• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Immorality of Saving a Dog, or "Why My Pet is Worth More Alive Than You Are!"

Now you've changed the question. These are two absolutely COMPLETELY different questions.

No, because the basic issue in the scenario was a pet owner who has a choice...save a beloved pet or a stranger. You say you would save your pet before a stranger, because you think human life has no special value. You also admit however, that you would save a human loved one of yours over your pet.

So I asked...if I were the pet owner and YOUR loved one was the stranger would you prefer I saved MY pet or YOUR loved one. The only thing I have changed in the scenario is the PERSPECTIVE. Everything else remains the same. Either you or your loved one is the "stranger." How relative is the value of human life then?
 
Good plan, since they clearly run the risk of NOT being saved by some people who prefer wallets and Iphones. ;)

Now the question becomes will your cat save my Iphone?

HINT: For 3 treats, they'll save your Iphone. For 6 treats they'll save you. For 9 treats, we'll keep our mouth shut so you won't have to let everybody know that you were rescued by a 12 pound cat.
 
LOL, I did not ask you about non-animal loved ones in order to ask if YOU would chose them over a pet. Would you want ME to pick your loved one over my pet if they were both drowning? Your brother, your sister, your mother or father, niece, nephew, uncle, best freind...I know NONE of these people...

Would you honestly prefer I saved my pet...or YOUR loved one?


See that is what I don't get.


People fail to realize that this "stranger" is probably someone's Dad, Mom, brother, sister, or child. Possibly several of these things.


Turn it around... you're too far away to change anything or affect the outcome; all you can do is observe, by the time you get there it will be over. You're watching a stranger on the shore trying to decide whether to save his own pet/dog/cat, or YOUR spouse, parent, child, brother, sister, beloved friend.... which do you want HIM to choose?


If he chooses according to the criteria the pet-savers are using, he is going to save his animal while you get to watch him callously let your loved one drown.


Now, tell me, if you can, how you'll be totally understanding and pat the fellow on the back and say "I can't blame you a bit for letting my fiancé/mom/child drown, if I'd been you I'd have saved my dog too, humans be damned."

If you can't honestly say that... then you need to re-examine your viewpoint.
 
96.38% of dogs are good. The 3.62% that ain't is usually due to the fact they were raised by some human jackass. The percentage of people that are good is much lower. The moral thing to do is not to be a speciesist and save the dog regardless if it is yours or not.
 
No, because the basic issue in the scenario was a pet owner who has a choice...save a beloved pet or a stranger. You say you would save your pet before a stranger, because you think human life has no special value. You also admit however, that you would save a human loved one of yours over your pet.

So I asked...if I were the pet owner and YOUR loved one was the stranger would you prefer I saved MY pet or YOUR loved one. The only thing I have changed in the scenario is the PERSPCTIVE. Everything else remains the same. Either you or your loved one is the "stranger." How relative is the value of human life then?

Who I would want YOU to save is a completely different question than who would I be likely to save.

As I said, these questions are no-win when people don't fall in line with expectations. Am I sure what I would do? Nope. If you say you ARE? Perhaps you don't love your animals the way I love mine. They are family. Right or wrong? That's who they are. Do I treat them like people? Nope. I treat them like animals. But I have an abiding love for them, a sense of loyalty and natural protective instinct for them that transcends their being "just a dog."
 
I think saving a family member even if it is a dog over a stranger is the moral choice. :shrug:
 
Legally speaking my dog being my property is an extension of myself. Therefore, would I save myself over a stranger? Of Course.
 
The moral dilemma I see in this problem is not the understandable love some pet owner's have for their pets. No, the dilemma is that those who argue for the beloved pet over the human being are unable to see the moral difference between saving their lifelong companion animal and saving the life of a fellow human being.

Does anyone believe they have the moral right of it? Does anyone agree they are morally corrupt?

No, I don't agree that they are morally corrupt. Since morals are essentially man-made in the interest of humans, and we have the brains to make a choice, it doesn't meant that we will all make the choice of human stranger over a pet that we love. Just because a majority accepts something as morally right, does not make it a universal truth, nor does it make someone who values a pet that they personally love, over another human, morally corrupt. None of us truly know what we would do in that situation until we were actually in it, so we answer based on what we believe to be true.
 
No. That is what YOU are saying my position is. I am stating that a human being has more intrinsic value than a beloved pet. Why? Simply that the pet serves your needs while the human being has the potential to serve ALL needs. Big difference.



LOL I was simply tired of dealing with the pack of dog lover/human haters in that thread. I wanted to have the real issue hashed out instead of hidden behind "I can't swim" or "the human would try to drown me" or even "No dog would make it hard to save like a human would." ;)

Me too! :lol:
 
Who I would want YOU to save is a completely different question than who would I be likely to save.

As I said, these questions are no-win when people don't fall in line with expectations. Am I sure what I would do? Nope. If you say you ARE? Perhaps you don't love your animals the way I love mine. They are family. Right or wrong? That's who they are. Do I treat them like people? Nope. I treat them like animals. But I have an abiding love for them, a sense of loyalty and natural protective instinct for them that transcends their being "just a dog."

It is not different, it is part of the whole fabric of this issue. You value your loved ones. You would save them over your own beloved pet. If you are honest, instead of dodging the question, you would say you'd want a pet owner with a choice of saving their pet or YOU or YOUR loved one... to choose to save you or your loved one.

You refuse to admit this, because you would immediately realize how false your original position is. If YOU or YOUR loved ones have that kind of value, then the stranger you ignore to save your pet has the same value. To ignore him is morally wrong.
 
I have to wonder about a person's values who would choose the dog over the human being. I'm sorry if it offends, but I think that is so incredibly self centered. I would totally save the person. It is a gosh darn human being. :roll: They know what's going on. They're aware of what is happening to them, so is their family.

Like I said on the other thread, if you choose your dog over a stranger, then you are contributing to the pain that family will feel. I cannot imagine how I would feel about the person who chose their pet over my loved one. I think it's absolutely despicable.
 
I agree that there is nothing intrinsically better about human life. But I do believe that society functions better when we value human life more than animal life in general, and that if we want a better society a random person's life should be given more value than a dog.

What if you had to choose between saving Yadier Molina or someone working on a cure for cancer?

I'm saving Molina.
 
Now you've changed the question. These are two absolutely COMPLETELY different questions.


No, miss Maggie, they are EXACTLY the same questions... just in one case you're the saver, in the other you're the person whose loved one is drowning. It is a perfect mirror, and puts the question in personal terms to make you understand exactly WHAT it is you're doing when you choose your pet instead of the random human... you're condemning someone's Dad/Husband/Child to drown for an animal's sake. This just puts you in the other seat.

Not comfy, is it?
 
Who I would want YOU to save is a completely different question than who would I be likely to save.

As I said, these questions are no-win when people don't fall in line with expectations. Am I sure what I would do? Nope. If you say you ARE? Perhaps you don't love your animals the way I love mine. They are family. Right or wrong? That's who they are. Do I treat them like people? Nope. I treat them like animals. But I have an abiding love for them, a sense of loyalty and natural protective instinct for them that transcends their being "just a dog."




If we made it a bit more personal... if we said that the stranger was a beautiful little six year old boy with eyes that reminded you of your fiancée, who looked at you with pleading and fear in his eyes and begged "please don't let me die!" before he went under... does that change anything for you?
 
Had a fire in my house once. Got the dog out then went back and got the wife. It has been 20 years and she still occasionally nags me about that.
 
No, I don't agree that they are morally corrupt. Since morals are essentially man-made in the interest of humans, and we have the brains to make a choice, it doesn't meant that we will all make the choice of human stranger over a pet that we love. Just because a majority accepts something as morally right, does not make it a universal truth, nor does it make someone who values a pet that they personally love, over another human, morally corrupt. None of us truly know what we would do in that situation until we were actually in it, so we answer based on what we believe to be true.

I know you are trying to be balanced and I appreciate the effort. However, stating that morals are man-made in our own interests is hardly relevant because it is the measure we use to determine moral action. The fact that we can try to create moral standards puts us head and shoulders above the other creatures of the earth.

They don't have morals, they have instincts...including the pack instinct for dogs and the pride instinct for cats. We too have instincts, which can be curbed by our moral value systems. Thus, you cannot simply dismiss human morality and claim it is no more moral to save a human over a dog, when you know in truth it IS immoral to make the opposite of such a choice.
 
No, miss Maggie, they are EXACTLY the same questions... just in one case you're the saver, in the other you're the person whose loved one is drowning. It is a perfect mirror, and puts the question in personal terms to make you understand exactly WHAT it is you're doing when you choose your pet instead of the random human... you're condemning someone's Dad/Husband/Child to drown for an animal's sake. This just puts you in the other seat.

Not comfy, is it?

I think that's the proper way to look at it. I couldn't justify doing that to someone else or to their families for a dog's sake.
 
I know you are trying to be balanced and I appreciate the effort. However, stating that morals are man-made in our own interests is hardly relevant because it is the measure we use to determine moral action. The fact that we can try to create moral standards puts us head and shoulders above the other creatures of the earth.

They don't have morals, they have instincts...including the pack instinct for dogs and the pride instinct for cats. We too have instincts, which can be curbed by our moral value systems. Thus, you cannot simply dismiss human morality and claim it is no more moral to save a human over a dog, when you know in truth it IS immoral to make the opposite of such a choice.

Yes, I can simply dismiss it. My morals are based on my value system, regardless of what the majority decides my morals should be.
 
I think that's the proper way to look at it. I couldn't justify doing that to someone else or to their families for a dog's sake.


It got quiet all the sudden, didn't it? :wassat1:


It's uncomfortable... because they suddenly realize what they are REALLY saying is "I want to save MY dog while I let YOUR child drown... but I want YOU to save MY child and let your dog drown!"

Put that way it is mighty hard to avoid seeing the incredible selfishness of the viewpoint.
 
Yes, I can simply dismiss it. My morals are based on my value system, regardless of what the majority decides my morals should be.



So Lizzie... you'd be okay with a stranger letting your daughter drown while he saved his dog instead? You'd pat them on the back and give them affirmation and say "I understand you made a choice based on your own valuation system, and I don't blame you."


I'm just wondering if you'd be consistent if the shoe was on the other foot.
 
Yes, I can simply dismiss it. My morals are based on my value system, regardless of what the majority decides my morals should be.

Arrgh, Goshen beat me to it. I'll let you answer his post instead. ;)
 
Last edited:
When my father figure died I shed a few manly tears. When I had to put my dog down I sobbed like a child. Guess which one embodied unconditional love and support.

I dont know which one I would save to be honest and unless we are actually in the situation, no one can really say. You can rationalize it and moralize it but the reality is, most people would likely be first and foremost invested in saving themselves. A Kabayashi Maru 'test' sucks. So...Id cheat. Save the dog (go for the sure thing) then go build a time machine, go back in time, and prevent the stranger from falling in the water in the first place.
 
It is not different, it is part of the whole fabric of this issue. You value your loved ones. You would save them over your own beloved pet. If you are honest, instead of dodging the question, you would say you'd want a pet owner with a choice of saving their pet or YOU or YOUR loved one... to choose to save you or your loved one.

You refuse to admit this, because you would immediately realize how false your original position is. If YOU or YOUR loved ones have that kind of value, then the stranger you ignore to save your pet has the same value. To ignore him is morally wrong.

I'm not going to continue arguing the same point over and over again because, honestly? I can't defend it very well. You asked what I'd do. I told you what I thought I'd do. Would I? Well, here's what I know: I'll likely never find out.

No, miss Maggie, they are EXACTLY the same questions... just in one case you're the saver, in the other you're the person whose loved one is drowning. It is a perfect mirror, and puts the question in personal terms to make you understand exactly WHAT it is you're doing when you choose your pet instead of the random human... you're condemning someone's Dad/Husband/Child to drown for an animal's sake. This just puts you in the other seat.

Not comfy, is it?

No, frankly, it's not. As I said above, it's rather indefensible. But there it is nonetheless. ;)

If we made it a bit more personal... if we said that the stranger was a beautiful little six year old boy with eyes that reminded you of your fiancée, who looked at you with pleading and fear in his eyes and begged "please don't let me die!" before he went under... does that change anything for you?

OMFG, of course it changes things. Lordy.
 
So Lizzie... you'd be okay with a stranger letting your daughter drown while he saved his dog instead? You'd pat them on the back and give them affirmation and say "I understand you made a choice based on your own valuation system, and I don't blame you."


I'm just wondering if you'd be consistent if the shoe was on the other foot.

Would I pat them on the back? No. I understand that saving my daughter would be the humanitarian thing to do, but it is not his moral responsibility to do so. It would also not be his moral responsibility to save me. If I am incapable of saving myself, then I am the one who is lacking, and not him. I understand what all of you are saying, but humanitarian and moral are not the same thing. I have a humanitarian job. I do things to prolong and improve quality of life every day on the job, but it is not my moral obligation.
 
I'm not going to continue arguing the same point over and over again because, honestly? I can't defend it very well. You asked what I'd do. I told you what I thought I'd do. Would I? Well, here's what I know: I'll likely never find out.

No, frankly, it's not. As I said above, it's rather indefensible. But there it is nonetheless. ;)

OMFG, of course it changes things. Lordy.

That's okay. I have a sense that you would do the "right thing" if push came to shove and something similar to the dilemma actually occurred in front of you. I have faith in human nature despite the many bad examples some human present. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom