Who would you save: A beloved pet or a complete stranger?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by D0LLxo
Every species is equal; so the life of a house fly is equal to that of a young baby? I don't know..
Well I guess it depends on whos point of view you're looking at it from
Original post by Toaster Leavings
Lol at the assumption that those calling the pet selectors "freaks" aren't deep thinkers. I would wager its the opposite, or they at least have the insight to see anyone who chooses their pet has a thin grasp of decent ethics.
This is not about animals being of similar worth to humans. Ask yourself whether you would pick a strange dog (i.e. a dog you do not know) over a strange human. The truth is you would pick the human.
The people who value their pets beyond saving a human life are demonstrating to me that they are tribal type zero thinkers who cannot extend their empathy for other humans beyond a very limited range. These people really are the type to hold back society from progressing to a global type 1 civilisation. Total waste of space.
This is not about animals being of similar worth to humans. Ask yourself whether you would pick a strange dog (i.e. a dog you do not know) over a strange human. The truth is you would pick the human.
The people who value their pets beyond saving a human life are demonstrating to me that they are tribal type zero thinkers who cannot extend their empathy for other humans beyond a very limited range. These people really are the type to hold back society from progressing to a global type 1 civilisation. Total waste of space.
On the contrary, it most certainly is true that they're being inconducive to debate by dismissing all opposition as being a "thin grasp of decent ethics". You are aware there are plentiful numbers of acclaimed philosophers and ethicists who are not 100% anthropogenic? Ethics are entirely relative. I see it as more ethical to save something I love than someone I do not care about. For the exact same reason I have no sadness when an inane celebrity dies. I'd be distraught if anyone in my family (including my dog) passed away whereas if the neighbour down the street did? Well condolences to their family.
But if you aren't willing to move beyond immature remarks like "tribal type zero thinkers" and "total waste of space" I'm not really willing to reply to you again. You'd be thrown out of an official debate with those comments. Rude and unhelpful.
Depends upon your view of humans and animals.
My view is that we're all the same, a human is no different to an animal. Intellectually superior, yes, but so what?
So considering that, I'd choose the beloved pet
My view is that we're all the same, a human is no different to an animal. Intellectually superior, yes, but so what?
So considering that, I'd choose the beloved pet
Original post by Super Mario 64
Depends upon your view of humans and animals.
My view is that we're all the same, a human is no different to an animal. Intellectually superior, yes, but so what?
So considering that, I'd choose the beloved pet
My view is that we're all the same, a human is no different to an animal. Intellectually superior, yes, but so what?
So considering that, I'd choose the beloved pet
I do belive that all animals are equall no matter what they are. BUT choosing to save your pet over someone from your own species is selfish and unjustifiable. I can't explain why, atleast for me its just a no brainer. Human > Pet. Not because we are more important but because the death of the stranger will lead to sadness in so many relatives and friends whereas saving your pet will only make the owners sad.
Yes pets have families too but in their current state of e.g dog, they are not as emotionally affected by the death of a "relative". They will easily move on and will not have a massive change in their life.
However if a Father dies, the children will have a much more difficult start in their life, the wife would have lost a husband and will have to work twice as hard to be able to provide for her children. The parents of this father etc etc I could go on and on.
I can understand how some people have really strong bonds beyond even close relatives to their pets but this is just redicilious.
defiantly a pet.
Everyone who owns a dog will agree but everyone who hates dogs or doesn't own one will probably choose to save a stranger
Whoever negged me you're a little ****. I hope I get more!
Everyone who owns a dog will agree but everyone who hates dogs or doesn't own one will probably choose to save a stranger
Whoever negged me you're a little ****. I hope I get more!
(edited 12 years ago)
i think the situation is really important.
Whether its saving one of them or choosing which one dies.
If im running back into a burning building, im going to save my cat because if im putting my life on the line i get to save who i like. No one can turn around and say you should have saved him because it was me risking my life.
But if a person with a gun asked me to choose between killing a person or my cat, i would save the person as i wouldnt ever be able to justify choosing to kill a person over an animal.
Whether its saving one of them or choosing which one dies.
If im running back into a burning building, im going to save my cat because if im putting my life on the line i get to save who i like. No one can turn around and say you should have saved him because it was me risking my life.
But if a person with a gun asked me to choose between killing a person or my cat, i would save the person as i wouldnt ever be able to justify choosing to kill a person over an animal.
Original post by Caedus
Yes, I probably would, but that's a ridiculous example. If it was in the context of survival I'd kill an animal before a human as I am not one for cannibalism.
Its not a ridiculous example. The question is (ignoring legal trouble) do you want the human or animal to live. How you end up at the result deosnt matter.
Original post by danny111
Would you go to prison if you saved your pet instead of the human being?
Mental hospital...
Original post by shezshez
Mental hospital...
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
I bet you that not an insignificant part of the human population that has pets, would choose to save their pet. There is nothing "mental" about it.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by No Man
Beloved pet, since I don't feel any emotions about complete strangers.
And if I was the stranger that wasn't saved over a pet that was beloved to that person then fair enough.
And if I was the stranger that wasn't saved over a pet that was beloved to that person then fair enough.
You say that, but you don't mean it. All humans fear death.
And anyway, wouldn't you have a bad conscience? What if you meet the stranger's children, or parents? I don't claim that either decision is morally right, or even that there is a moral foundation for such a bad conscience, but would you not have it nonetheless, even if it is merely a product of societal norms? Personally, I would be seriously disturbed if I saved my pet over a stranger, and purely for the sake of my sanity and my sense of identity, could not do so.
And those people talking about giving all your money to charity - read the monkeysphere article - the human brain is not large enough to conceptualise more than a certain number of people - hence it is more morally acceptable to allow death and suffering in the passive sense than it is in the active sense, when you are forced to make the life and death decision.
Original post by dada55
I do belive that all animals are equall no matter what they are. BUT choosing to save your pet over someone from your own species is selfish and unjustifiable. I can't explain why, atleast for me its just a no brainer. Human > Pet. Not because we are more important but because the death of the stranger will lead to sadness in so many relatives and friends whereas saving your pet will only make the owners sad.
Yes pets have families too but in their current state of e.g dog, they are not as emotionally affected by the death of a "relative". They will easily move on and will not have a massive change in their life.
However if a Father dies, the children will have a much more difficult start in their life, the wife would have lost a husband and will have to work twice as hard to be able to provide for her children. The parents of this father etc etc I could go on and on.
I can understand how some people have really strong bonds beyond even close relatives to their pets but this is just redicilious.
Yes pets have families too but in their current state of e.g dog, they are not as emotionally affected by the death of a "relative". They will easily move on and will not have a massive change in their life.
However if a Father dies, the children will have a much more difficult start in their life, the wife would have lost a husband and will have to work twice as hard to be able to provide for her children. The parents of this father etc etc I could go on and on.
I can understand how some people have really strong bonds beyond even close relatives to their pets but this is just redicilious.
Can you please elaborate as to why you believe animals and humans are inherently equal? I am confounded by animal rights activists who claim that the suffering of animals is equivalent to the suffering of humans. Firstly, I would to qualify that the question in this thread is in no way a question of animal rights, as even animal rights campaigners (except for maybe the most extreme) do not desire to ban eating meat, for example. Death of an animal is not considered a part of the rights issue - rather, the focus is on pain and suffering. Which brings me to my hypothetical; if you could choose to either have your pet or a stranger stabbed (non-life threatening, will heal completely), which would you choose? Whilst both scenarios are repulsive to me, I would definitely choose to have the pet stabbed, because I belong to the same species as the stranger - I can empathise with him/her, and perhaps additionally, the stranger will anticipate the pain more keenly/suffer for more afterwards, although these last two points are debatable. Please note that this scenario does not involve the suffering of owners of the pets or family and friends of the stranger, as the pain has no lingering consequences - it is evanescent and quickly gone.
In an article I recently read laying out the ethical groundwork for animal rights, the author quoted the philosopher Henry Sidgwick, who said, "The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the view... of the Universe, than the good of any other." I have to disagree completely with this idea, and with the ensuing idea that since both the stranger and the pet feel the same pain, they have equal rights to not experience that pain. I myself am a theistic agnostic and hence do not believe in objective morality - I do not view morality as something that is set in stone and the same throughout the universe - I view it as something determined by mankind for its own use and for its own good - it serves the purpose of collective humanity. Thus I would say that in my hypothetical, morality dictates that the human is worth more than the pet. This I assume would be the same view that atheists take. However, if you are of Christian persuasion, does not the fact that God creates humanity in his image lend itself to our superiority over animals, and hence our greater rights? We are in fact placed as masters over the earth; sure, we have a responsibility to look after it, but only in a master-servant relationship - we are not required to sacrifice ourselves for it, and we are permitted to indulge in the goodness of creation. I cannot speak authoritatively for most other religions, having less knowledge of them, but for example, does the Muslim process of killing animals (that has caused so much controversy in indonesia and has resulted in Australia banning live animal exports from Indonesia) not demonstrate that animal's rights to not experience undue pain are less important than even a human's responsibility to pay homage to his/her God? I would hypothesise that because most religions were founded in the distant part, before anyone even came up with the idea of animal rights, there is no attempt to address it. However, this brings us back to modern atheistic/agnostic philosophy, which cannot entertain the notion of morality being absolute, as morality is a human construct. How then can one argue that animals and humans are equal?
(Feel free to attack this argument in any way you see fit, I still haven't formed definite opinions on the idea of morality and am willing to engage in argument with anyone who would like to propose an alternative view)
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Aeonstorm
x
Ok, let's look at it from this angle. To me, pretty much everything in nature serves a purpose that is all interlinked except humans.
Trees/plants photosynthesise to produce oxygen so organisms can live
The oceans act as the source for fresh water via evaporation so organisms can live and as carbon storage
Soil acts as a base for food to grow without getting blown away
Wind helps with spreading seed growth and for pollonation
Carnivores exist to keep herbivore populations in check
Herbivores exist to keep plant growth in check
Worms exist to clean soil by eating the bacteria/algae/fungi within it
Bees/butterflies/wasps/moths/hummingbirds help with pollination
Maggots/flies help with the decomposition of dead bodies and faeces
What purpose do humans have?
(edited 12 years ago)
I can understand people valuing a pet dogs life higher than a humans in many cases. Simply because dogs trust you. You tell them to do something and they trust that what you say is best. So not acting in their best interests would feel like a betrayal of trust. Also, my sister has a stupid yappy little dog and I have a big ginger cat. They generally ignore each other but when my cat goes near my sisters baby the dog runs over and chases the cat away. When an animal is so protective of you and yours and so trusting of you one is always going to feel the need to reciprocate. One can see how that emotional bond would pull strongly against the reasoned argument that human life is always more important.
In the case of other animals I don't see it and this stuff about animals being as important as we are...
In the case of a lion then yeah, it is, in my view. Theres not very many lions left and the world would be far poorer without them. If a snow leopard was about to kill a bloke and I had a gun, and a warning shot didnt work I'd probably just wander off. But a pet rabbit or rat equal to a human? No way. Where do you people draw the line? Cats? Rabbits? Sewer rats? Cockroaches? Fleas?
In the case of other animals I don't see it and this stuff about animals being as important as we are...
In the case of a lion then yeah, it is, in my view. Theres not very many lions left and the world would be far poorer without them. If a snow leopard was about to kill a bloke and I had a gun, and a warning shot didnt work I'd probably just wander off. But a pet rabbit or rat equal to a human? No way. Where do you people draw the line? Cats? Rabbits? Sewer rats? Cockroaches? Fleas?
I don't really see why a human should be put first... My decision on who or what to save would depend on my initial reaction, which would be based on who or what I cared most about.
A person I've never met does not have any superiority to me than a pet I love.
There's too many people on the Earth anyway.
A person I've never met does not have any superiority to me than a pet I love.
There's too many people on the Earth anyway.
Original post by No Man
Ok, let's look at it from this angle. To me, pretty much everything in nature serves a purpose that is all interlinked except humans.
Trees/plants photosynthesise to produce oxygen so organisms can live
The oceans act as the source for fresh water via evaporation so organisms can live and as carbon storage
Soil acts as a base for food to grow without getting blown away
Wind helps with spreading seed growth and for pollonation
Carnivores exist to keep herbivore populations in check
Herbivores exist to keep plant growth in check
Worms exist to clean soil by eating the bacteria/algae/fungi within it
Bees/butterflies/wasps/moths/hummingbirds help with pollination
Maggots/flies help with the decomposition of dead bodies and faeces
What purpose do humans have?
Trees/plants photosynthesise to produce oxygen so organisms can live
The oceans act as the source for fresh water via evaporation so organisms can live and as carbon storage
Soil acts as a base for food to grow without getting blown away
Wind helps with spreading seed growth and for pollonation
Carnivores exist to keep herbivore populations in check
Herbivores exist to keep plant growth in check
Worms exist to clean soil by eating the bacteria/algae/fungi within it
Bees/butterflies/wasps/moths/hummingbirds help with pollination
Maggots/flies help with the decomposition of dead bodies and faeces
What purpose do humans have?
Non of those animals have big enough view to see their own purpose. Perhaps our purpose is to take life to other planets and set the wheel of evolution moving and to a mind with a view of the universe as our view of nature that would be clear. You can't possibly write a species with the future potential to do that off as having no purpose just because we don't fit into the natural systems that we fully understand.
Original post by No Man
Ok, let's look at it from this angle. To me, pretty much everything in nature serves a purpose that is all interlinked except humans.
Trees/plants photosynthesise to produce oxygen so organisms can live
The oceans act as the source for fresh water via evaporation so organisms can live and as carbon storage
Soil acts as a base for food to grow without getting blown away
Wind helps with spreading seed growth and for pollonation
Carnivores exist to keep herbivore populations in check
Herbivores exist to keep plant growth in check
Worms exist to clean soil by eating the bacteria/algae/fungi within it
Bees/butterflies/wasps/moths/hummingbirds help with pollination
Maggots/flies help with the decomposition of dead bodies and faeces
What purpose do humans have?
Trees/plants photosynthesise to produce oxygen so organisms can live
The oceans act as the source for fresh water via evaporation so organisms can live and as carbon storage
Soil acts as a base for food to grow without getting blown away
Wind helps with spreading seed growth and for pollonation
Carnivores exist to keep herbivore populations in check
Herbivores exist to keep plant growth in check
Worms exist to clean soil by eating the bacteria/algae/fungi within it
Bees/butterflies/wasps/moths/hummingbirds help with pollination
Maggots/flies help with the decomposition of dead bodies and faeces
What purpose do humans have?
These are all things that they do, not inherently their purpose. Their only purpose is to exist and to reproduce. What if I told you humanity's purpose was to spread life to Mars within the next century? Would that not be an enviable purpose? After all, all the things you have listed here is how one organism helps another; well humans colonising Mars would give life an entire new planet as a habitat. But what is the inherent goodness or usefulness in this? It can only be 'good' for the diversity of life, or 'useful' for humans trying to find more living space - this depends on subjectivity and thus your stated purposes are subjective. The universe is indifferent as to whether life flourishes or dies; it exists nonetheless.
I'm not saying that I know what humanity's purpose is, but I tend toward the humanist view that apart from existing and reproducing (something we have hopefully transcended at least to some degree), our purpose is self-created.
I'm not sure how this relates to my last post, but wev's, its interesting to discuss anyhow
Original post by green.tea
Non of those animals have big enough view to see their own purpose. Perhaps our purpose is to take life to other planets and set the wheel of evolution moving and to a mind with a view of the universe as our view of nature that would be clear. You can't possibly write a species with the future potential to do that off as having no purpose just because we don't fit into the natural systems that we fully understand.
Edit: Haha, I used the same example of taking life to other planets without having read your post.
(edited 12 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Rugby World Cup 2023 sweepstake: rep prizes to be won!
- Birthday gift ideas for her
- What salary do you need to live in london?
- What should i feed my goldfish????
- Going to uni and living at home
- Guardian - UK middle classes ‘struggling despite incomes of up to £60,000 a year’
- Dissertation study
- Ask questions about being a vet student at the RVC
- Whats your favourite pet?
- Worried about relationship breaking?!?
- Earning side income whilst at UNI
- University Accomodation
- regretting getting a house
- Rate your month out of 10: July Edition
- should I stay at home for uni?
- Currently losing a pet - Chatting as a distraction?
- Creeped out
- I need advice please!!!!
- I cannot afford University
- Transaction writing help
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
I failed my GCSE'S my parents said they are disgusted with meLast reply 1 week ago
parents aren't letting me go on a uni residential - what do i do?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutLast reply 3 weeks ago
How do I cut off parents at the start of my University year?Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
I failed my GCSE'S my parents said they are disgusted with meLast reply 1 week ago
parents aren't letting me go on a uni residential - what do i do?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutLast reply 3 weeks ago
How do I cut off parents at the start of my University year?
