Would you save your pet or a stranger's child?

[NotADailyMailJournalist]

Hello all

Slightly inspired by another thread where posters were surprised that people were more interested in someone's dog than their baby...

If you have a cat/dog and you could only save it or a stranger's child/baby, what would you choose?

For the purposes of this thread, no-one would ever find out you'd been given the choice, so you wouldn't face any consequences.

Thanks

I assume you’re vegan then ?

Why would they be vegan? I think it's more a case that they care more about their own pets than someone they don't know. That's normal.

Because only someone with psychopath tendencies would save a dog - (yes even their own dog!!) over a baby!

I hope I’ve guessed correctly 👍 I admire vegans and was one myself for 3 years. I’d save my mum over a stranger but not my pets I don’t think. But of course no one knows what they’d actually do if faced with a split second decision. It’s just a thought experiment.

@InterIgnis good point about psychopaths. But is prion disease the only reason you’re against cannibalism 😂? Have you read any Ayn Rand? I think you would like her!

The only reason? No. I’m also not a big fan of pork, which humans apparently taste like.

Ayn Rand? Bit laborious, that one (the ‘bit’ is understated). Interesting enough as an example of a reactionary shaped by her own negative experience of communism, but still not very. Personally I lean far more towards subjectivism than I do objectivism.

Having emotional empathy for another living being, a dog even if not a baby, would preclude someone from being a psychopath, as a general rule of thumb. That said, someone believing me to have psychopathic tendencies isn’t something I’m troubled by, whether I do or don’t.

It’s the absence of empathy for the tragic and traumatic loss that the parents of a baby would have to live with forever. I think most people would agree that losing a child would be the worst and most devastating thing to ever happen to them. To know that someone could have saved your baby but didn’t and saved ‘Fluffy’ instead would be beyond heartbreaking.

Anyway clearly not everyone agrees with me. Having a pet is lovely and all but yeah as I say, anyone that would leave a baby to die to save an animal has psychopathic tendencies…..

I have 2 horses & if I added up what I have spent on them in their lifetime & decided to donate that money to sponsor children in the third world theoretically I could save (or at least make a massive difference to their life). As I have decided to spend my hard earned money on my pets I guess you could say i have chosen them 'over' the life of a strangers child. Absolutely no way would I give them up & donate the money to 'save' a child.

If however I was driving and had to swerve to avoid hitting a child but would hit my horse in the process then I would absolutely choose to save the child.

Not making the choice you think someone should doesn’t mean they don’t feel empathy for those on the ‘losing’ side, for one. For two, even if empathy was in fact missing for the parents of said baby, that would be a case of empathy being felt for the ‘wrong’ recipient of it, rather than the absence of empathy. It is the absence of empathy that is the hallmark of psychopathy.

But okay 🤷🏻‍♀️ obviously you’re free to feel whatever you like.

Argue all you want about the semantics but there is something seriously disturbing about someone that would do that.

We can understand that life is more nuanced than black and white.

I've lost a child so know it's the absolute worst, but I do understand there might be times it makes sense that an individual would choose an animal for their own strong reasons. I don't think that makes them a psychopath.

I’m just saying that ‘psychopathy’ doesn’t fit according to the definition. ‘Disturbing’ works better if you want to go down that route.

Like I said, you’re free to feel whatever you want.

I said psychopathic tendencies in my initial post. If you’re adamant to keep going back to that term. Google the definition of psychopath and how they behave and the things they would do…. That certainly does fit the ‘tendency’ aspect.

Lol, we’ve already gone over why feeling and demonstrating empathy in a way you do not approve of is very different from a lack of empathy (which is, you know, kind of necessary for psychopathy), but if we’re painting with this broad a brush then every human being displays psychopathic tendencies. And we do. This isn’t new information.

That’s precisely why personality disorders are so hard to diagnose - because they’re traits we all possess. What marks a personality disorder is how the severity of particular traits, and the interplay between them. It’s also why painting with a broad brush can easily render something meaningless.

Just run with ‘disturbing’.

This is what I meant. I'll never pretend I can empathise or fully understand because I don't. All I know is yes, my friend was obviously devastated, and there was a huge battle to see his grandchildren (the baby survived! ) following, it was an awful time for him. We all tried to do our bit and I think we mostly did things as he wanted and helped as much as we could. A few years on and of course it isn't EVER something anyone will get over-but he has a life. And enjoys things.

His life isn't destroyed. I am sure he's still devastated and the sadness will underpin a lot of the good times. But not destroyed.

I disagree with you LOL.

You do realise that psychopaths are able to feel love for their own family, friends and so on? They aren’t completely void of emotion but they don’t follow the rules in
the same way as the average person would.

Here is a basic definition-

“Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.
—Robert D. Hare, 1993, p. xil47]”

I would say lacking of feelings for others (I don’t include dogs as others. I don’t think the author was either) The lack of feeling for the bereaved parents.

Violating social norms is another. The social norm being that human life is prioritised over an animals life. If you ran over a child and didn’t stop there would be very significant consequences. If you ran over a rabbit, you wouldn’t need t do anything.

Without the slightest sense of guilt of regret….Even the way you coming back to this thread to say how it’s perfectly normal bla bla and are hellbent on the semantics.

“Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.
—Robert D. Hare, 1993, p. xil47]”

Am I missing something (I’m probably dim).
That reads like they actually don’t love their family and friends 🤔

They are capable of loving their own but when it comes to others not so much. I guess some aren’t capable of loving their own either but like anything there will be varying degrees of empathy, love and other emotions. I guess the most extreme cases won’t feel normal emotions and those who aren’t as affected will.

Well no shit 😂 I wasn’t labouring under the illusion that we were in agreement.

Where did I say psychopaths lack emotions? I didn’t. I said the hallmark of psychopathy is a lack of empathy. Because it is. if you look further in Hare you will see that he lists callous disregard for and cruelty towards animals as a trait of psychopathy, btw.

It takes more than ‘violating social norms’ to diagnose psychopathy, or indeed any personality disorder. A whole lot more.

I’m not coming back to say it’s perfectly normal, although having psychopathic traits is perfectly normal:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/audio/2018732690/psychopathic-traits-everybody-has-them#:~:text=%E2%80%9CEverybody%2520has%2520them%252C%2520but%2520to,with%252C%2520interpersonal%2520and%2520romantic%2520relationships.

I’m coming back to say that having empathy, even the recipient of it isn’t approved of by you, is not indicative of psychopathy. If you’re going to call me a psychopath at least base it on something actually psychopathic. I’m going to feel like I’m cheating otherwise.

As I’ve said several times, I said psychopathic tendencies. I didn’t say an actual psychopath as I have no idea how you are in the real world.

You are absolutely right that disregard to animals and cruelty, is a trait of psychopathy. So imagine leaving a human baby to die when you had a choice to save them….. That would be unhinged!

The same applies. If you’re going to say I have psychopathic tendencies then at least point out my actual ones.

My point is that ‘psychopathic tendencies’ is so broad a brush that you can paint the entire human race with it. Risking your own life to save the life of another, human or animal, for both their sake and your regard for their life, isn’t indicative of psychopathy or psychopathic tendencies though.

As an aside, there’s a high rate of psychopathy in surgeons. Who save lives.

I would save my pet, and indeed any of my loved ones, over a human baby, yes. That wouldn’t demonstrate cruelty or disregard for animals though, so I’d gain and lose a point for that one.

Why are you so bothered by being called a psychopath? You’re giving examples of ‘good ones’ and that’s what I was saying earlier, they are all different and some better/worse than others.

I assume you’ve heard the term psycho? Usually used when someone does something that’s shocking and acts in such a way that most people wouldn’t deem appropriate. Unhinged is another term for someone that carries out an act or does something that isn’t normal.

In this situation that we’re discussing I find it absolutely shocking, unhinged, and I’m astonished that a a normal person would let a baby die and save an animal. So yep psycho central I’d say!

I’m fine with being called a psychopath, I just think if I’m going to be then it should at least be accurate. Like I said, I’m going to feel like I’ve cheated my way to the title otherwise.

I’m engaging in conversation on a message board. I pointed out where you were wrong, and you decided to quadruple down on it 🤷🏻‍♀️ if you don’t want me to reply then don’t tag me.

I don't have children and my cat died last year. If he was still with us I would save him over any stranger. To be honest, there's certain people I know who I would have trampled over to get to him and I'd make sure the door was locked on the way out if it was BIL!

Reply all you want, you’re entitled it’s a public sight. I just find it quite amusing that you can’t let it go and are constantly trying to tell me why I shouldn’t consider it psychotic.

The crux of it is you deem it appropriate and can’t seem to understand why others don’t. I can only assume it comes from a place of all lives are equal, whether that be an animal or a human. Please tell me you’re a vegan though at least or the hypocrisy is ironic.

People get upset about the death of their pets of course but it’s no way comparable to the loss of a child. To put another parent in that situation (by choosing the animal) seems beyond cruel, sick, disturbing and disgusting to say the least.

I actually wonder if a person that done that would get done for manslaugher! They should do.