Who would you save? Strange question

[stols001]

Breaking that promise would make me feel very bad.

You and your dog have not made that vow. I'm sorry, but you just haven't. Dogs aren't capable of "vows" they are capable of training and pack behavior so you have successfully packed up with your dog, so your dog is naturally going to want to defend you, but in no way has the dog made any kind of "promise." I'm sorry pets are not able to enter into some sort of overt or even covert "promise" that is misunderstanding an animal's behavior.

I guess I'd say that sure, the stranger may mean "nothing to me" but as I've stated most human beings have value to other human beings, and I don't think I could live with myself if I selfishly chose my attachment to a pet over a human being's life. I mean, really sit down and think about that. If you are in the situation, how are you going to feel defending your choice, to the police, to the stranger's loved ones, to whomever shows up next? "I'm sorry, it's just that my dog and I made a promise to each other to look out for each other's welfare, so I ignored the human being in distress."

I take it you are all meat eaters too? Well, so is your pet, and your pet's gonna eat you, and not even feel bad about it, unlike the cast of "Alive."

Never mind, I did some quick online research on the matter and now that I understand it better, I know that most of you are just being driven by your deep emotional and super primitive limbic system, and you can't help yourselves. Is a Dog's Life Worth More Than a Person's?

You know it's odd I can quite often be a highly emotional person, but it's good to know that when it comes to moral and ethical reasoning, I can use my higher order brain functions, because that is actually fairly accurate. When faced with such a situation, I screen out the lizard brain, and try to use my higher order executive functions, so despite all the rationales given to save the pet (most of which are pretty nonsensical) I now know that you're desperately trying to rationalize and justify your lizard brains, and you can't help it.

Carry on. Sweet Jesus, but carry on, I'm done here.

Anna

 

[Zutankhamun]

@stols001

Thank the good lord in sweet heaven that you weren’t the vet responsible for the treatment of an animal in my care!!

Ps. I don’t eat meat so there. Har har har

I presumed that my thoughts were oddball and a result of my specific dietary choices, moral principle and a bias toward humans (which isnt the case). However, it would seem that you are on the wrong side of the fence.

You go ahead and sacrifice your own animal to save the unknown collection of matter and organs that mean nothing to you.

The other 7 billion of us and his mother will be eternally greatful.

 

[r77r7r]

What would the Courts say about this? Involuntary Manslaughter?

OOps, forgot to keep this Light, lol. Anna"s fault, as usual, lol.















etc

 

[stols001]

I was shocked to be on the wrong side of the fence. I kind of want to ask my husband about the dog, but I'm afraid that he will a) state he wants to save the dog (his stepfather, a violent and terrifying man, once paid like 1,700 in the 70s to save my husband's childhood dog. And, they weren't exactly rich either.)

My parents, when my first cat got hit by a car but lived and was scooped up at the vet, and he was THE BEST cat, but was paralyzed and he was at the vet a few days to see if he'd recover, well, (he was so sweet, he would only eat off my fingers when he came to visit) the vet offered to open up the cat to check for what the problem was (no guarantees, just exploratory surgery) for $1,500, my parents said they just couldn't afford it. Even though I was deeply, deeply sad, well a) I accepted it immediately and b) even though I had other cats after that, well, they were still outside cats because in my opinion not allowing a cat to express its animal nature and be declawed, well, to me that is freaking INHUMANE. Again, I was well aware that a cat could get hit, but from my perspective from observing cat behavior, that action is deeply cruel and I think it should be illegal.

Maybe I have an "I love animals, but they remain within the cycle of life," is different from how some of you "love" your pets.

I admire cats for the very things that make them "unlike" me. I was under no impression that my cats "loved me" necessarily but *I* admired cats and THEIR behaviors. I mean when I stroked my cat, like, it was less about "The cat and I are bonding" and more about "I realize the cat has a very hazy picture of who I even am," but more about "the cat likes being petted, and I like the purring noise it makes."

Maybe that's why I like animals just fine but I also don't expect them to be ANYTHING different than what they are. I am happy to engage in interactions with pets but I don't lie to myself about what's going on. I don't want my dog to be "my emotional crutch" I want my dog to be happy in its dog nature, and I enjoy animal behavioral training and whatnot (also a reason I liked horses) but man, IDK.

But yes, I'm happy to sacrifice my dog for you lot and your companion animals. He's nearing the end of his useful life anyway, and he's actually pretty smart, he was a rescue of my son's who came a long way given he was pretty feral and whatnot when we got him after 2 years in the desert, and he's fun, but I would sacrifice him for the stranger walking down the street. The way I see it is, he's had like 11 years with us, being happy, and making us happy. So yeah, if he gets trampled by a bus and I save the homeless wino also on the street, I'm good with it. I mean, REALLY good with it.

I just, I generally think that the life of a human being is worth more than an animal. Most of you who aren't PETA toting vegetarians think that too, most of the time, you just get wild and myopic about your pets because of YOUR like, deep and abiding Lizard brains telling you, "Me and my pet have an unbreakable bond, I could never mess with that." It's just all connection and emotion.

As someone once said, "It's okay to LOVE your pet. It's just not okay to love your pets."

Getting a bit close if you ask me although of course not, it's just that lizardy "I am comfortable with what I am familiar with and it happens to be my cat I know, not the stranger who means NOTHING."

LOL, no judgements here. Apart from I guess, me. IDK. I have such a hazy shady connection between love and death anyway, I can find memories of a dead cat quite comforting, including my FIRST dead cat, who was an exceptional cat, but perhaps not worthy of millions of dollars to repair. Etc.

I am gonna ask the husband! I'm afraid, but I will!

Anna

 

[Zutankhamun]

Yeah ask him. I hope he sides with right too! Don’t influence him with your feminine wiles though.


Just because something is more capable of complex thoughts, degrees of emotion, altruistic actions and all that doesn’t mean you should choose to save them over your own dog. He lives with you (for the sake of argument this dog is male), cares for you, protects your family, relies on you, loves you ((however you want to dismiss that)) and deserves that you choose to help him rather than a random who could be capable of anything. Not everybody is a Jesus like figure
That’s the point. You know one but you don’t know the other.
Some people are horrible but my dog isn’t

Or wasn’t...

 

[sdennislee]

deleted

 

[tailland]

I just, I generally think that the life of a human being is worth more than an animal. Most of you who aren't PETA toting vegetarians think that too...

That's quite telling, isn't it? It really comes down to what we, as individuals, think of as our "tribe". You view our entire species as close enough to you that you would ignore your individual commitment to a single member of another species over it, mutual or not. I wouldn't - on the individual level - which is also why I wouldn't give a rat's ... about what other people think about my decision. I'd have to live with it, not them. On the greater group level, this may easily change. And it would surely change if the stranger became a non-stranger. It's a competition of gradually amplified loyalties, which aren't necessarily visible in our daily routines.

 

[sdennislee]

Doubtful there is time to think twice, these are base instinct decisions not contemplated decisions. This is why I qualified my answer as being made comfortably sitting on my couch.

If there is time to think or or even second guess your initial decision then there may be time to save both or the time needed to save just one was just lost and both perish.

I am required to receive 48 hours continuing medical education every 2 years as a condition of maintaining my EMT certification. One year I took a class on extrication. In that class time to react was emphasized, instincts vs planning. If there is time to plan then the question no longer exists.

One of two choices will be made, you roll up on the scene and find the occupants in imminent danger of perishing, (think car about to go over a cliff or fully engulfed in flames) they look at you begging to be saved. You don't know until that exact moment whether you will attempt to save them, your decision will be instinctual and instantaneous, it will not be calculated nor weighed out, there will be no thought about the greater good of man, etc...

Your decision will have no frame of reference as this is not a task that is repeated over and over, muscle memory will kick in once you've committed to the act, it will guide your response to breaking the window, swiftly cutting their restraints, etc... as these are practiced repetitive tasks.

If time exists to to safely weigh your decision then you begin with chains and blocks to stabilize the vehicle and rescue all the occupants.

Since the decision is instinctual and not calculated no one knows what they will do until faced with it. When you type your answer today your answer is based on accepted norms, things you like to think about yourself, your own morale code, etc... All of that becomes secondary when faced with the actual decision to act and no time to reflect on why. This is why we say we would all like to think we would run into a burning building to save a baby but until we are standing in front of that building we don't know.

it is certainly rational to say a human has greater capacity to to contribute to the world we live in than a pet does and it is quite easy to present that thought process comfortably sitting on the couch. It is quite a different situation to be faced with a choice of your pet vs a stranger and only a split second to decide. You see the face of your pet vs that of a stranger, one you know one you don't know, instincts will kick in and my guess is most people regardless of how they see themselves will go for the familiar face.

 

[Punk In Drublic]

Beautiful documentary on the street cats of Istanbul. Bit off topic but hoping it will bring a smile to you all.

 

[ENAUD]

Doubtful there is time to think twice, these are base instinct decisions not contemplated decisions. This is why I qualified my answer as being made comfortably sitting on my couch.

If there is time to think or or even second guess your initial decision then there may be time to save both or the time needed to save just one was just lost and both perish.

I am required to receive 48 hours continuing medical education every 2 years as a condition of maintaining my EMT certification. One year I took a class on extrication. In that class time to react was emphasized, instincts vs planning. If there is time to plan then the question no longer exists.

One of two choices will be made, you roll up on the scene and find the occupants in imminent danger of perishing, (think car about to go over a cliff or fully engulfed in flames) they look at you begging to be saved. You don't know until that exact moment whether you will attempt to save them, your decision will be instinctual and instantaneous, it will not be calculated nor weighed out, there will be no thought about the greater good of man, etc...

Your decision will have no frame of reference as this is not a task that is repeated over and over, muscle memory will kick in once you've committed to the act, it will guide your response to breaking the window, swiftly cutting their restraints, etc... as these are practiced repetitive tasks.

If time exists to to safely weigh your decision then you begin with chains and blocks to stabilize the vehicle and rescue all the occupants.

Since the decision is instinctual and not calculated no one knows what they will do until faced with it. When you type your answer today your answer is based on accepted norms, things you like to think about yourself, your own morale code, etc... All of that becomes secondary when faced with the actual decision to act and no time to reflect on why. This is why we say we would all like to think we would run into a burning building to save a baby but until we are standing in front of that building we don't know.

it is certainly rational to say a human has greater capacity to to contribute to the world we live in than a pet does and it is quite easy to present that thought process comfortably sitting on the couch. It is quite a different situation to be faced with a choice of your pet vs a stranger and only a split second to decide. You see the face of your pet vs that of a stranger, one you know one you don't know, instincts will kick in and my guess is most people regardless of how they see themselves will go for the familiar face.

You nailed it, I had written out a long post regarding training vs. fight, flight, or freeze responses, then decided to not post it. Well said.

My real query is how different the responses would be if asked in a more intimate setting, like with friends, peers, or family participating in the discussion. Would the responses be skewed by peer pressure or what the respondents perceive as societal norms?

 

[Zutankhamun]

@sdennislee
I saw one that quoted me on my phone and then deleted and reduced a little when I got to site.
You clearly understand a lot more than I but this was only a hypothetical.
The scenario is so abstract (and ludicrous) and I put the question to you exactly as I read it.
The purpose was only to understand other people’s thinking pre-event

If there was no threat to me (law or otherwise), I had a completely rational attitude toward the situation, I were sound of mind then I would choose the dog that lived with me over the stranger.

You nailed it, I had written out a long post regarding training vs. fight, flight, or freeze responses, then decided to not post it. Well said.

My real query is how different the responses would be if asked in a more intimate setting, like with friends, peers, or family participating in the discussion. Would the responses be skewed by peer pressure or what the respondents perceive as societal norms?

Had that exact same thought in the shower. I would pose the question when next in company (providing the situation ((and whiskey)) would call for it).
I’ll stick to my guns and explain the truth. Even if it leaves a man friendless with only his dog to keep him company

 

[ENAUD]

@sdennislee
I saw one that quoted me on my phone and then deleted and reduced a little when I got to site.
You clearly understand a lot more than I but this was only a hypothetical.
The scenario is so abstract (and ludicrous) and I put the question to you exactly as I read it.
The purpose was only to understand other people’s thinking pre-event

If there was no threat to me (law or otherwise), I had a completely rational attitude toward the situation, I were sound of mind then I would choose the dog that lived with me over the stranger.



Had that exact same thought in the shower. I’ve decided to pose the question when next in company (providing the situation ((and whiskey)) would call for it).
I’ll stick to my guns and explain the truth. Even if it leaves a man friendless with only his dog to keep him company

Its funny how a simple abstract theoretical can lead to a rabbit hole of thought and emotions from a group...

 

[Zutankhamun]

It is an interesting thought. It’s been said many times, in many different ways but you do wonder.

I think that I personally wanted other people’s opinions to find out how much of an oddball I am.

Not so much it seems...

 

[stols001]

I asked the husband, thank goodness he answered like a sane human being, after saying, "I can't believe you'd ASK me that."

To put it in perspective, let me ask this question: If a stranger was traveling down the road and had to choose to either run over HIS pet or YOUR relative, what would you want the stranger to do?

Answer honestly. All of a sudden it's not about pets, of COURSE you don't want him to save his cat at the expense of YOUR mother.

If there is a "rational" position, you all should be rooting for him to save his pet, because pets are so important.

Let me state something else about pets: if YOU die, they're not going to be sending out invitations to the funeral, arranging for your burial costs, etc. If you're lucky, they are going to be just nibbling on your toe when the paramedics call the police. You may have an utterly NORMAL and loving relationship to THEM but that does not supersede the morality of saving the human being.

And most of you who have lost pets, know that you're .probably going to lose another, because their lifespans are shorter. And yet somehow, you get through the grief and horror, you adopt another pet, and you move on with your life.

I mean.... The person I am scared to ask this question to is my kid, he genuinely adores his pets, to the Nth degree. I admire his love for animals and desire for them to be happy. But, I still hope I raised him right enough that he would say that of course he would save a human, and then I would grieve with him through the bad 12 months to come.

But thank God the husband is sane. We had a really fun discussion about the breakdown of society, communities, and the general devaluing of the human race (including SELF loathing) that has been occurring of late. Really SOOTHING it was...


Anna

 

[Zutankhamun]

o put it in perspective, let me ask this question: If a stranger was traveling down the road and had to choose to either run over HIS pet or YOUR relative, what would you want the stranger to do?

Huh??? The question was never which one will you throw into the fire!
It’s which you’d save out of a stranger and your dog.
Not your mother and some travellers dog! Are you insane Anna? You can confide in me. It’s cool

I hope you and your husband enjoy the padded cell you share together. I hear those white jackets can be quite comfy!

Ps. I don’t require the stranger to die in order to save the dog. It’s just an inevitable consequence
You’re treating this as malicious intent. It’s an action to save my dog, not purposefully kill the stranger! Hahaha

 

[sdennislee]

Anna, Your extremely high moral fiber may not hold if you were in this situation. You are applying rationalized thoughts to your answer from a warm comfortable safe place and I might add being rather rude to imply everyone who differed with your perceived perfect answer is insane.

It appears that in your perfectly constructed social world all decisions are based on casework and studies of human nature. In the scenario posed here the the decision will be instinctual, no time for rational thought. You must be blessed with a mind that is capable of non instinctual thought process.

Until you are faced with this type of decision there is no answer than can be given as an absolute, the answers everyone gives today are what he or she thinks they will do or perhaps what they think society wants them to answer to appear to not be insane.

If the choice was spouse or child how would you rationalize that choice, spouse has lived a full life and already contributed and child has yet to contribute or would it be based on who was loved more?

I am in no way implying your answer is wrong but your righteous indignation towards those who answered differently because you think there is an absolute answer to this question is what I take exception too.

 

[Zutankhamun]

@sdennislee
Wait.. you got the name right, right?

I did make a joke about her sanity but I assumed it fair game as she did bring up first!

 

[sdennislee]

Just for the purposes of furthering social experiments, like they need to be furthered but save that for another thread.

Lets assume the dog is either Togo or Balto, pick the one you believe to be the real hero and the human stranger is Dennis Rader.

Now answer based on the cause and effect of your decision.

BTW I would pick Togo.

 

[stols001]

I can pretty much guarantee in the impulsive heat of the moment, I'd save the human being. I wouldn't even hesitate long enough to do much else about the pet than recognize it as A NON HUMAN shape.

I do think it's a strange question and well, I just can't imagine valuing any animal (including my own) over a human being.

If ya'll want to do differently, I have repeated that is certainly ya'lls decision to do whatever, but I really do think it's sort of insane, and I think that just as you have the right to commit impulsive stranger homicide, the police, onlookers and probably even your PET (if you "humanize" it to that extent) would have some very serious questions for you.

Well, not your pet, it's not capable of that level of higher order thinking, but if it were, it would probably be like, "Human, what the hell are you doing? I'm not here for that much longer and etc." Which is at least reminding me of that AWESOME episode of Rick and Morty, where Rick makes the dog smart and much hilarity ensues.

It is in fact true that many things humans do to their pets are rather.... Inhumane, and that the dog actually decides to do the right thing.

That is one of my favorite Rick and Morty episodes of all TIME, and it does make one question what a lot of folks "do" to their "pets" in the name of "love."

Etc. Just as y'all are free to make your answers, I am free to make mine, and I do think anyone would rescue their pet over a human (and I for SURE noted a distaste to answering MY hypothetical question, and I really term it the "hypocritical" question because we all understand that answering that one TRUTHFULLY would reveal a sort of internal hypocrisy of the HIGHEST order.

Since y'all are making moral judgements about my answer, I think I'm allowed to judge the lot of you kinda…. Kooky about your pets.

This isn't news to me. The fact that the average American spends more on their pets than their children has been horrifying me for a LONG time.

Pardon me for caring about the rest of the human race, I guess? And no, I don't donate to animal charities either, I stick to the human ones. My son donates to animal charities and he's free to make that choice, etc. But, I will also note he's a little "nuts" for animals, and I have no problem calling him that either.

In fact his healthy interest in getting a g/f is actually a little relieving. Since I'm not a hypocrite, I will ask him next time we talk and report his answer here. Etc.

His first accident (vehicular) was due to swerving for puppies. I lectured him sternly and told him you can only BRAKE for pets and if that doesn't work to NOT swerve, as it endangers HUMAN life. Something also taught in defensive driving classes. I killed a cat once because it ran right under my tires and I couldn't brake. It was a pet, it had a collar, and I felt awful and tried to find the owner. But in the end, I thought, "Stuff happens." I did not let the guilt consume me for weeks, let me put it that way. It was unsafe to swerve. Etc.

Anna

Anna

 

[Zutankhamun]

I’d go with Balto...





No wait, I’ve changed my mind. I’ll go for Togo.