like when I choose to save my $100 instead of their $1000. Both are losses. I do not agree that a dog is simply a piece of furniture that can be replaced with absolute and seemless ease. I still feel grief for dogs that I had growing up that have since passed away.

 

[TheIronSheik]

This is truly a worthy HOF post, so I guess I should throw something here.My whole thought is this.Later in the day, after the choice is made, would you rather face an empty house with no dog in it, or the strangers wife, or children, or parents, and answer why you didn't even try to save his life when it was easily possible.Makes it pretty easy for me.

I agree, but most people seem to care more about their own happiness, than that of a group of other people...or even the LIFE of the stranger him/her-self.

Once again, please explain why other people's happiness overrides my family's happiness?

Your families happiness could be easily replaced with another dog (it's true, you'd miss the dog, but you can always BUY another one with similar traits). The other family's happiness COULD NOT be replaced.

Are you even listening to yourself anymore? You have NO IDEA if buying a new dog replaces it in my family's heart. And for you to just ASSUME that a new dog fixes my family's misery and loss is not only ignorant, but very selfish and shallow.Just because you feel one way does not mean someone else does. And for you to condemn them for their beliefs is no better than any other person trying to push their beliefs on you. Very sad.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Same thing, I think it either applies to all animals, or none of them.

OK. I disagree.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Sounds like we have a bunch of whacko tree huggers in here...

Tree huggers are the only non-whackos. Please adjust your thinking appropriately. TIA.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Sounds like we have a bunch of whacko tree huggers in here...

Good thinking. Because we care for our dogs, we must be hippies. Should we expect your 3rd post saying the exact same thing in 10 more pages?

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Hmmmm are any of you Fido lovers hunters?????I seriously cannot believe a lot of the thinking in this thread, it is of a concern to me...Hopefully you or a friend or family member is not a "stranger" to someone who could save their lives and choose to save FiFi instead...Morons...

Yet you chose the name BoneYardDOG....HMMMMMMM

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I would let BoneYardDog drown while I saved another person I didn't know. I'm not sure if that's relevant here or not, jsut thought I'd share.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

I would let BoneYardDog drown while I saved another person I didn't know. I'm not sure if that's relevant here or not, jsut thought I'd share.

 

[Thorn]

Shocking. The real question should have been:Have you become so self-absorbed that you have come to discount the value of human life? Yes or no.

 

[rolyaTy]

Yes, there are reasons, and I agree there are situations where my choice may be different (if my dog is old and sick for instance).While I see "do unto others" as a good principle, I don't read it as "hurt yourself so others don't get hurt" and that's what I would be doing if I save the stranger instead of my dog.  It would be wrong of me to drown a stranger so that I can rob him and better my financial situation and I certainly would not want someone to do that to me.  But in the scenarios I have given, I could not fault someone for saving their own child instead of mine and other children; I could not fault them for saving their own $100 instead of my $1000; and I could not fault them for saving their dog instead of me or a loved one.  Self interest plays a role and there isn't anything malicious about.  There may be times of course, when I am willing to sacrifice something of my own for the betterment of someone else; if that sacrifice is succiciently small and/or the loss to the other is sufficiently large.  But, if you are always willing to fully overlook the self interest side of it, then you are willing to give up everything no matter what (every cent of your $ so more families in Ethiopia can eat; your child to save 2 children elsewhere; I could go on).  If this is not the case, then you recognize the relative nature of the situation and the role of self interest.

I see your points. One of them I already talked about and I dont think it necessarily applies in the self-preservation situation. As with all ideals, and I do think this is an ideal, it basically sets up the BEST way to treat people. We all likely fall short of our ideal conduct in relation to other people, but at least this way we have a scale bar by which to measure our action. In the case of saving the dog, the scale bar tells us the best thing we can do would be to save the other human. If we choose differently, we do so knowing that our choice goes against the ideal. If we can come up with sufficient reason to justify our choice, we might be able to sleep at night (which btw, doesn't make it any more "right" or correct). The justification I see occuring most often is that in doing so, they are sacrificing their own hapiness, for the happiness of others. The odd thing is, in doing the right thing, this often occurs. So simply saying that you're having to give up your own happiness in order to do the right thing, isn't enough reason to say that what you're doing is actually right.This is why I asked, how many people who saved the dog actually admit that what they're doing would be going against their moral ideas. If this is the case, they're simply bad people according to their own moral codes. If that's not the case, I wonder what their moral code actually consists of.

Fair enough. To answer your question, no I would not be going contrary to my own morals in saving my dog instead. I would be willing to risk my life to save a complete stranger. I may risk the life of my dog as well. But this question was cut and dry: would I let my dog die, and the answer is no. My morals do not compel me to give up something that is of significant value to me, to help a complete stranger. If they did, I would be living minimally with only what I need to survive, as there is no shortage of people in need. This only addresses part of the question. I've been focusing on it because some people stubbornly refuse to see the relative aspect of it. I commend you for acknowledging that, even if you do still think I am a "bad person". Another part which has already been brought up is the role of responsibility. One could argue that you have a moral responsibility to help another man in need when possible. But in this scenario, it conflicts with the responsibility you have to your dog to care for him and protect him. Which one trumps the other is, in my opinion, a matter of personal morals and I choose to be modest here in believing neither is right or wrong. Anyway, this tug-of-war combined with the issue of losing something vs. someone else losing something of relatively greater value, are in my view the crux of the dilemma. Again, I can understand how different people would reach a different conclusion. My beef is with those that think there is an absolute right/wrong here, particularly those that think that one human life is > the sum total of every dog in existence (it's why I made a separate poll for this -> follow-up poll )

Ok, in response to your first paragraph and the last line of it, I dont believe that is the case. My morals compel me to do such things, but I dont. However, i'm willing to acknowledge that i'm not living completely in accordance with my morals. I asked the same of you, and you say that saving the dog doesn't conflict with your morality. In other words, you can acknowledge something is immoral, and still do it (as most of us do).Hah, i dont really think you're a bad person in general. IN fact, I have more faith in you and most of the other 150 people who voted to think that if put in this situation, you would not make the choice you say you would. I'm just like that, I have faith in the goodness of humanity (and yes, i'm implying saving the dog would be bad ). Anyhow, of course my judgement of your actions, not you, comes from my own moral code and as such, what you say you would do conflicts with it. Anyhow, lots of people can't see the different between judging a person and judging an action. I believe we've been given guidelines by which to judge actions as being right or wrong, and these guidelines combine to form our morals. I also believe that morality is cut or dry, and either applies to everyone, or no one.I agree, this is a battle of personal morals. But I also believe that if someones morality told them that killing every person they met in order to take their money was ok, I would be justified in calling this a BAD MORALITY. Along the same lines, I'd say that any moral system that doesn't condemn saving an animal at a humans expense is a bad moral system, no matter how much personal love was attached to the pet/animal. I guess you still have a beef with me because I do believe there is an absolutel right and wrong here. Anyhow, glad you can keep the discussion light

 

[rolyaTy]

This is truly a worthy HOF post, so I guess I should throw something here.My whole thought is this.Later in the day, after the choice is made, would you rather face an empty house with no dog in it, or the strangers wife, or children, or parents, and answer why you didn't even try to save his life when it was easily possible.Makes it pretty easy for me.

I agree, but most people seem to care more about their own happiness, than that of a group of other people...or even the LIFE of the stranger him/her-self.

Once again, please explain why other people's happiness overrides my family's happiness?

Your families happiness could be easily replaced with another dog (it's true, you'd miss the dog, but you can always BUY another one with similar traits). The other family's happiness COULD NOT be replaced.

Are you even listening to yourself anymore? You have NO IDEA if buying a new dog replaces it in my family's heart. And for you to just ASSUME that a new dog fixes my family's misery and loss is not only ignorant, but very selfish and shallow.Just because you feel one way does not mean someone else does. And for you to condemn them for their beliefs is no better than any other person trying to push their beliefs on you. Very sad.

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom. There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

 

[satch]

So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.

What exactly has your dog contributed to society?

Sometimes my wife & I bring my dog to nursing homes. The old people get the biggest kick out of it. Anybody who has a dog that's good with people should consider doing this. As soon as they see him their lonely, emotionless faces turn to smiles and laughter. It's amazing how a little dog can make them so happy, even if just for a little while. It's really very moving.

 

[rolyaTy]

Same thing, I think it either applies to all animals, or none of them.

OK. I disagree.

Why should it only apply to a select few? Couldn't it be argued using the same selective logic that "do unto others" should only be applied to those whom you know?

 

[rolyaTy]

So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.

What exactly has your dog contributed to society?

Sometimes my wife & I bring my dog to nursing homes. The old people get the biggest kick out of it. Anybody who has a dog that's good with people should consider doing this. As soon as they see him their lonely, emotionless faces turn to smiles and laughter. It's amazing how a little dog can make them so happy, even if just for a little while. It's really very moving.

I would argue that it's not YOUR dog that brings this value, but simply A dog. Whereas the value to the family of the person whom you choose to let die, the value is attached to THAT specific person.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Shocking. The real question should have been:Have you become so self-absorbed that you have come to discount the value of human life? Yes or no.

no one is discounting human life....we just love our dogs..

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Why should it only apply to a select few? Couldn't it be argued using the same selective logic that "do unto others" should only be applied to those whom you know?

You already admittied (I think you were one of them, anyway) that you would save your child over 100 other children. The same logic, or lack of, is applied there.

 

[rolyaTy]

I would also like to add, that it should be a personal insult to everyone here the fact that over 150 people would save their dog instead of a stranger. Calling a person "a stranger" is oddly impersonal.Think of it this way. They are saying they would rather have their dog live, than saving your mom, brother, sister, dad, best friend, uncle, grandma...etc. This should piss quite a few more people off than it is. Think of your mom...think of all the things she's done for you...think of losing her. Think of someone elses dog...think of them choosing their dog over your mom. Seriously...this is messed up.And dont bother with the argument of somone saving their child over your child...it's not the same in the least.For all of those who choose to save your dog instead of a stranger, would you hold a grudge if I chose to save my dog instead of your mother? Or someone else you love dearly?

 

[rolyaTy]

Why should it only apply to a select few? Couldn't it be argued using the same selective logic that "do unto others" should only be applied to those whom you know?

You already admittied (I think you were one of them, anyway) that you would save your child over 100 other children. The same logic, or lack of, is applied there.

I didn't admit that, i said it'd be a tough choice. But what I did say is that regardless of my choice in that situation, the one we're talking about is NOT the same. We're talking about a dog here. In the other situation we're talking about a person. I believe inherently dogs are less valuable than humans. So the situations are analogous.

 

[the rover]

The pro-stranger folks sure have had to add a lot of characteristics to the stranger--now he/she has a family, and the rescuer needs to face them. It seems like if the argument to save all human life was really that strong, these additions would be unnecessary.Nobody has to justify why their dog deserves saving, but a whole lot of hypothetical baggage has been added to the stranger to make a stronger moral case for saving him.Irrelevant fact: My dog is trained as both a rescue dog and a therapy dog. He has a lot to offer society.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

For all of those who choose to save your dog instead of a stranger, would you hold a grudge if I chose to save my dog instead of your mother? Or someone else you love dearly?

of course I would..I would probably want to kill you..but I would still save my dog..

 

[TheIronSheik]

This is truly a worthy HOF post, so I guess I should throw something here.My whole thought is this.Later in the day, after the choice is made, would you rather face an empty house with no dog in it, or the strangers wife, or children, or parents, and answer why you didn't even try to save his life when it was easily possible.Makes it pretty easy for me.

I agree, but most people seem to care more about their own happiness, than that of a group of other people...or even the LIFE of the stranger him/her-self.

Once again, please explain why other people's happiness overrides my family's happiness?

Your families happiness could be easily replaced with another dog (it's true, you'd miss the dog, but you can always BUY another one with similar traits). The other family's happiness COULD NOT be replaced.

Are you even listening to yourself anymore? You have NO IDEA if buying a new dog replaces it in my family's heart. And for you to just ASSUME that a new dog fixes my family's misery and loss is not only ignorant, but very selfish and shallow.Just because you feel one way does not mean someone else does. And for you to condemn them for their beliefs is no better than any other person trying to push their beliefs on you. Very sad.

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom. There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

There is a serious perspective problem here. Your concern for YOUR happiness over MINE. That, sir, is truly sad. What does your God think of selfish acts being thrust upon people you are judging?

 

[the rover]

So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.

What exactly has your dog contributed to society?

Sometimes my wife & I bring my dog to nursing homes. The old people get the biggest kick out of it. Anybody who has a dog that's good with people should consider doing this. As soon as they see him their lonely, emotionless faces turn to smiles and laughter. It's amazing how a little dog can make them so happy, even if just for a little while. It's really very moving.

I would argue that it's not YOUR dog that brings this value, but simply A dog. Whereas the value to the family of the person whom you choose to let die, the value is attached to THAT specific person.

you're changing the question. it is the rescuer's dog. it isn't just a stranger dog.stranger human v. stranger dog is an entirely different situation.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

The pro-stranger folks sure have had to add a lot of characteristics to the stranger--now he/she has a family, and the rescuer needs to face them. It seems like if the argument to save all human life was really that strong, these additions would be unnecessary.Nobody has to justify why their dog deserves saving, but a whole lot of hypothetical baggage has been added to the stranger to make a stronger moral case for saving him.Irrelevant fact: My dog is trained as both a rescue dog and a therapy dog. He has a lot to offer society.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Shocking. The real question should have been:

Have you become so self-absorbed that you have come to discount the value of human life?

Yes or no.

How much different is the following question:

Have we become so self-absorbed that we have come to discount the value of all but human lives?

I'm shocked by this. Actually, I'm not, but it fills me with a kind of marrow-level dread that's probably the equivalent of what you call shock.

 

[satch]

Shocking. The real question should have been:

Have you become so self-absorbed that you have come to discount the value of human life?

Yes or no.

How exactly do you calculate the value of any living things life?

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.

What exactly has your dog contributed to society?

Sometimes my wife & I bring my dog to nursing homes. The old people get the biggest kick out of it. Anybody who has a dog that's good with people should consider doing this. As soon as they see him their lonely, emotionless faces turn to smiles and laughter. It's amazing how a little dog can make them so happy, even if just for a little while. It's really very moving.

I would argue that it's not YOUR dog that brings this value, but simply A dog. Whereas the value to the family of the person whom you choose to let die, the value is attached to THAT specific person.

you're changing the question. it is the rescuer's dog. it isn't just a stranger dog.stranger human v. stranger dog is an entirely different situation.

There's a very good chance I would save the stranger dog over the stranger human....I honestly mean that..

 

[Thorn]

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom. There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

Look I love my dog, but a every stranger is someone's child/parent/spouse etc. It would really suck for my dog to die, but after a couple of weeks/months, I'd do the same thing I did last time my dog died - I'd get a new one.

 

[rolyaTy]

So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.

What exactly has your dog contributed to society?

Sometimes my wife & I bring my dog to nursing homes. The old people get the biggest kick out of it. Anybody who has a dog that's good with people should consider doing this. As soon as they see him their lonely, emotionless faces turn to smiles and laughter. It's amazing how a little dog can make them so happy, even if just for a little while. It's really very moving.

I would argue that it's not YOUR dog that brings this value, but simply A dog. Whereas the value to the family of the person whom you choose to let die, the value is attached to THAT specific person.

you're changing the question. it is the rescuer's dog. it isn't just a stranger dog.stranger human v. stranger dog is an entirely different situation.

Like I said, stranger removes all personality from a person. Simply because they dont have value to that specific person does NOT mean they lack value all-together. It helps in making the situation more real in thinking of the stranger as a person.For instance, change the situation. A stranger is drowning, and a strangers dog is drowning. I can only save one. I acknowledge that there is value attached to both, each to his/her family. I still save the person. You can't remove real value from someone simply by calling them a stranger...all that does is remove PERSONAL value to the person making the choice. If they were willing to acknowledge that in truth, the other person was someones son, father, mother or sister...would they make the same choice. I'd hope not.

 

[J-Co]

Why should it only apply to a select few? Couldn't it be argued using the same selective logic that "do unto others" should only be applied to those whom you know?

You already admittied (I think you were one of them, anyway) that you would save your child over 100 other children. The same logic, or lack of, is applied there.

I didn't admit that, i said it'd be a tough choice. But what I did say is that regardless of my choice in that situation, the one we're talking about is NOT the same. We're talking about a dog here. In the other situation we're talking about a person. I believe inherently dogs are less valuable than humans. So the situations are analogous.

But......that's why I said 100 other kids rather than just 1. I'm agreeing that humans are of greater value. To make the scenario a parallel, I have to make the "other choice" something of greater value to the one close to you. If you are willing to let the other kids die to save your own, it's an acknowledgement that you elevate the value of your own child over that of a random one (or even the sum total of 100 random ones).......not something unrealistic IMO, and completely parallel to me elevating the value of my dog over "just any dog". In my case, that value > to me than that of a random human being.

 

[JetsJetsJets]

I posted this on the 2nd poll on this subject, but wanted to see what folks thought here. Sorry if this has been discussed previously.Is it the fact that it is a dog and what we think of dogs as opposed to other pets ORCould this be asked of any pet (e.g., hamster is drowning).PS... No "I wouldn't need to save my pet fish...." posts please.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I didn't admit that, i said it'd be a tough choice.

Sorry, was going on memory there.

But what I did say is that regardless of my choice in that situation, the one we're talking about is NOT the same. We're talking about a dog here. In the other situation we're talking about a person. I believe inherently dogs are less valuable than humans. So the situations are analogous.

We're just going in circles now. I agree, that as a rule of thumb, that random dog is worth less than random person. But, as with people in your family (and the two dogs in mine) , the people and dogs that I care about hold a mighty powerful trump card. And I will be up front and say that if your mom (or anyone reading this thread's mom) was dying and could be saved by my dog being killed, I would not do it. Your mom is a stanger to me. Tying the stranger to someone I'm conversing with here does not make her any less of a stranger to me. So, unless I know and care about your mom outside of this discussion, I will choose my dog over your mom. Would I hold a grudge agaisnt you for doing the same? I suppose I'd hope that you were less attached to your dogs than I am to mine, but ultimately, no grudge.

 

[J-Co]

I posted this on the 2nd poll on this subject, but wanted to see what folks thought here. Sorry if this has been discussed previously.Is it the fact that it is a dog and what we think of dogs as opposed to other pets ORCould this be asked of any pet (e.g., hamster is drowning).PS... No "I wouldn't need to save my pet fish...." posts please.

For me, those sorts of things hold too little a value to me to justify letting someone else die. It's like saying, I am in a burning building and can save the unconscious person next to me or my $500 laptop. I would save the person. It's a good question and helps explain why a lot of us said we would save the dog. I put a much greater value on my dog and dogs in general than probably most people do.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

I would also like to add, that it should be a personal insult to everyone here the fact that over 150 people would save their dog instead of a stranger. Calling a person "a stranger" is oddly impersonal.Think of it this way. They are saying they would rather have their dog live, than saving your mom, brother, sister, dad, best friend, uncle, grandma...etc. This should piss quite a few more people off than it is. Think of your mom...think of all the things she's done for you...think of losing her. Think of someone elses dog...think of them choosing their dog over your mom. Seriously...this is messed up.And dont bother with the argument of somone saving their child over your child...it's not the same in the least.For all of those who choose to save your dog instead of a stranger, would you hold a grudge if I chose to save my dog instead of your mother? Or someone else you love dearly?

It wouldn't make me angry, and I wouldn't hold a grudge. My moral code is my moral code, and I can't just alter it. It's based on my conscience, and it would be hypocritical for me to judge another person for acting in accordance with what I claim are my moral values.It would make me deeply, deeply sad, as true loss always does. But not angry.

 

[rolyaTy]

Why should it only apply to a select few? Couldn't it be argued using the same selective logic that "do unto others" should only be applied to those whom you know?

You already admittied (I think you were one of them, anyway) that you would save your child over 100 other children. The same logic, or lack of, is applied there.

I didn't admit that, i said it'd be a tough choice. But what I did say is that regardless of my choice in that situation, the one we're talking about is NOT the same. We're talking about a dog here. In the other situation we're talking about a person. I believe inherently dogs are less valuable than humans. So the situations are analogous.

But......that's why I said 100 other kids rather than just 1. I'm agreeing that humans are of greater value. To make the scenario a parallel, I have to make the "other choice" something of greater value to the one close to you. If you are willing to let the other kids die to save your own, it's an acknowledgement that you elevate the value of your own child over that of a random one (or even the sum total of 100 random ones).......not something unrealistic IMO, and completely parallel to me elevating the value of my dog over "just any dog". In my case, that value > to me than that of a random human being.

Like I said, its' a more difficult question in analyzing things that have equal inherent value, but the personal value is different. If you want to start another thread about this, i'd be happy to talk about it, but in this one, the main issue is that you have both an inherent difference in value, and a difference in personal value...this makes the choice much more easy in my opinion. Dogs are easily replaced. That's not to say each one doesn't have a unique personality, or have a lot of time/love/money, etc invested into them, but it's simply to say that it's easier to replace a dead dog, than a dead parent. If anyone disagrees with that...well...I think our convo can end right there because we're so dissimilar in concepts of reality that we are not on the same level.

 

[the rover]

So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.

What exactly has your dog contributed to society?

Sometimes my wife & I bring my dog to nursing homes. The old people get the biggest kick out of it. Anybody who has a dog that's good with people should consider doing this. As soon as they see him their lonely, emotionless faces turn to smiles and laughter. It's amazing how a little dog can make them so happy, even if just for a little while. It's really very moving.

I would argue that it's not YOUR dog that brings this value, but simply A dog. Whereas the value to the family of the person whom you choose to let die, the value is attached to THAT specific person.

you're changing the question. it is the rescuer's dog. it isn't just a stranger dog.stranger human v. stranger dog is an entirely different situation.

Like I said, stranger removes all personality from a person. Simply because they dont have value to that specific person does NOT mean they lack value all-together. It helps in making the situation more real in thinking of the stranger as a person.For instance, change the situation. A stranger is drowning, and a strangers dog is drowning. I can only save one. I acknowledge that there is value attached to both, each to his/her family. I still save the person. You can't remove real value from someone simply by calling them a stranger...all that does is remove PERSONAL value to the person making the choice. If they were willing to acknowledge that in truth, the other person was someones son, father, mother or sister...would they make the same choice. I'd hope not.

again, you're forced to add to the human and subtract from the dog. you don't know if the stranger has a family. plenty of people go through life with no wives, no kids, and long-deceased parents. you don't know that he isn't drowning because he just raped someone's daughter and was thrown in the water and left to drown.adding addtional baggage changes the question. if you have to add characteristics to the person to make them worth saving, then the argument to save all people unconditionally must be flawed.

 

[Thorn]

Shocking. The real question should have been:

Have you become so self-absorbed that you have come to discount the value of human life?

Yes or no.

How exactly do you calculate the value of any living things life?

I don't understand your question. I know that although it would suck to lose my dog, my grief would not compare to the fact that I had chosen to allow another person to die.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

I posted this on the 2nd poll on this subject, but wanted to see what folks thought here. Sorry if this has been discussed previously.Is it the fact that it is a dog and what we think of dogs as opposed to other pets ORCould this be asked of any pet (e.g., hamster is drowning).PS... No "I wouldn't need to save my pet fish...." posts please.

For me, those sorts of things hold too little a value to me to justify letting someone else die. It's like saying, I am in a burning building and can save the unconscious person next to me or my $500 laptop. I would save the person. It's a good question and helps explain why a lot of us said we would save the dog. I put a much greater value on my dog and dogs in general than probably most people do.

What about a $1500 laptop?

 

[rolyaTy]

And I will be up front and say that if your mom (or anyone reading this thread's mom) was dying and could be saved by my dog being killed, I would not do it. Your mom is a stanger to me. Tying the stranger to someone I'm conversing with here does not make her any less of a stranger to me. So, unless I know and care about your mom outside of this discussion, I will choose my dog over your mom. Would I hold a grudge agaisnt you for doing the same? I suppose I'd hope that you were less attached to your dogs than I am to mine, but ultimately, no grudge.

Well, that's an honest and telling statement. I dont know you, but i'd save your mom in a HEARTBEAT over saving a dog I had since I was three until I was over 18 years old. I dunno what more I can say. If you can make that statement and not have any problems with it, I dont think we can disagree any more. Also, I cannot accept the fact that you wouldn't hold a grudge against me for saving my dog instead of your mom.

 

[Twilight]

I would also like to add, that it should be a personal insult to everyone here the fact that over 150 people would save their dog instead of a stranger. Calling a person "a stranger" is oddly impersonal.Think of it this way. They are saying they would rather have their dog live, than saving your mom, brother, sister, dad, best friend, uncle, grandma...etc. This should piss quite a few more people off than it is. Think of your mom...think of all the things she's done for you...think of losing her. Think of someone elses dog...think of them choosing their dog over your mom. Seriously...this is messed up.And dont bother with the argument of somone saving their child over your child...it's not the same in the least.For all of those who choose to save your dog instead of a stranger, would you hold a grudge if I chose to save my dog instead of your mother? Or someone else you love dearly?

It wouldn't make me angry, and I wouldn't hold a grudge. My moral code is my moral code, and I can't just alter it. It's based on my conscience, and it would be hypocritical for me to judge another person for acting in accordance with what I claim are my moral values.It would make me deeply, deeply sad, as true loss always does. But not angry.

Honestly, this sounds like complete board BS.Are you married? Do you have children? You honestly can say that you wouldn't be angry at a man that chose his dog over your daughter or son or wife? If that is truly the case, It makes me sad that somebody can be that callous.Oh well.

 

[Thorn]

I would also like to add, that it should be a personal insult to everyone here the fact that over 150 people would save their dog instead of a stranger. Calling a person "a stranger" is oddly impersonal.Think of it this way. They are saying they would rather have their dog live, than saving your mom, brother, sister, dad, best friend, uncle, grandma...etc. This should piss quite a few more people off than it is. Think of your mom...think of all the things she's done for you...think of losing her. Think of someone elses dog...think of them choosing their dog over your mom. Seriously...this is messed up.And dont bother with the argument of somone saving their child over your child...it's not the same in the least.For all of those who choose to save your dog instead of a stranger, would you hold a grudge if I chose to save my dog instead of your mother? Or someone else you love dearly?

It wouldn't make me angry, and I wouldn't hold a grudge. My moral code is my moral code, and I can't just alter it. It's based on my conscience, and it would be hypocritical for me to judge another person for acting in accordance with what I claim are my moral values.It would make me deeply, deeply sad, as true loss always does. But not angry.

I just can't believe that."Dude, sorry about your mom/wife/kid and all, I coulda pulled him/her out, but, I saw Duke thrashing around, and, well, I'm sure you understand."No way.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

And I will be up front and say that if your mom (or anyone reading this thread's mom) was dying and could be saved by my dog being killed, I would not do it. Your mom is a stanger to me. Tying the stranger to someone I'm conversing with here does not make her any less of a stranger to me. So, unless I know and care about your mom outside of this discussion, I will choose my dog over your mom. Would I hold a grudge agaisnt you for doing the same? I suppose I'd hope that you were less attached to your dogs than I am to mine, but ultimately, no grudge.

Well, that's an honest and telling statement. I dont know you, but i'd save your mom in a HEARTBEAT over saving a dog I had since I was three until I was over 18 years old. I dunno what more I can say. If you can make that statement and not have any problems with it, I dont think we can disagree any more. Also, I cannot accept the fact that you wouldn't hold a grudge against me for saving my dog instead of your mom.

vivian said it well, a few posts above. If you belive that I would make the decisions I am claiming I would make in this thread, then how could I hold a grudge against someone else for doing the same?

 

[Smoo]

Lets see, the person who would save his dog rather than save my mom is saying that i'm "very sad" for thinking he could better replace his dog than I could my mom. There is a SERIOUS perspective problem here.

They're both equally irreplacable. Sure, he could get another dog, but it would be just that: an other dog. Different name, different mannerisms, different tricks. The old dog is gone and could never be replaced. Likewise, you could find some other old lady and follow her around and call her mom and buy her stuff on mother's day, but she wouldn't be your real mom. So they're both irreplacable.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

I would also like to add, that it should be a personal insult to everyone here the fact that over 150 people would save their dog instead of a stranger.  Calling a person "a stranger" is oddly impersonal.Think of it this way.  They are saying they would rather have their dog live, than saving your mom, brother, sister, dad, best friend, uncle, grandma...etc.  This should piss quite a few more people off than it is. Think of your mom...think of all the things she's done for you...think of losing her.  Think of someone elses dog...think of them choosing their dog over your mom.  Seriously...this is messed up.And dont bother with the argument of somone saving their child over your child...it's not the same in the least.For all of those who choose to save your dog instead of a stranger, would you hold a grudge if I chose to save my dog instead of your mother?  Or someone else you love dearly?

It wouldn't make me angry, and I wouldn't hold a grudge. My moral code is my moral code, and I can't just alter it. It's based on my conscience, and it would be hypocritical for me to judge another person for acting in accordance with what I claim are my moral values.It would make me deeply, deeply sad, as true loss always does. But not angry.

Honestly, this sounds like complete board BS.Are you married? Do you have children? You honestly can say that you wouldn't be angry at a man that chose his dog over your daughter or son or wife? If that is truly the case, It makes me sad that somebody can be that callous.Oh well.

There's nothing callous about it. If I felt nothing, it would be callous. I would feel very deeply, I assure you. I would grieve as deeply and sincerely as anyone. Moreso than many, I suspect, because I feel from what I'm reading here like there aren't many around that truly value life -- they value labels ("son," "wife," "mom", etc.).But WTF would anger solve? Mom's already feeding the fish. I'd miss her deeply, regret her loss, revere her memory, and understand that it was her life or another that another thinking, feeling, compassionate human being chose, knowing he could only choose one. WhoTF am I to take that choice from him, when he made it using values I cherish?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I'm out for the night. Will catch up and respond to anything directed at me tommorrow.G'nite, all.

 

[rolyaTy]

So I can say with certainty there are people who have less value than my dog and contribute less to society.

What exactly has your dog contributed to society?

Sometimes my wife & I bring my dog to nursing homes. The old people get the biggest kick out of it. Anybody who has a dog that's good with people should consider doing this. As soon as they see him their lonely, emotionless faces turn to smiles and laughter. It's amazing how a little dog can make them so happy, even if just for a little while. It's really very moving.

I would argue that it's not YOUR dog that brings this value, but simply A dog. Whereas the value to the family of the person whom you choose to let die, the value is attached to THAT specific person.

you're changing the question. it is the rescuer's dog. it isn't just a stranger dog.stranger human v. stranger dog is an entirely different situation.

Like I said, stranger removes all personality from a person. Simply because they dont have value to that specific person does NOT mean they lack value all-together. It helps in making the situation more real in thinking of the stranger as a person.For instance, change the situation. A stranger is drowning, and a strangers dog is drowning. I can only save one. I acknowledge that there is value attached to both, each to his/her family. I still save the person. You can't remove real value from someone simply by calling them a stranger...all that does is remove PERSONAL value to the person making the choice. If they were willing to acknowledge that in truth, the other person was someones son, father, mother or sister...would they make the same choice. I'd hope not.

again, you're forced to add to the human and subtract from the dog. you don't know if the stranger has a family. plenty of people go through life with no wives, no kids, and long-deceased parents. you don't know that he isn't drowning because he just raped someone's daughter and was thrown in the water and left to drown.adding addtional baggage changes the question. if you have to add characteristics to the person to make them worth saving, then the argument to save all people unconditionally must be flawed.

I really dont understand what you're saying here. My original point was that in the hypothetical case, would you save a stranger or your dog, it's too easy to think of the stranger as being worthless. This is primarily because the stranger has no value to you. I said that in making the choice of who to save, you have to take into consideration the total value of the two involved. This meant that I didn't think that most people making the choice of saving the dog, actually were thinking of the stranger as having value.

if you have to add characteristics to the person to make them worth saving, then the argument to save all people unconditionally must be flawed.

Actually, this is more to suiting my point than I think it suits yours. If someone has to remove all value from a stranger in order to facilitate them saving their dog, I think their answer is flawed. If they're willing to say that by choosing their dog, they're letting someones mom die, maybe a future friends mom, then they might have cause to reconsider. If not, then they're really hard-core.In order to give the stranger value, you have to think of them as an individual, just not some nebulous creature with no worth attached. In order to do so, think of them like someones brother, sister, dad, mom, son, daughter, best friend, wife, husband...etc. I said if you can still make the decision to drown someones mom/brother/etc at the expense of your own dog, then we can't really argue any more because we're just not living in the same realms of morality here.And truth be told, i'm not "adding the human and subtracting from the dog". I'm simply showing hte people that in fact, the human IS HUMAN. I mean to take away nothing from people and their love for their dogs. I absolutely ADORE dogs, had one growing up from the time I can remember being aware, until I left for college. I loved my dog, and I will get another one VERY soon and will love it and it'll be one of my closest companions. But still, I recognize the difference between my dog, and someones mother. I can get another dog very similar to the one I had, train it, love it, etc...but someone else can't get another mother.