Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who would you save: A beloved pet or a complete stranger?

Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: Who would you save?
    Complete stranger
    286
    55.75%
    Beloved pet
    221
    43.08%
    Neither
    6
    1.17%

    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The stranger! My suffering at losing my pet will be much less than that of the family whose mother/ father/ child/ or whoever I let die. I seriously don't get how some people can be so selfish.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeonstorm)

    Edit: Haha, I used the same example of taking life to other planets without having read your post.
    Makes more sense the more you think about it. Most intelligent animals have curiosity because clearly theres an evolutionary advantage. Same with the desire to understand and intelligence itself. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the same traits would be advantageous on other worlds. It seems quite probable that evolution would always eventually produce a species that looks to the final frontier and in doing so evolve a means to propagate itself on new worlds.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I was looking at someone's post on the first page who said he would save a 'family member' such as a dog, cat, horse or something. What if the pet was a prized race-horse worth a ton of money, and the stranger was an old, decrepit man. People have talked about the idea that decisive action makes saving the pet essentially equivalent to murder/manslaughter of the stranger, whereas passivity in relation to charity is ok. Well, does that mean that you have to allow the horse to die? How would that be different from a stranger randomly knocking on your door and begging for $50,000 because they are dying of cancer and need money for surgery? Your horse (ignoring the emotional aspect) may be worth something to that effect (k, i admit i actually have no idea of how much horses are worth, but i'm sure they could be worth way more if they win a lot), but if they just knocked on your door and asked for cash, you would actively deny them, even if you knew they were going to die, and would tell them to go plead somewhere else, maybe the government if your country has welfare. Even if you think that you would give them the money, this would create a reputation of generosity that would encourage others to come begging for money, and the end result would be that you would either have to be willing to give up all your money or actively condemn a stranger to death. Thus isn't the distinction between active and passive decision somewhat flawed? What instead is the determining factor is the size of the cost in the active decision - some people here view the emotional cost of losing a pet as being great enough to choose the pet, whereas some view it as paltry and are therefore willing to save the stranger. So in essence the question of who to change, going by this argument, is commodified and becomes merely a cost/benefit analysis.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    My (now late) father almost perished in a household fire when, having been refused egress to the adjacent loft by his elderly, cat-hoarding neighbour for fear that one of her wretched felines might also succumb to the blaze, he inhaled enough smoke to occasion a week-long stay in hospital and (probably) trigger the cancer which ultimately killed him.

    So in summation, if you've answered 'beloved pet': go to hell.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    What did you think of my previous question to you by the way?
    I would be upset, but the likelihood of it happening would be very slim, seeing as it would be 1 person out of 7 billion.

    I would still save my pet, as I am indifferent to humans I don't know and likely never to meet, and if that makes me heartless or whatever than so be it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeonstorm)
    Can you please elaborate as to why you believe animals and humans are inherently equal?
    I do belive all living things are equall but I do understand some of your points. To point to anyone who did not read my other posts, I think there is no justice for saving the pet. I cannot belive so many people will save the pet...
    In a way, that could seem as if it counter acts my belief that all living things are equall but here is my simplified idea of how I see things:
    [Off Topic Alert]
    There is a God, He created us and many other creatures, not just on Earth but many other planets and maybe even other universes. There is also a heaven which is all perfect and every "soul" is in the same identity as other souls and has perfect life. However I belive that if you live in 100% goodness, you get bored. Pain is what brings all other emotions in to live. Since these souls get bored in Heaven, every once in a while they want to go back on Earth or any other place as some sort of creature so they can experience true life again where we forget everything to keep it interesting. Living again also gives you the chanse to "learn".
    You can become any creature and thus your life will be very different depending on what creature you do become as obviously some animals are meant to be different in emotions and lifestyle.
    There is a Hell which in my opinion, is a temporary punishment to people who abused or did not learn anything from their life. E.g if you did something bad and you regret it truly then you have understood a certain lesson which should hopefully you will not repeat on your next visit. But if you did something bad and did not learn your lesson then thats when you go to Hell as punishment for abusing your life. Although you forget everything each time you "revisit" these lessons somehow guide you, they do not decide what happens for you but your instincts will be more towards doing the right thing.

    I also belive that eating meat is not a bad thing. Wolfs eat rabbits and so on. It's a life cycle, it's part of keeping life interesting. What is bad, is people abusing animals for no reason. This is also the reason I belive as humans we should save humans first, because it is instinctive to save our own species first.
    We are not essentially abusing that animal as we can only save 1, what would be abusing is not to save any of them if you had the oppertunity.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Man)
    I would be upset, but the likelihood of it happening would be very slim, seeing as it would be 1 person out of 7 billion.

    I would still save my pet, as I am indifferent to humans I don't know and likely never to meet, and if that makes me heartless or whatever than so be it.
    that is quite depressive, even by my standards... a fitting avatar you have
    one of the main problems of the world is lack of sympathy. while you are one person, your actions/ideals can rub off onto others...

    rationally speaking, does disregarding human life really take priority to the possibility of not having temporary (chances are the person will live longer than your pet) satisfaction from your beloved pet?

    the question i asked before can also be asked of anyone you love, anyone you like, anyone you are happy with, assumming that is a population of people, while each individual is 1 in 7 billion, that is not the chance of them being involved in a hypothetical... there are various ways they could be involved, a fire is but one of them. statistics arent justification for your reasoning. feel free not to answer this next question: has anything happened to you that would make you disgusted of your fellow man?

    have you read the link that other user posted?
    http://www.cracked.com/article_14990...keysphere.html

    it is quite unfortunate for you to have posted at that time given what the post above you says
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Shocking how many pet lovers have put the life of an animal above that of a human being.

    Shame on all of you.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    that is quite depressive, even by my standards... a fitting avatar you have
    one of the main problems of the world is lack of sympathy. while you are one person, your actions/ideals can rub off onto others...

    rationally speaking, does disregarding human life really take priority to the possibility of not having temporary (chances are the person will live longer than your pet) satisfaction from your beloved pet?
    As I said, if they are someone who I don't know in a heart to heart sense (and I only know about 16 out of 7 billion people in that sense) I would value my pets life over theirs. And I would still accept me or anyone who isn't one of those 13 people to be randomly sacrificed by someone else's decision.

    the question i asked before can also be asked of anyone you love, anyone you like, anyone you are happy with, assuming that is a population of people, while each individual is 1 in 7 billion, that is not the chance of them being involved in a hypothetical... there are various ways they could be involved, a fire is but one of them. statistics arent justification for your reasoning. There are people dying of starvation, dying of disease, dying from murder, dying from execution, dying of thirst, dying from medical defects. People are always dying, but does the world mourn at every individuals death? No. So why should I sacrifice something I love for just another number on life's death charts. And as I said, if I was the victim of this death by someone else's wishes, so be it. feel free not to answer this next question: has anything happened to you that would make you disgusted of your fellow man?

    have you read the link that other user posted?
    http://www.cracked.com/article_14990...keysphere.html

    it is quite unfortunate for you to have posted at that time given what the post above you says. He was referring to a person who had direct control over his father's injuries who could have also prevented injuries of her cats and his dad.
    Answers in bold.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Man)
    Answers in bold.
    As I said, if they are someone who I don't know in a heart to heart sense (and I only know about 16 out of 7 billion people in that sense) I would value my pets life over theirs. And I would still accept me or anyone who isn't one of those 13 people to be randomly sacrificed by someone else's decision.
    technically i was talking about would you like it if i chose my pet over the people you know, but the bold is quite shocking. your bond with your cat is so strong that you would choose it rather than the people you know if you had to make a choice? does that not mean you dont think of those that are close to you as being that different to complete strangers?


    There are people dying of starvation, dying of disease, dying from murder, dying from execution, dying of thirst, dying from medical defects. People are always dying, but does the world mourn at every individuals death? No. So why should I sacrifice something I love for just another number on life's death charts. And as I said, if I was the victim of this death by someone else's wishes, so be it
    The same reasoning can be said for me killing my next door neighbour...
    yes there is a lot of sadness in the world but why does that make it a factor when deciding (unlike the ones you mentioned, in this scenario, you have direct and full control of whether a person lives or not, you effectively choose whether or not he/she will die). this is similar to another user who condoned his actions by implying you cant take the piss if you havent helped a person in the third world...

    He was referring to a person who had direct control over his father's injuries who could have also prevented injuries of her cats and his dad.
    and this scenario involves a person who has direct control over someones life
    where did you get the information that she was able to prevent injuries of both her cats and his dad? this is fabricated... if possible, if i were in her position, i would have helped my neighbour and then see how to save as many cats as possible... too many people get so overly attached that they dont think outside their monkeysphere (perfect example of the link that was posted)
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    technically i was talking about would you like it if i chose my pet over the people you know, but the bold is quite shocking. your bond with your cat is so strong that you would choose it rather than the people you know if you had to make a choice? does that not mean you dont think of those that are close to you as being that different to complete strangers?
    If I had direct control over them getting killed, no. But if the scenario was 'would I kill my pet in order to stop someone who I don't know in a heart to heart sense from getting stabbed in the street' yes.


    The same reasoning can be said for me killing my next door neighbour...
    yes there is a lot of sadness in the world but why does that make it a factor when deciding (unlike the ones you mentioned, in this scenario, you have direct and full control of whether a person lives or not, you effectively choose whether or not he/she will die). this is similar to another user who condoned his actions by implying you cant take the piss if you havent helped a person in the third world...
    If there was a threat to them that was directly in front of me I would try to help both my pet and them.

    and this scenario involves a person who has direct control over someones life
    where did you get the information that she was able to prevent injuries of both her cats and his dad? this is fabricated... if possible, if i were in her position, i would have helped my neighbour and then see how to save as many cats as possible..
    From what I interpreted, this woman and her cats were perfectly safe, and she turned him away while he was in a fire because she didn't want her cats getting harmed, which would be ridiculous.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Man)
    If I had direct control over them getting killed, no. But if the scenario was 'would I kill my pet in order to stop someone who I don't know in a heart to heart sense from getting stabbed in the street' yes.


    If there was a threat to them directly in front of me I would try to help both of my pet and them.


    From what I interpreted, this woman and her cats were perfectly safe, and she turned him away.
    while its a grey area, stabbing=/=death so fair enough i guess...i cant comment...

    same

    that doesnt mean you can assume she knows she could easily accommodate another person and yet refused anyway...
    regardless of your interpretation, the post is very relevant to this thread... an application to this hypothetical...
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    That would be difficult. I guess it'd depend on the ages of each as well like say the person was young and that I'd save them and if the pet was older they'd lived most of their life so I'd save the person. An vice versa thats a really tough question.
    I personally really love animals and especially if it was my own it'd be difficult not to save them.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Not surprising that some use a sense of their pet's intrinsic value to mask that the basis of their reasoning lies in personal gain or lack thereof.

    Your pet gives you affection. If they died, you would feel sad. You have no personal connection to the stranger, therefore have nothing to lose if they died.


    Classy.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think that i would choose the animal as I love animals. It would depend on the type of person, if they are a rapist/ murderer then maybe not.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Pet, no question.

    I'd even be more likely to save an animal I had no connection to than a person, and I'm a fur-wearing meat eater.

    People should be intelligent enough to look after themselves and if they get into peril on their own, they've only themselves to blame.
    you're going to go REAL far in law arent you..
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    you're going to go REAL far in law arent you..
    Lol, I consistently get first-class results. I don't see how my personal beliefs about individual responsibility would have an impact on my career?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Lol, I consistently get first-class results. I don't see how my personal beliefs about individual responsibility would have an impact on my career?
    Because your supposed to be a fine upstanding character. Who's going to want a judge that tells crime victims that its their own fault for not being as intelligent as you?

    "you know if you were as intelligent as me you wouldnt have walked down that dark alley in the first place. I sentence you to 50 hours of community service for wasting police time with your stupidity now piss off thicko"
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Lol, I consistently get first-class results. I don't see how my personal beliefs about individual responsibility would have an impact on my career?
    exactly what green tea said..
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Lol, I consistently get first-class results. I don't see how my personal beliefs about individual responsibility would have an impact on my career?
    Well, going by your statement, you'd probably acquit a man for driving and hitting a pedestrian in the countryside and then just driving off, because "he shouldn't have been walking in the middle of the road, what an idiot."

    And then you would lose your job.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 26, 2012
New on TSR

THE world university rankings 2014-2015 revealed

Will they affect your uni choices?

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.