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

[Captain Adverse]

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.

Okay, so your final response is no response...just "let's see what happens?"

Why participate then? The issue at debate is the morality of choosing to save a pet over saving a human. Like you, instead of addressing the moral issue head on some members are doing everything in their power to cloud the issue, hedge around it, or dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. Does it touch that deep a nerve?

Again, I respect your perspective but am saddened by your avoidance responses.

 

[lizzie]

Okay, so your final response is no response...just "let's see what happens?"

Why participate then?

Because you asked.

 

[Goshin]

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.

For a human, humanitarian and moral should walk rather closely together.

Unless one is a major misogynist.

 

[X Factor]

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.

Now you're equivocating. I'm still choosing animal life over human life. If you're standing on principle, the character of the human as well as their actions should make no difference to you. Let's try it your way. If your kid broke into a house and the homeowner shot him/her out of fear you'd hurt their dog (let's say you know for a fact that that's why they fired the gun), would you feel it was justified?

 

[Goshin]

Now you're equivocating. I'm still choosing animal life over human life. If you're standing on principle, the character of the human as well as their actions should make no difference to you. Let's try it your way. If your kid broke into a house and the homeowner shot him/her out of fear you'd hurt their dog (let's say you know for a fact that that's why they fired the gun), would you feel it was justified?

Yup. The moment he broke into someone else's house uninvited he brought that fate on himself. I'd be saddened, but I could not blame the homeowner.

The reason this is ENTIRELY different and unrelated is because in one case someone is committing a serious crime, in the other they are a victim of circumstance.

 

[lizzie]

For a human, humanitarian and moral should walk rather closely together.

Unless one is a major misogynist.

It would depend on the specific circumstances of any given situation. I consider it immoral to kill, lie, cheat, steal, and intentionally hurt other people. The question posed in the op is not a moral decision, but a humanitarian one, and would depend on circumstances surrounding the situation. None of us know what we would do until we were there. Suppose the situation were that you were in war, and you saved the dog that was on "our" side, but killed the human combatants. Is this a moral problem? Making a blanket statement that humans should be morally valued above animals doesn't hold water.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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?

I am not well-versed in Pre-Columbian cultures, so I cannot give a well-reasoned or considered answer. Sorry.

In any case that is another side-track from the issue at hand. The moral rules we currently use and hopefully share are at point.

 

[lizzie]

Again, I respect your perspective but am saddened by your avoidance responses.

No need to be saddened, as my point of view has no effect on you personally.

 

[lizzie]

I am not well-versed in Pre-Columbian cultures, so I cannot give a well-reasoned or considered answer. Sorry.

Of course you can. Moral decisions, if they are truly moral questions, are consistent and universal. Was it immoral for the Aztecs to sacrifice a human in their culture, and if so, why?

 

[Goshin]

It would depend on the specific circumstances of any given situation. I consider it immoral to kill, lie, cheat, steal, and intentionally hurt other people. The question posed in the op is not a moral decision, but a humanitarian one, and would depend on circumstances surrounding the situation. None of us know what we would do until we were there. Suppose the situation were that you were in war, and you saved the dog that was on "our" side, but killed the human combatants. Is this a moral problem? Making a blanket statement that humans should be morally valued above animals doesn't hold water.

This is adding circumstances and changed parameters to the dilemma, rather than answering the fundamental question of whether one's view is:
my dog > someone else's loved one
or vice-versa, when there are no extenuating circumstances like war, self-defense, or any of the other sidesteps that have been attempted.

 

[X Factor]

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.

Ok, let's say it's a (maybe even your) kid who threw the dog into the water then fell in themselves. Still tempted to kill me for going in after my dog?

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.

When did the stranger become a child? Does it make a difference to you if the person drowning is an adult?

 

[Goshin]

Of course you can. Moral decisions, if they are truly moral questions, are consistent and universal. Was it immoral for the Aztecs to sacrifice a human in their culture, and if so, why?

It would depend on a number of things.

1. The intent of the sacrifice.
2. The assumed consequences of sacrificing vs not sacrificing
3. whether 1 and 2 are actually correct or were mistaken.
4. If 1-3 are correct, whether the good created actually outweighs the loss of a human life.

It is actually not relevant, though, to the original dilemma, which is chiefly a question of how much one values human life in general, and particularly whether one values a pet above an unspecified human.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

I have actually made life and death decisions several times in my lifetime, and have saved several lives at risk to my own. I have interceded to prevent a number of crimes, including assaults on men, women and children.

Whether you believe it or not is a matter of complete indifference, what matters HERE is how you justify saving a dog (after anthropomorphizing it into "family") rather than the life of a human stranger.

The same question applies to you. If YOU (or a loved one) were the "stranger" in the scenario, and I was the pet lover who saw you (or your loved one) drowning at the same time I saw my dog drowning, would you honestly want me to save the dog and let YOU (or insert loved one) drown?

 

[X Factor]

Yup. The moment he broke into someone else's house uninvited he brought that fate on himself. I'd be saddened, but I could not blame the homeowner.

The reason this is ENTIRELY different and unrelated is because in one case someone is committing a serious crime, in the other they are a victim of circumstance.

It's not unrelated at all. The prinicple is exactly the same. Human life vs animal life. If the person drowning is a bad person, does that change your stance?

 

[Goshin]

Ok, let's say it's a (maybe even your) kid who threw the dog into the water then fell in themselves. Still tempted to kill me for going in after my dog?



When did the stranger become a child? Does it make a difference to you if the person drowning is an adult?

You're still throwing condition on top of condition to obscure the issue. The dilemma is a fundamental question, what do you value more your pet or a non-specific human life.

 

[X Factor]

This is adding circumstances and changed parameters to the dilemma, rather than answering the fundamental question of whether one's view is:
my dog > someone else's loved one
or vice-versa, when there are no extenuating circumstances like war, self-defense, or any of the other sidesteps that have been attempted.

Ok, but you all keep changing the circumstances as well. First it was a "stranger", then it became a child, then it became your child.

 

[Goshin]

It's not unrelated at all. The prinicple is exactly the same. Human life vs animal life. If the person drowning is a bad person, does that change your stance?

It is entirely unrelated because it changes the question to one of self-protection, which is an entirely different set of circumstances.

STIPULATED that the circumstances can change the dynamic of the question... the original question remains whether someone values their dog over a human.

 

[lizzie]

It is actually not relevant, though, to the original dilemma, which is chiefly a question of how much one values human life in general, and particularly whether one values a pet above an unspecified human.

It is perfectly relevant. The question is concerning whether or not human life is more important than animal life, and whether or not there is a moral obligation to place humans over animals.

If the individual were a criminal who has just recently managed to escape from jail, it would still be the same question.

 

[Goshin]

Ok, but you all keep changing the circumstances as well. First it was a "stranger", then it became a child, then it became your child.

Nice attempt to obscure the issue, considering that you were perfectly content to throw red herrings left and right.

The original question is whether you value your pet's life over a humans.

Period.

 

[X Factor]

You're still throwing condition on top of condition to obscure the issue. The dilemma is a fundamental question, what do you value more your pet or a non-specific human life.

You're the one who's saying that, under certain circumstances, I would actually be justified to to value my pet over "non-specific human life".

 

[lizzie]

This is adding circumstances and changed parameters to the dilemma, rather than answering the fundamental question of whether one's view is:
my dog > someone else's loved one
or vice-versa, when there are no extenuating circumstances like war, self-defense, or any of the other sidesteps that have been attempted.

It's the same principle. It's the question of whether or not I am morally obligated to value an unknown human over a loved pet. I say that it's not a moral problem, but a question of humanitarianism.

 

[Goshin]

It is perfectly relevant. The question is concerning whether or not human life is more important than animal life, and whether or not there is a moral obligation to place humans over animals.

Okay. As a human being I absodamlutely place human life FAR above animal life, and say so unabashedly and unashamedly, and find it pretty baffling how any human can see it otherwise unless they hate their own kind.

 

[Goshin]

You're the one who's saying that, under certain circumstances, I would actually be justified to to value my pet over "non-specific human life".

when someone breaks into your house unasked in the middle of the night, I don't care if you value your antique lamp higher than their life. They broke in, you shoot them. Period. Entirely different circumstance.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

Thank you. I appreciate the honest answer. The reason I ask this question of members is not to embarass them, but merely to point out the essential fallacy of prefering to save a beloved animal (which I sincerely understand, whether you believe it or not) while leaving a human to die.

We all feel that we, ourselves, have value. We also feel that those we love have value. Thinking simply in such terms it is easy to dismiss the value that other people hold as well. My point is that I would choose YOU over the dog, not because I hate my dog, but because I recognize YOUR value as a human being...not only to me, but to you and yours.

I would act in the hope that if I or anyone I loved were in a similar position, the pet owner would feel the same way and save me or my loved one. I would not only thank him but respect him for the hard choice he had to make. I would commisserate over the loss of his beloved pet. I would even attend the funeral...it is the LEAST I could do for a man who saved my life or the life of my loved one while suffering a personal loss as a result.

 

[lizzie]

Okay. As a human being I absodamlutely place human life FAR above animal life, and say so unabashedly and unashamedly, and find it pretty baffling how any human can see it otherwise unless they hate their own kind.

No, I don't hate my own kind, but I value those that I know and love, above others, even if those that I know and love are not humans. I don't know what I would do in that situation, and hopefully will never find out.