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

[keith]

The question was phrased so the person who would save his dog would appear selfish. The fact is some might save a stray dog over a person.

 

[MaggieD]

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.

Latest dilemma?? Do I "thank" you or slap you?? :rofl

 

[X Factor]

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?

Except that putting your family member in the position of the drowning person is a fallacy that shows nothing. I'm not uncomfortable at all with saying that in THAT position, my preference would be that you save my family member even over one of your own family members or someone else you know. Does that make my position right? It's like a defense attorney asking if you were the one accused of a crime would you want to be convicted on the State's presented case? Most people would say there would never want to be convicted no matter the strength of the State's case. It's why juries are instructed to view the actions of the defendant by a reasonable person standard. We understand that if you put yourself (or in this case a family member) in a particular position then you're not necessarily going to be objective or even reasonable.

 

[lizzie]

The question was phrased so the person who would save his dog would appear selfish. The fact is some might save a stray dog over a person.

Frankly, it would depend on the person in question. :lol:

 

[MaggieD]

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.

I want to save MY sister while I let YOUR sister drown. But I want YOU to save MY sister and let YOUR sister drown. Where's the dilemma there? Where's the outrage? Where's the surprise?

Edit: And what's the difference??

 

[Goshin]

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.

Not exactly like this no... but you never know what may really happen. I've been in some weird-ass situations, I guarantee.

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.

WHY does it change anything?

It was never said the random stranger was some faceless creature you can easily ignore. It could just as easily have been a frightened child, a sweet little old lady with ten grandchildren that adore her, a young man with a pregnant wife nearing her time to deliver their first baby... any number of sympathetic figures that could wrench at your heartstrings.

Everyone who is now an adult was once a cute little six year old... do they not deserve saving just because they grew up? Did they deserve saving at six but not at sixteen?


It's about humanity, and being humane, and realizing that other people are real and are loved by someone and depended on by someone.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

Maybe I shouldn't have let Goshen's response speak for me after all. I respect your principled stance, I really do. But I'd like to put it into real perspective.

If YOU (or your daughter) were the drowning stranger calling for aid, and I was the pet owner who saw both my dog and you (or your daughter) drowning...which would you HONESTLY want me to save?

I ask only because I have encountered many people who, in the safety of their comfortable lives, make statements similar to yours...only to find in the midst of disaster a strong drive for self-preservation and the preservation of those they love. It's only human nature.

 

[Goshin]

I want to save MY sister while I let YOUR sister drown. But I want YOU to save MY sister and let YOUR sister drown. Where's the dilemma there? Where's the outrage? Where's the surprise?

This is an actual different question... now you're putting it between two humans, one known and valued, one an unknown.

That is entirely different from a dog.

And that is one of the fundamental points of this whole discussion. A dog may be a beloved companion but they simply do not compare to the relationships of humans, ie husband/wife, parent/child, brother/sister. Pet owner/pet just does not fit on the same level as those previous relationship examples.

 

[lizzie]

If YOU (or your daughter) were the drowning stranger calling for aid, and I was the pet owner who saw both my dog and you (or your daughter) drowning...which would you HONESTLY want me to save?

I ask only because I have encountered many people who, in the safety of their comfortable lives, make statements similar to yours...only to find in the midst of disaster a strong drive for self-preservation and the preservation of those they love.

Did I not state that none of us truly know what we would do, until we were in the situation? You can keep beating the drum, and you will keep getting the same answer from me. You are talking about a humanitarian response, and humanitarian =/= moral.

 

[keith]

Let us complicate matters a bit. You have the choice of saving one of your human loved ones or two strangers. Now what do you choose? Now remember just like in the dog versus a single stranger choice one more human is dead if you pick your loved one. You might save your child and let two other children drown. Are you selfish? Is this an immoral choice?

 

[Goshin]

Except that putting your family member in the position of the drowning person is a fallacy that shows nothing. I'm not uncomfortable at all with saying that in THAT position, my preference would be that you save my family member even over one of your own family members or someone else you know. Does that make my position right? It's like a defense attorney asking if you were the one accused of a crime would you want to be convicted on the State's presented case? Most people would say there would never want to be convicted no matter the strength of the State's case. It's why juries are instructed to view the actions of the defendant by a reasonable person standard. We understand that if you put yourself (or in this case a family member) in a particular position then you're not necessarily going to be objective or even reasonable.

Nope, it is a perfect example, because it holds your position up to a mirror and makes you look at it from the other side.


If someone saved THEIR OWN child and let mine drown.... I'd be very unhappy but I'd UNDERSTAND. I could not blame them. I would have done the same. I would forgive them, once the hurt wore off.


But if someone let my child (or any child) drown to save their DOG.... I have to say that person would forever after be lower than scum to me, and lucky if I didn't do the human race a favor and remove him from it.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Except that putting your family member in the position of the drowning person is a fallacy that shows nothing. I'm not uncomfortable at all with saying that in THAT position, my preference would be that you save my family member even over one of your own family members or someone else you know. Does that make my position right? It's like a defense attorney asking if you were the one accused of a crime would you want to be convicted on the State's presented case? Most people would say there would never want to be convicted no matter the strength of the State's case. It's why juries are instructed to view the actions of the defendant by a reasonable person standard. We understand that if you put yourself (or in this case a family member) in a particular position then you're not necessarily going to be objective or even reasonable.

With all due respect that is dodging the issue at hand. Although people would be disappointed they would not hold you accountable for saving a human child or spouse of your own. That's because they know they would make the same choice. However, the issue is NOT "my human or your human," it is "Human or Pet." You simply refuse to see any difference, and that is what is so curious.

Goshen and I are trying to put the issue into a clear and personal perspective. Instead of dealing with it honestly and directly, you hedge and point to irrelevant comparisons.

The question is very simple, switching perspectives...if YOU or your child/spouse/father/best freind/etc. was the "stranger" in the scenario, and I was the pet lover who saw you crying for aid and also saw my dog drowning...which would you honestly want me to save? YOU (or insert loved one) or my dog??

 

[Sharona]

With all due respecrt that is dodging the issue at hand. Although people would be disappointed they would not hold you accountable for saving a human child or spouse of your own. That's because they know they would make the same choice. However, the issue is NOT "my human or your human," it is "Human or Pet." You simply refuse to see any difference, and that is what is so curious.

Goshen and I are trying to put the issue into a clear and personal perspective. Instead of dealing with it honestly and directly, you hedge and point to irrelevant comparisons.

The question is very simple, switching perspectives...if YOU or your child/spouse/father/best freind/etc. was the "stranger" in the scenario, and I was the pet lover who say you crying for aid and also saw my dog drowning...which would you honestly want me to save? YOU (or insert loved one) or my dog??

I would save the stranger and then weep over my dog.

 

[Anagram]

I want to save MY sister while I let YOUR sister drown. But I want YOU to save MY sister and let YOUR sister drown. Where's the dilemma there? Where's the outrage? Where's the surprise?

Edit: And what's the difference??

I feel like generally there's a huge difference between the value a human contributes and the devastation a human death brings to friends and families than a dog's. Not always, but a vast majority. I can justify saving my sister over yours because their deaths produce roughly the same effect on average. I couldn't justify saving my dog. I think the value contributed by the average human and the devastation of their deaths is far greater than a dog.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The question was phrased so the person who would save his dog would appear selfish. The fact is some might save a stray dog over a person.

The question as phrased is clear. The analysis (which you may not have read) is my position that to save the dog is selfish and morally wrong. The fact that someone might save the dog over the human needs a moral answer...that is the dilemma.

 

[Henrin]

So if I'm to understand you guys correctly in the heat of the moment you would ignore your love for your dog and save the stranger that you have no emotional connection to at all. I don't believe you.

I also don't believe there is anything moral about ignoring your obligations you have towards your dog and allowing it to drown. To me family is the most important thing in that situation and I have the moral obligation to save my family when they are trouble.

 

[MaggieD]

This is an actual different question... now you're putting it between two humans, one known and valued, one an unknown.

That is entirely different from a dog.

And that is one of the fundamental points of this whole discussion. A dog may be a beloved companion but they simply do not compare to the relationships of humans, ie husband/wife, parent/child, brother/sister. Pet owner/pet just does not fit on the same level as those previous relationship examples.

My dog is a family member. I just don't know what else I can say. That's just the way it is at my house. Captain is probably right, in the end. I would probably do the right thing by society standards and save the person. But my heart would be broken.

 

[Goshin]

The question as phrased is clear. The analysis (which you may not have read) is my position that to save the dog is selfish and morally wrong. The fact that someone might save the dog over the human needs a moral answer...that is the dilemma.

It is really astonishing, the amount of sidestepping, ducking, artful-dodging and eyes-closed ears-plugged 'LA-LA-LA I'M NOT LISTENING' that has gone on in this thread.

I give respect to some of the opposition who have answered straight up and not tried to sidestep the issue, but others who have tried to change the terms to human-human as if it were the same thing... that's the whole point, human-human ISN'T the same thing as human-dog!

Unreal.

 

[lizzie]

Maybe I shouldn't have let Goshen's response speak for me after all. I respect your principled stance, I really do. But I'd like to put it into real perspective.

I have a question to pose to you:
In Pre-Columbian cultures, was it immoral to practice human sacrifice? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[X Factor]

Nope, it is a perfect example, because it holds your position up to a mirror and makes you look at it from the other side.


If someone saved THEIR OWN child and let mine drown.... I'd be very unhappy but I'd UNDERSTAND. I could not blame them. I would have done the same. I would forgive them, once the hurt wore off.


But if someone let my child (or any child) drown to save their DOG.... I have to say that person would forever after be lower than scum to me, and lucky if I didn't do the human race a favor and remove him from it.

Interesting, so you'd kill someone for rescuing their dog? As I recall, I've never actually answered the question. Objectively, I feel the correct moral response is to save the person, and maybe that's what I would do. I'll even go so far as to say that that's what I hope I'd do. What I do object to is this notion that a dog is not worthy to be saved. In the other thread I said that I would protect my dog with deadly force if necessary if someone broke into my house. The principles are exactly the same, yet for some reason that does not bring down the judgment. If you're standing on principle here then the character of the person in question should make no difference, whether it's Charlie Manson or Mother Theresa, yet I see equivocation if the person we're talking about is maybe not so good which just puts you in the same boat (pun intended) as the rest of us.

 

[Goshin]

So if I'm to understand you guys correctly in the heat of the moment you would ignore your love for your dog and save the stranger that you have no emotional connection to at all. I don't believe you.

Disbelieve me if you want. I've already saved strangers before at risk of my OWN life. I don't have to wonder what I'd do in a crisis, I already know.

 

[MaggieD]

So if I'm to understand you guys correctly in the heat of the moment you would ignore your love for your dog and save the stranger that you have no emotional connection to at all. I don't believe you.

I think there's a difference in the way some people feel about animals. I call myself a Middle Grounder when it comes to my animals. They are family members; yet they are treated like dogs. They are taught to obey and are wonderful companion animals. There are others who thing animals are "take 'em or leave 'em" (who will give them away when they're inconvenient, etc.) And still others who treat their animals better than the people in their lives. I've never understood either end of that spectrum. I like my Middle Ground.

 

[Goshin]

Interesting, so you'd kill someone for rescuing their dog? As I recall, I've never actually answered the question. Objectively, I feel the correct moral response is to save the person, and maybe that's what I would do. I'll even go so far as to say that that's what I hope I'd do. What I do object to is this notion that a dog is not worthy to be saved. In the other thread I said that I would protect my dog with deadly force if necessary if someone broke into my house. The principles are exactly the same, yet for some reason that does not bring down the judgment. If you're standing on principle here then the character of the person in question should make no difference, whether it's Charlie Manson or Mother Theresa, yet I see equivocation if the person we're talking about is maybe not so good which just puts you in the same boat (pun intended) as the rest of us.

Again, this isn't the issue. Self-defense is an entirely different thing from who-do-you-save. In one case you have a person DEMONSTRATING harmful intent. In the other case you do not.

I didn't say I'd kill someone for rescuing their dog. I said I'd be tempted to kill them for letting a child drown while preferring to save their dog. Not saying I would, I'm just saying that if you can honestly save your dog while watching a little child drown... you've given up your humanity.

 

[keith]

The question as phrased is clear. The analysis (which you may not have read) is my position that to save the dog is selfish and morally wrong. The fact that someone might save the dog over the human needs a moral answer...that is the dilemma.

No dilemma for a misogynist.

 

[X Factor]

With all due respect that is dodging the issue at hand. Although people would be disappointed they would not hold you accountable for saving a human child or spouse of your own. That's because they know they would make the same choice. However, the issue is NOT "my human or your human," it is "Human or Pet." You simply refuse to see any difference, and that is what is so curious.

Goshen and I are trying to put the issue into a clear and personal perspective. Instead of dealing with it honestly and directly, you hedge and point to irrelevant comparisons.

The question is very simple, switching perspectives...if YOU or your child/spouse/father/best freind/etc. was the "stranger" in the scenario, and I was the pet lover who saw you crying for aid and also saw my dog drowning...which would you honestly want me to save? YOU (or insert loved one) or my dog??

Ok, I will answer your simple question as you've asked it. I would want you to save my loved one just as I would want you to save my loved one even if it's at the expense of someone you love. That's a direct and honest answer to the question you've asked me.