Who do you save?

[RedRalph]

While true, the odds of her actually saving someone as opposed to being a murderer are a little better dont you think?

And cats can sometimes kill people as well via things like rabies cant they? But the odd of that are about as slim as my kid turning out to be a murderer.

You could better argue that she will probably produce more people, whereas the cat definitely will not. Someone will bring up overpopulation, but them's the breaks.

 

[bhsup]

Hrm. I hope you guys realize what I was doing with the OP. I was stretching it to the extreme to give the pet the most possible connection to the saving person here while at the same time removing the human from the saving person as much as possible. Obviously everything would change if the animal were just some random animal and not my pet OR if the human were a child, pregnant woman, etc etc

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The two decisions arent equal however. My kid may grow up to save lives. Your cat never will.

The French have a saying: "With 'if" you can fit Paris into a bottle" or something similar.

Never mind. At least I gave it one more shot than I originally intended. Lack of backbone on my part Either I wasn't being clear enough, or you are determined not to get it to sustain the argument. And I think I was pretty clear.

 

[LucyDuke]

Well, in my analysis, the person's probably dying of dehydration due to diarrhea.

You're good.

You also didnt tell me how you would feel towards me if I rescued my dog instead of a family member of yours. Wouldnt that infuriate you if someone did that? Is it too tough a question for you?

I'd be upset. But I'd understand.

 

[MobBoss]

I'd be upset. But I'd understand.

And I think you greatly underestimate how you would feel if it actually happened.

Have some kids, and watch them grow daily from infancy and your attitude about it might change.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

The Khmer civilization still exists, it's called the Kingdom of Cambodia.

Of course, sorry for that... it was night, I added it at last moment and forgot to correct. Anyway, I meant decline of Angkor, all other details are on the link.

 

[Aegis]

I'd save my pet.

I have a duty and responsibility to care for and protect my pet, who is a part of my family. I owe no such duty to a random stranger and I will not violate the trust my pet has in me to care for him/her. Also, the person should be far more capable of saving themselves than a cat/dog would.

As others have said, the random stranger could harm me. He could sue me for injuring him in the process of saving him. Frankly, it would be a tougher choice if I knew the person.

And I think you greatly underestimate how you would feel if it actually happened.

Have some kids, and watch them grow daily from infancy and your attitude about it might change.

Uncle Bob is =\= your children.

 

[MobBoss]

I'd save my pet.

I have a duty and responsibility to care for and protect my pet, who is a part of my family. I owe no such duty to a random stranger and I will not violate the trust my pet has in me to care for him/her. Also, the person should be far more capable of saving themselves than a cat/dog would.

As others have said, the random stranger could harm me. He could sue me for injuring him in the process of saving him. Frankly, it would be a tougher choice if I knew the person.

Depending on what your state law says, you might indeed have an obligation to help. For example, in my own state: http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=67&newsType=1

OLYMPIA – April 28, 2005 – Gov. Christine Gregoire today signed thirty-five bills into law including the “Good Samaritan Law” which makes it a misdemeanor offense to fail to assist a person who has suffered substantial bodily harm, provided that the person could reasonably summon assistance without danger to himself or herself.

Three of the families that campaigned for Substitute House Bill 1236 joined the Governor in her office as she signed the bill. All three families lost a child to a violent crime while onlookers failed to call for help.

“Out of these unbelievable tragedies, today we find hope that no other family may suffer such a terrible loss,” said Governor Gregoire. “We must each be our brother’s keeper.”

Four other states have enacted duty-to-rescue statutes: Vermont, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Duties-to-rescue statutes also exist in 13 European countries. The punishment for a misdemeanor offense is a maximum of 90 days in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both.

 

[JollyRoger]

That just looks like you have to call 911.

 

[Aegis]

Gov. Christine Gregoire today signed thirty-five bills into law including the “Good Samaritan Law” which makes it a misdemeanor offense to fail to assist a person who has suffered substantial bodily harm, provided that the person could reasonably summon assistance without danger to himself or herself.

I bolded the important part of what it says. By all means, I'd call 9-11 to help the stranger. I wouldn't leave them to die without helping in some way or at least trying to save them.

 

[JollyRoger]

Of course, there's the story of Rudy and the Wolves about the crossdresser who called 911 once too often and no one listened to him when it was meaningful.

 

[LucyDuke]

And I think you greatly underestimate how you would feel if it actually happened.

Have some kids, and watch them grow daily from infancy and your attitude about it might change.

I love picking fights and being condescending just as much as you do, Mobby, but the subject wasn't "your kid", it was "a family member of yours", and I haven't got the time I usually do. Obviously I don't know exactly how I would feel if my kid happened to be the completely random person not chosen by a stranger over his beloved pet. I'm pretty sure I'd be upset. I'm also pretty sure I would understand what drove someone to choose their beloved pet over a completely random person. So, yeah, not sure how having kids is going to change anything about "I'd be upset. But I'd understand." Maybe I'd be [adjective] upset. Will that do?

 

[JollyRoger]

Who do you push off of the ark? Humans outside your clan or animals with a God-given seat? How can you look into the eyes of a father when you have tossed his kid overboard?

 

[azzaman333]

The human because it's supposedly illegal not to. I wouldn't care either way otherwise.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The are far more people now the planet and its biosphere can sustain. Rules that prioritize human life and material welfare among all other things, and especially nature, contribute to worsening of the situation.

Last time I checked the situation in the OP was about a human and a pet. Yeah, we weren't talking about ecological sustainability.

There is no fundamental difference between human being and an animal. Strong sense of division between humans and other animals is the instinct based on principle of friend or foe. So this sense is natural and animal.

I don't recall of any animals having intellectual capacity on the same level as a human. I'd love to see a monkey conducting evolutionary genetics research. I really do.

The larger the group you belong to the weaker are you. It's literally. Small society, an aborigine village for example, depends more deeply on every men they have than huge society, e.g. megalopolis. In huge society you have tools, you have specialist and luxuries that allow you to be motionless, and so degradate your body. You don't have to walk, if you have a car or moving staircase.

Weaker, if you discount the technology. If you're so concerned about the strength of the body, genetic engineering and biological enhancements can help.

Also, your biological "laws" still don't illustrate why the pet is worth saving MORE than the human.

 

[Newbunkle]

The pet is worth saving because it means more to the person doing the saving than the stranger does. There needs to be no other justification for it.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Last time I checked the situation in the OP was about a human and a pet. Yeah, we weren't talking about ecological sustainability.

You the one who has been asking questions farther and farther from the topic.

I don't recall of any animals having intellectual capacity on the same level as a human. I'd love to see a monkey conducting evolutionary genetics research. I really do.

What is an intellectual capacity? How do you measure it? Common human can not even understand his own psychology, and measures intelligence of others based on their communicability, education or compliance with local culture. Common human tries to apply human psychology, even life style and cultural patterns to an animal. You did the same just now. Common human never tries to put himself in place of an animal and its world, because he is anthropocentric and conformist, and only interested in human world.

Humans do evolutionary genetics research because humans have mechanisms of communicating knowledge to each other, storing it and transmitting it from generation to generation. This ability does not depend on intelligence so much as on other body and brain features.

All those sciences and knowledges are products of civilization history, but not of an intelligence of one random human, though he has access to them through those mechanisms of knowledge storing and communicating. So when it comes to comparing human intelligence with animal, you actually compare summarized intelligence of millions of humans of whole history with summarized intelligence of only a dozen of animals at best.

Weaker, if you discount the technology. If you're so concerned about the strength of the body, genetic engineering and biological enhancements can help.

You are too optimistic about technology.

Practically every new technology weakens physical abilities of human, to say more - intellectual abilities too. Technologies make people dependable on them, even addicted.

Also, your biological "laws" still don't illustrate why the pet is worth saving MORE than the human.

Look. I didn't said that. You trying to read between the lines.

I said they are equal by default.

And because the pet is mine (so it is a friend, or part of the family, or the creature my own life depends on, if i were an Eskimo for example ), and the human is a complete stranger, I've chosen the pet.

 

[Greizer85]

Aleksey, have you considered a career in the FSB? Putin may have a use for your kind of man in the pursuit and extermination of some rather nasty cockroaches.

 

[pesgores]

I did not know what to vote, I would normally go with saving the human, but given the scenario, I would save my pet. I don't have one, but if I really liked him.

It also depends on the situation.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

The pet is worth saving because it means more to the person doing the saving than the stranger does. There needs to be no other justification for it.

That's grossly immoral. My hat means more to me that you do, but I'd never let you burn just to save it.