Save the life of your pet OR Save the life of a complete stranger?

Another forum of which I am a member recently posted a discussion asking members to choose between their pet or a complete stranger. If such a scenario arose wherein you had to make a choice between saving the life of your pet, or saving the life of a stranger, which one would you choose?


I am very surprised at how the results turned out on this other site. I'm hoping that DU will come through for me. ;)

or die trying.

Agreed.

I would rather die than fail to save both.

Excellent.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have seen numerous examples of flvegan demonstrating compassion and regard for human beings. I am in almost complete disagreement with him over the whole animal/human dynamic but to say he has no regard for humanity is not accurate in my opinion. Hell I was impressed with his cop-out answer!

my answer wasn't a cop out. It was an honest one.

but it was an "either-or" choice - you made up your own "other" answer

Whatever. Egocentric. That from someone that said "a fucking pet"

...is more important than basic human decency.

And please don't embarrass yourself by pretending to understanding what I think or feel.

:thumbsup:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in this case it seems strangely appropriate.

Geez, talk about a comment that's not only nonsensical, but a complete non sequitor.

:eyes:

widow to save a fucking pet." And while I respect that person's choice to save a human over a pet, I think the vitriolic way it was written (along with the poster's other comments) shows that this person doesn't seem like a loving and responsible pet owner. And therefore I truly hope he isn't. Seems perfectly logical to me. People with such hateful opinions about pets shouldn't have them.

On the other hand, while I admit I would choose to save my own family members over strangers if I had to make that choice (and yes, I consider my pets family), I would never dismiss someone else's loved one so callously. I'm perfectly capable of seeing humans as well as other species as valuable and deserving of love, and I would never write something like "I'm not going to make my pet homeless to save a fucking human." So *your* logical assertion is the one that makes a huge leap.

You either attempt to save both, or you hate yourself for the rest of your life. :(

Then the stranger.

...I find my pet is a better person than most people I know.

:hi:

No question, if only one could be saved, it would be the human.
Several years ago there was a game based on Trivial Pursuit called Ethical Pursuit. You played with a partner who had to guess your answer to various questions. I'll never forget the first question in the game, which led to a two hour discussion. It was: You can only prevent one of the following, which will you prevent: The death of one of your two best friends; the death of 200 people in an airline crash taking off from your nearest airport; or the death of 2000 in an earthquake in a country you've barely heard of. A lot going on with those considerations.

Seriously, that would make a huge difference.

First thing that came to mind.

The stranger is not a member of any previous or current administration, but, may or may not have voted democratic.

:hi:

a complete stranger means absolutely nothing to me. whether they live or die has no bearing on my black heart.

I don't really know what I'd do in the heat of the moment. I suppose much would depend on the type of rescue and the situation surrounding it.

I do know that if my life was in danger at least two of my pets (one cat and the dog...I'm not sure about the other 2 cats) would make the effort to rescue me. I feel they are members of my family, and value their lives as much as any human.

In real life, things just don't happen this way, but if they did, I choose my cats every single time.

I'd hate to be the guy who ends up in Heaven being told I'm there because some shitbag felt his cat's/dog's/frog's/horse's/antelope's/Ibix's/wombat's/eel's life was worth more than me.

And I'd hate to be the guy who, when he dies and goes to heaven, has to explain and apologize to the first guy why he died.

or hell.

are you sure you'd end up in heaven?

"some shitbag felt his cat's/dog's/frog's/horse's/antelope's/Ibix's/wombat's/eel's life was worth more than me"

:shrug:

Twisting it to imply that it means I think that anyone who values a pet is a shitbag is intentional misreading of the most unethical kind.

not just any old shitbag who values their pet over you

uh huh

no misreading on my part

Your first assertion was that I think anyone who values their pet is a shitbag.

That assertion is false and a character assassination, and an assertion that is logically impossible to come to given the data I offered.

I corrected you, so now you misread AGAIN to accuse me of side-stepping my own statement to now assert something other than what I originally asserted, though you have now cleverly inserted the modifier "over you", which you didn't use in your first misinterpretation.

Since you don't seem to deal well with words, or have some kind of agenda going that refuses you to read what is actually there in favor of whatever that agenda is, let me summarize it for you:

1. I think it's great that people value their pets. In fact, I think anyone who has a pet who doesn't value it is a bastard. (see - complete opposite of what you accused me of! Now how do you feel?)

2. I value human beings. I might despise them, loathe them, or otherwise not care for them, but all human life has value.

3. In an emergency situation of the most bizarre nature in which it is required of a person to either save a stranger or save a pet and no other option is available, my ethic tells me two things: a) our duty to the stranger/other (whether human, animal, or object) is higher than our duty to our own needs, wants, or desires, and b) our duty to human life is above our duty to other life.*

Thus and ergo, I will save the stranger instead of saving a pet, given the conditions of the test as proposed in the OP.

Unfortunately, some people read this and, like you, immediately jump to the ignorant conclusion that anyone who would save a person over a pet has absolutely no regard whatsoever to any animal anywhere, at any time, ever, fuck 'em, we hate animals, hate 'em with a passion, and we would kill 'em all if we could, oooooooh God we hate animals, yes we does.



Of course, that's a stupid conclusion.




* obviously anyone can chew up and tear apart an ethic presented in one sentence; that's a merit-less and utterly trivial exercise, and so there's no need to do so. Obviously, also, there are any number of modifiers and conditional exceptions to this rule, many of which I could spew out right now and show the many exceptional instances in which my rubric is incomplete, so don't think that I think this is bulletproof or sui generis or monolithically universally applicable by any means. But given the very limited conditions of the OP's test, this is a perfectly sound framework.

Why would you hate being the guy in heaven being told he's there because of some shitbag?

What difference would it make how you got there? You're in HEAVEN! You won! :woohoo:

As far as being the shitbag yourself, I can't imagine going to heaven only to find some dude there waiting to kick your ass. x(

not all human life is worth saving.There are plenty of shitbags out there who don't give a crap about pets...or anyone or anything except their own sorry, selfish behinds.

over strangers?

One of the best indicators of our personal ethics is how we treat the stuff to which we have no relationship or ownership, including how we treat the stranger.

According to my beliefs, we're all one anyways. My pet is on this particular journey with me, a complete stranger is not.

eat some popcorn :popcorn:

Hell I'd sacrifice my pets to the great goddess for George Clooney!

Anyone who says they'd choose a stranger over their pet should probably donate all the money they spend on their pet to some hunger relief agency, because in effect, everyone who pays for pet food instead of giving to starving people is making that choice already.

Right?

I can see where you're coming from, however, it certainly doesn't seem as direct or immediate. Using that same line of reasoning, I guess that it could be argued that, because I spent money on a box of Kleenex instead of sending it to feed hungry people, that it would then be not different than me rescuing my box of Kleenex from a burning building, but not a stranger. I think that that's a bit of a stretch, though.

not that it's not valid, I just can't see how a box of kleenex could be equated with a living being, human or not

:shrug:

But I'll keep trying

That's why I have a hard time buying that argument. But none-the-less, it could be argued that every time we buy a box of Kleenex or any other trivial item that we might buy, we are using money that we COULD have used to help those who are starving to death or need medical care. Where does one draw the line?

:)

But, in the situation that I couldn't, here's where my mind is:

By not saving a total stranger, I am allowing a person who is a son/daughter, mother/father, aunt/uncle, grandmother/grandfather, best friend, or husband/wife - or a combination of those - to die.

Losing my pet would surely cause me pain - but allowing a stranger to die would most certainly cause unbearable pain and trauma to all those who loved him/her.

My thoughts and your words.... much better than I could have expressed at the moment...
thank you...



peace~

I have no prize for you.

:thumbsup:

:hug: Articulated much more succinctly than i could have managed, i'm sure.

in the situation described in the OP?

It could be a sudden, instant decision you had to make (i.e..pull the dog or human out of the way of traffic). Or it could be a decision where you had enough time to think..(i.e. both are hanging from contraptions and you have to pull a lever that lets one go, but kills the other).

That's the problem with these moral choice dilemmas. If you don't give the situation, people make a situation up where they can justify their choice by removing thoughtfullness.."I'd pull my dog out first without thinking". If you give too much detail, people will try to come up with a third option to get out of the dilemma "I would wait for the fireman to come and save both the dog and person from the contraptions"

I don't respond to hypothetical scenarios.

I've been an animal rights activist and a pacifist long enough that you'd think I'd know to stay away from the "who's more important to you?" bullshit. But, no...

I was asked whose life I would save - my pet's, or a complete stranger's. I gave my answer - with the explanation why.

:thumbsup:

no question
and not to say I wouldn't try to save a beloved pet, but I rank people above animals (most, anyway)

What were the other results and what type of forum is it?

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=875541&page=1

So far, the results show 47.2% for saving the pet, and 44% for saving the human.

I simply don't understand how people can place such a low value on their fellow women and men. :(

I guess you haven't met most of the people that I have.

A loved one is a loved one, whether of the same species or not, imho.

Why is human life worth more than other life? :shrug:

I really don't get it. We're not so special.

We may have our bitter disagreements with one another, but I believe that we're all in this together, and that we have the ability to choose to make the world a better place. The choices as I see them are then we can each work only for our own interests and continue down the path that we have been headed (see corporate greed, war, civil unrest) or we can work for the benefit of each other and hopefully elevate our collective lives to a point where there is less pain and suffering for everyone.

Most animals that I have met don't seem to have the same capability for progress as humans, and I think that that is part of what makes us special.

And, secondly, as a Christian, I feel that I should place the well-being of people about the well-being of animals. So, I guess that I have two reasons...

that I hope *you* are the person in the position to rescue *me* when/if that happens, LOL.

But, if I were allowed to perish because somebody chose to save their pet, I would understand and bear no grudge (plus I'd be dead).

Anyway, show me the Bible quote that says people always come first. I mean, you can believe that, but I just want to see what "Christian" teaching it's based on.

If so, why? As I have explained to you numerous times, I have no intention of creating a "flamewar." Do you honestly mean to tell me that you fully expected democratic underground to answer the same way that a gun-nut site did? If so, congratulations! ;)

One Bible verse on which I base my personal belief on this matter is Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Please, have a nice day.

So an OT quote isn't the best example.

To the best of my knowledge. the account in Genesis is more of a history lesson and not part of the Old Testament "law"...

But, if you're really looking for a New Testament verse showing animals being inferior to humans, there doesn't appear to be any shortage of them:

Matthew 8:28-32 Jesus casts demons out a human and into a herd of pigs, which then run into the sea, killing themselves.

Matthew 22:1-14 The parable of the wedding feast, for which animals are killed.

Luke 15:11-32 The parable of the prodigal son, for whom an animal was killed.

Acts 10:9-16 Peter's vision of a sheet descending from heaven with animals on it, with a voice telling him to kill the animals and eat them, in spite of his protestations.

More than any one single verse in a part of The Bible, I personally view it an underlying principle that is expressed in many different ways. YMMV.

Let's put it this way, would you be okay with me letting you die so I could save a cat?

Whoever it is is not worthy of your admiration.

yes, I would. You don't owe me a thing.

And if I don't owe you a thing, why should I care if you have health care, a decent standard of living, due process rights or whatever. Frankly, that attitude out-freeps the Freepers.

First, I would never allow a cat to mean the world to me. My wife means the world to me. My friends do. Second, regardless of my personal feelings, and regardless of the fact that you obviously would not do the same for me, I would be ethically required to save you or at least give it my best effort. Personal feelings to not change what is right or wrong. That is why this whole Peta perspective on animals is fundamentally egocentric and immoral.

animal haters are just sick fucks

Who is the greater person?
Jonathan Swift or Michael Vick?

would actually react differently if this were real. I hope so anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but with the kind of urban/suburban NON-community experience most people live under I can see how they may think they prefer their pets, over other human beings - and of course in day to day living we all prefer them to strangers, but in that adrenaline charged moment of decision and action I bet same species wins.

is treating such a (false) dichotomy as some way to make any meaningful judgment of them. To talk about human or animal life as if it were a game is what's disrespectful.

Not surprised to hear this came from a gun forum.

and chose the pet

so much for humanity, eh?

In the midst of a real crisis, people don't make conscious choices. They run on instinct. I admitted that. Everyone acting as if they would somehow calculate this choice may believe that, but it's not how a real crisis goes.

there are a couple - you chose your dog

In a crisis, people don't choose. They react.

post 93 - Flame away, but if the beagle were drowning I doubt I'd even notice
the human.

post 99 - Where the hell are the child's parents?!
That's my beagle over there!

:shrug:

Not likely to save someone I didn't notice.

classes. It's not a game. It's designed as a way to make us reflect on our values, and hopefully have a meaningful dialogue.

loved ones.

:shrug:

I'd have to pick the human being............. :shrug:

I love my doggy.

...and therefore a better chance of saving himself, I'd probably opt for my pet.

I can't imagine a situation in which both are equally likely to die, in the same amount of time, and I have the ability and just magically sufficient time to save one of them. This resembles the fabled ticking time bomb.

Humans, for the most part, suck.

If a human is stupid enough to get himself in a life threatening situation, well, the gene pool always needs pruning.

My moral upbringing says, "Save the human being," but in a way I can't explain, my animal companions are all I have right now, and they are really my support system. (I know that sounds ludicrous, and I don't blame you for thinking so.) Also, I have let my animals down over the past 18 months by being so preoccupied with other issues.

Supposing a scene where my dog and a human being were thrown into a dangerous situation simultaneously I would save the human, but if this were a question on a card in a classroom, I would probably go by the "coin toss" test. I know how I would want the coin to land, so in a way I do know how I feel, but I am ashamed to admit it.

Duh, if this was literally a side by side choice between a human being and a pet, I would rescue the human being.

But I would grieve unspeakably for the animal.

Please don't hate me, but I am telling you the truth, not the easy answer that would make my post correct and acceptible

I completely agree with you about our non-human family members. I think our species would do well to evolve past the "WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!" mentality. We see how well it has served our country.

The rest of us are unworthy of the OP's respect, as it turns out.

That being said, pet first. They're my family.

It's working.

:banghead:

When I posted this, I really thought that DU would probably side for the humans with a minority voting for pets. And that in no way would make DU look bad in my eyes. I am actually quite surprised that DU is voting pretty much the same way that the gun site did.

:eyes:

Do you think that I somehow should have known that the Democratic Underground would vote the same way that a semiautomatic-rifle fan-site voted?

And, if you REALLY posted this on a gun forum, post the link to that forum here or PM it to me, because I don't believe you did that either.

Don't worry, I'm not going to go troll your gun forum, because that's not how I roll, and I probably agree with them on gun stuff anyway.

I already posted the link in post #24, however, for your viewing pleasure, here it is again:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=875541&page=1


And for the record, whether or not you troll a gun forum is of little concern to myself. ;)

Jesus Christ.

I can't think of of a real-life situation in which I'd be unable to aid both a human and animal (and I live in quake country and spent most of my life in flood/tornado/ice storm/general weather hell country). I forget what those scenarios are called, but they're faulty. I'm pretty sure that in an actual emergency, most of us would do what we could to help whoever - whatever species - we could, starting with our families. But what I know; I hate SW Airlines.

Perhaps it's because I've been attending my local Citizen's Fire Academy, but, the scenario I imagine when I hear a choice such as this is one of a building or apartment fire of some sort. It is very possible in these situations, in my opinion, that you only have the chance to go in one direction and not the opportunity to go in both. If, for instance, your pet was locked in your apartment, and a person was trapped in an apartment across the hall, I can imagine that if you take the time to save one, you might have lost the opportunity to save the other.

I own a house, so I don't have to worry about strangers on fire in here.

:eyes:

My dog is like my kid. To me, it's asking a mother to chose their child or a stranger.

If you think letting a person die to save an animal is in anyway the right thing to do, then there is something wrong with your sense of right and wrong.

And I love my cat. But his life span is give or take 12-15 years. I assume we are not talking about an elderly or terminally ill person here (not that it matters, really), but someone who has many, many years of life ahead of them. How can I justify depriving this person of life and causing grief to his/her loved ones so I can have 5 more years with my cat?

I understand why people are choosing pets, and I don't deny how special pets can be. I still miss my dog Anna, who died 5 years ago. But if I had to go back in time and save Anna or save a human being, it wouldn't be a contest.

My opinion is the exact opposite. There's no universal absolute scale that says some lives are more valuable than others - it's entirely relative depending on who we personally know and love. I would seriously question the integrity of anyone who would let a family member die for the sake of a complete stranger. What species they are, is irrelevant.

You think your personal perspective about pets is more important that another person's life. There doesn't need to be an absolute scale. Saving a man, woman or child is the imperative because we're men, women and children and basic human decency when it is working properly requires us to save each other when we can. Think about the ordinary way pet owners treat animals (including in some cases eating them) and ask if you would treat a child that way. If the answer is "yes" you have no morals.

"kill me to save a dog"

killing and not acting to save are not the same thing

I'm going to save the being I love before the being I'm indifferent to.

I understand your pet is a family member. But it seems very callous to say you don't care about the lives of strangers.

The damn pet wakes us every morning at 6:30 by yowling until our 2.5-year-old wakes up, so he's had it coming to him for a long time.


And the stranger, well, he probably had it coming, too.

:rofl: :spank:

When actually *in* the situation, a whole different set of thoughts/emotions/behaviors emerge, probably of a primal origin - and more than likely the instinct would be to preserve one's own species.

That's just speaking strictly from an evolutionary perspective.

It doesn't matter what people *think* they might do.

A few years ago, during the wildfires in Southern California, I drove to the kennel where our rescue dogs were held. A few people flagged me down to give them a ride out of the area, but I had to turn them down because I couldn't fit them and the dogs in my coupe. My car was packed, with a little Beagle sitting needing to sit on my lap just for a spot.

I doubt if the people's lives were actually in imminent danger, whereas animals trapped in a kennel most definitely are.

Nice try though :)

I'm a little dazed by the responses.

rather than a stranger

I'd might even toss either into the fire because, you know, people who care for their companion animals are lower than snake shit.

oh and by the way I think part of the whole exercise was the fact that we ALL care about our companion animals so that "lower than snake shit" bit is a little contrived. (and tellingly defensive, I might add)

I thought the "basket of frozen embroyes" and dupe message gave that away, dammit.

because we like to post twice as well

:shrug:

help a fellow human being. Hey, at least you care about something. I'm sure that there are sociopaths out there who wouldn't reach out to help either the animal or another person.

My mom is bed-ridden and we agree that in an emergency, I'm to get Devin and myself to safety. So, given the option of saving my own mom or my dog, we both chose Devin.

just a stranger in peril? would you walk away?

That's my beagle over there!

I know what I would choose.

Do I also get to learn if the child is cute, speaks English, likes ice cream, or knows the alphabet?

you already chose... er... never saw the human being... or whatever

But then again, I'm a utilitarian, pet lover, and a misanthrope

To choose the pet would be staggeringly selfish.

Oh, wait!!! Probably won't come.

flames, tears, no schlage.

Was the mod squad taken up in the Rapture?

Anyone who would choose their pet instead is selfish and fucked up.

it'd be the stranger. Not today...no doubt about it, I'd save my dog. The loss of my dog, who's like my child would be as devastating to me as someone else who lost their loved one. To say I'm cynical about people these days is an understatement.

...if I have the same sentiment at only 24. My dog means more to me than any person on the street and my estranged family. One look into her big brown eyes is all I need to feel better. How could I look into those same eyes and say some random person is worth more than her?

but I am the opposite. In my younger days I would have said the pet. Having lived and seen a little of the world - human beings have gained the upper hand in my mind. No problem helping both if you can, but if it really were an either-or choice I would have to let my pet go. Of course I would mourn, but I don't think I could live with myself having chosen my pet over another innocent human being's life. (not talking about the choice I would make if somebody was hurting my pet!)

In a moment of crisis, I always put my heart away and use only my mind.

And the choice between the life of a pet and the life of a human being is clear, unambiguous, and stark.




Later, I will mourn the loss, but never regret it.

My pets are members of my family, and I assumed responsibility for them when I brought them into my life. I assumed no responsibility for a stranger. That's not to say I wouldn't help a stranger if I could, but if it were a choice between a member of my family and a stranger, then my family would always come first - no matter the species of anyone involved. It's not that some species are "worth more" or "worth less" than others - it's that some individuals mean more to me personally.

Well said.

It's not an "animal?human" thing, it's a FAMILY/stranger thing.

the human. I'm connected with her too deeply. It is instinct to save her after 7 years of caring for her. I probably wouldn't even realize I'd made a choice until the whole event was over.

look at her! How could anyone swim away from those big browns?

Regardless of number of legs or species.

Adults should be more apt to save themselves.

Human babies and kids before pets. My pets would understand.. hec, I'd hope they did the same thing.

:hi:

who's most able to save themselves.

of one's fellow humans. And ultimately, what's the point of that?

This thread was not meant to cause arguing or to bring condemnation down on people who vote the "wrong" way. However, I think that there is definitely a point in trying to discern the values of those with whom we choose to associate. I am actually quite surprised at how closely some of the responses mirror those on the gun site, which traditionally seems to be more right-leaning by a large margin.

Perhaps decisions concerning our pets are one of the seemingly few things that transcend politics?

There is no way I could watch my pet be killed, knowing I could save him.

That being said, I would sacrifice my body greatly to save the stranger AFTER my pet.

It's a no-brainer. My 2 cats are smarter than most of the people I know.

to save my life, if needed, over the life of an animal. That's so whack I don't know where to begin.

Family always comes before strangers.

People are people, and animals are animals. Animals might be nice and pleasant to be around, and some people are walking disasters of epic proportions, but unless we're talking about rapists and murderers here, I feel pretty confident saying that human life is just more important than animal life. You would really save an animal and let someone's son/daughter or father/mother die? How could you live with yourself?

The responses in this thread are just blowing my mind.

They are just as important to me as any other family member.

Save your pet or save an infant child of an acquaintance? Not a really close friend, but someone you know. And in the situation, you can only go after one at a time--maybe they're in different parts of the burning building.

Which one would you go for first?

(I'm not trying to flame-bait, and I won't judge you harshly. I think I understand the "pet as family member" impulse; I've just never been that close to any pets. I'm just curious if this would change your choice in any way.)

like every other animal as far as I'm concerned. Yes, there is an instinct among all animals to preserve their own, but overall humans have fucked up this planet way more than any other species ever. So what makes us so great? Computers? Combustion engines? Television? Indoor plumbing? Of course I enjoy these things as much as the next person, but I'm also very aware that our insatiable need for all the trappings of what we feel we need to be human is exactly what is destroying the planet for all of its inhabitants, including us. So I ask, what makes us so great?

you would be cool with letting a person, someone who could be just like you, die in order to save a pet? Again, that person could be, and probably is, very important to at least one other person who is going to have to go through their whole lives without them if you choose a pet over saving their life. As hard as it is to lose a pet, and I've seen people go through that, it's much worse to lose someone close to you. If you won't think of the individual whose life you are ignoring, won't you think of their family and friends?

Each individual is not a representative of the behavior you cite.

see what makes us so special that the life of every single human being on the planet would trump the life of every other living creature.

No, I wouldn't "be cool" with letting someone else die. I'm not cool letting any living creature die for no good reason. I would do my best to save everyone in danger if I found myself in such a situation. However, I raised my pets from the time they were two weeks old. For 16 years they've shown me more unconditional love than any human ever has except perhaps my husband. They are my family, and I'm going to save my family first. I've lost pets and I've lost humans to whom I was close, so please don't presume to tell other people which is harder or worse. It depends on what the relationship was, and what you meant to each other.

If one of your family members and a stranger were both in danger, you'd try to save them both, right? But if you couldn't, you'd choose your family member, right? The end result is still that someone has lost someone who meant the world to him or her, and it's a terrible thing. You weren't "ignoring" someone else's life, you weren't "cool" with letting someone else die. You made a difficult choice, one that nobody should have to make but that probably happens all over the world. My point is that I don't feel that humans are any more or less special than the other inhabitants of our planet, so I don't judge someone for choosing to save a family member over a stranger, no matter what species that family member is.

And, yes, each human being is representative of the behavior I cite. Except for perhaps a few indigenous tribes who live off the land and have no access to anything modern, we all use and enjoy (myself included) the very things that will soon make this planet uninhabitable. Some are more conscious of this than others, some are more wasteful. But we all live this way. What other species on the planet can claim this?

feeling guilty about it. Then I would save the human stranger.

I don't understand people picking their pets. I can get by without mine far easier than a child can be raised without their parent.

n/t

I may be selfish but at least I'm honest. I was just raised that way. Family comes first - and family members have different numbers of legs and varying amounts of body hair, that's just how it is. (I honestly think my father would have a very hard time choosing between his dog and me, for that matter - and you know what, I'm totally fine with that. I've known animals I would lay down my own life for.) Love is love, and I think for most of us, our instincts are to choose the being we love over the being we don't even know, if we can only save one. Species isn't the determining factor; relationship is.

We all like to think we'd risk our own lives to save a stranger (even with no "choice" of who to save involved), but would we? Some of us do, and would, and have. Some of us mean well but chicken out. I haven't been in that situation, and I have no idea what I would really do, frankly.

moral dilemma solved.

a dog or cat that is at most gonna live another 7 years.

If I had to explain to some kid why their mom is dead, because I saved my dog, I don't think I could live with myself. I mean, if I lost my pets, my life would suffer. But if I let a stranger die, there are a larger number of people suffering (all of that person's loved ones). And I could be ruining lives...children without parents. Mother and fathers without their caretakers. Sisters, brothers, nieces and nephews. Work mates. Friends.

Man, it's no choice at all, especially if it's a conscious one.

Nobody at all.

Does that change anything?

Yeah, it might change things in that case.

Then I'd do EVERYTHING possible to save the pet (even though he is a cat that barfs on everything).

The scenario listed is pretty darn vague, so I don't know if the situation would lend itself to trying to save both at once. So I assume that you'd have to pick one or the other to go after first. I would have to try to save the human first.

Saving people often requires actual physical strength. 150 lbs and up? Dude, there's no way I could lift that an inch off the ground, much less carry it out of a burning building.

My cat weighs 12 lbs. That, I can handle.

Are they both close to drowning or being swept away by a current?

Oh fuck it, there's a reason why my pet implicitly trusts me. :evilgrin:

There's a lot of selfishness in this thread. "*I* don't know this person, and most people are assholes anyway."

Well, it's not all about me. I've come to realize that there are a lot of people I consider assholes who are still loved by their spouse, their kids, their parents, their siblings or friends, etc. Why should whether or not *I* like someone dictate whether they live or die? People I don't like, or don't know, have people who love them, too.

I love my pets very much but they have much less of a capacity to make the world a better place as a human.

Margaret Thatcher once said that there is no "society", only "families", which was a typically unliberal attitude for her to take. I'm not surprised that a right-wing site would share that attitude.

Liberals (and even more so progressives) believe that society is a valuable construct, and an essential part of being a member of society is that you DO care about the welfare of complete strangers. This is why we pay taxes. This is why in Canada we have universal health care, and why most Americans want the same -- because we are not alone in this world and we can't afford to be selfish. We ARE our brother's keeper. That is the progressive/liberal way.

I expected this poll on democratic underground to go very, VERY differently. So far, I have not gotten the results for which I had hoped. :(

I think being liberal-minded means to care about all creatures, not just humans.

By that logic, there should also be no appreciable difference between, say, one's nephew and a complete stranger's pet schnauzer. I mean, if you're equating pets with people.

No, not "by that logic" at all. Do you care about all humans on the planet equally, for real? Then why would my opinion that liberal-mindedness means caring about all of the earth's inhabitants automatically mean that there would be no appreciable difference between a family member and a stranger's pet? How are you making that leap?

And why do you assume that, because I disagree with you, I am being defensive? What evidence do you have?

If the claim is that all liberals should care about all life equally - the claim that you made - then the logical extension of that is that one's nephew is just as valuable as stranger man's pet schnauzer; and so, if you think saving a bet is a better ethic than saving a person, you should save the stranger's dog and not your nephew.

Or chipmunk is worth as much as one's mother.

I don't think you realize how it is a lie whenever someone says they value all life equally, or, as you did, that all creatures are to be valued equally.

So you would never squish a bug, kill a rat, eat a cow, or flour* or corn* that you didn't raise and create yourself?

I have a very strong inclination to believe that you do not live this purity-obsessed definition of "liberal minded" that you say you do.

I would prefer that people be more truthful - just say that you think your own pet is more important than another person; or that having your home to yourself is worth more than the life of the rats; or that you having food is worth more than the life of a pheasant or ground hog. - Or, what most of this stuff boils down to, "The stuff that I own is worth more to me (or, alternatively, 'I have more ethical responsibility to') than the stuff that I do not own".

If one is honest, than that's fine - some of us place higher value on human life in some circumstances, and some of us place higher value on animals in some circumstances. Both are equally defensible positions, so there's no reason to pretend or strive for holier-than-thou-ness in the old "I'm more liberal than you!" childish gaming of one another.




* Lots of critters (rats, mice, voles, pheasants, other birds, and so on) are killed during the harvesting of wheat and corn

for all life equally. I never, ever wrote that. So, no, it is not a logical extension of any claim I made. In fact, my point to IntravenousDemilo was quite opposite. Even if one cares for humans above all other living creatures, no one cares equally for every human on the planet. People care more for their family, friends, heros, favorite musicians, etc. than they care for complete strangers, their UPS delivery person, the guy who sold them a vacuum, axe murderers, and dictators. So how is it at all logical that because I think we should care for all living creatures, then by extension I must not see any difference between my nephew and a stranger's dog? That I care every living creature equally? Both you and IntravenousDemilo saw something in my words that I never wrote and do not think.

I think being liberal-minded means to care about all creatures, not just humans.

Those were my exact words. I never once said anything about caring for each individual living creature equally. I care more for my husband and my cat than I do for my next door neighbor or his dog. I care more for my next door neighbor's dog than I care for the spider in my bathtub. I care more for the spider in my bathtub than I care for Dick Cheney. I also eat meat, honey, and grain I didn't grow myself. I'm an omnivore, no more or less "caring" than any other omnivore on the planet (bears, dogs, raccoons, crows). I also don't happen to think that humans are so damn special that we deserve special treatment at the expense of other inhabitants of this planet. So if someone wants to save their beloved pet over a human stranger, I don't blame them. And I never once said a single thing about living any kind of purity obsessed definition of liberal. I'm no one's definition of pure and damn well never claimed to be. I was actually reacting to the implication that it was somehow not liberal to admit that you would save your pet over a stranger, which I think is bullshit.

I have also never been anything but honest about the fact that I would choose to save a family member over a stranger. My definition of family happens to include non-humans.

I'm sorry if you saw anything as childish gaming, that was my not my intention. My only intention was to point out that IntravenousDemilo had a different definition of liberal than I do, and was using that definition to claim that other people were only paying "lip-service" to liberal-mindedness.

definition of liberal-mindedness." If I'm wrong about that, then I apologize.

"I think being liberal-minded means to care about all creatures, not just humans" puts humans and non-humans on the same level, a stance I happen to disagree with. Thus, all things being equalized in such a way, there's no difference between them, and species is no longer a part of the equation. The question thus boils down to whether we love the person/pet or not?

The original question was, would you save YOUR pet or a complete stranger. This implies a question of whether it makes a difference that you have an emotional investment in the organism in question, whether it be the pet (yes) or the complete stranger (no). I hold that we as liberals should care MORE about human animals than about non-human animals, irrespective of whether we are acquainted with the humans or non-humans.

Some people have stated here that they consider their love for their pets to be a more important consideration than "is this a fellow human being". And I think that's just sad. It's sad that their definition of liberal-mindedness doesn't include a certain solidarity with other members of one's own species.

No, I don't care about all humans on the planet equally. But I do feel responsible for them, whether I believe they deserve it or not. I believe we should care for all animals, actually, but not at the expense of humans. Not all family members get along, but we are all brothers and sisters anyway.

And I can say that it affected me more than the loss of my 102 years old grand-father that

was a great person.I never had the chance to really know him because I was living 700 miles away and

met him about 20 times in my life.That being said let's imagine that my dog is still alive,in a

burning building,in the same room as the perfect stranger,then I would chose the one screaming

"Please help me ! The pain is unbearable!" instead of my dog yelling for the same reasons.

I would be devastated afterward and feeling guilty as Hell.But I couldn't continue to live

with myself after letting that person die.It's a selfish choice when you think about it

because I would ultimately go for what would be the less painful for myself.

I have empathy for the complete stranger's family and friends. Suppose there were people depending on this stranger for food and shelter?

but what if this stranger was a child, what if i felt i should be ethical not emotional. who knows>

and mourn the pet later.

Suppose instead the situation involved rescuing a healthy child who plays soccer and is on the school honor roll vs. rescuing a profoundly disabled child.

Would anyone who is tsk-tsking those who would rescue their pet be willing to admit that they would save the healthy, active child with a chance of a brighter future over the child with disabilities? Both children could be equally loved by their respective parents, but the healthy child would be seen as having more "value" in the years to come.

rescuer just happened to like one child better than the other? Would the tsk-ers rescue the child with whom they were closer? Therefore will they be willing to admit that having a close bond with other living creature makes you more apt to choose them if you must make a choice?

I think that a very valid reason that one might choose the stranger over the pet is because the stranger is viewed as being more capable of contributing to society than the pet. To someone that chooses the stranger for this reason, choosing the healthy child to rescue seems to me to be consistent.

My kitties (when I had them) would reward me with love every day just for being who I am. That's just how pets are. These rewards are automatic.

If I saved a person, I'd be more apt to receive a lot of gratitude, whether in the form of reciprocal favours later on, or cold, hard cash, or at least a nice dinner. It would be in my better interest to save the person.

But mostly, it's the progressive/liberal tendency to feel connected even to strangers that would motivate me, as I posted upthread.

Unless the stranger was a child.

Anyone who needs to ask why needs to find his or her conscience.

human, no question. I would hope that if my husband were dying that a person in a position to rescue him would make the same decision. Somebody's spouse, child, parent....

If you were forced to survive, you can eat your cat without legal reprisals. Eat a stranger and you better have a damn good lawyer.

The results are shocking.

No one knows what they would do in a life and death situation until it happens. Hell, there's a sizable number of people who would save their own self and no one else.

There are heroes and bums in every emergency; you can find them in stories about 9-11, the Titanic, plane crashes, fires...you name it.

:hide:

I love my pets and most people around where I live aren't very nice anyway.