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

And the rest of us would be saying, "Where were the parents?" My sympathies would be with the baby. I don't have much empathy for neglectful parents.

Well plenty of people have said what they’d do if the situation was real, so why be surprised when people disagree?

I would never be able to live myself knowing I let a baby die, knowing I could have saved it but chose an animal.

But it’s not a real situation so let’s set the story, to clear up any confusion. It’s a flat and you can only get the dog or the carry tot… the parents are stuck in a different room an can not get out.

And I would never be able to live with myself knowing I let my own family member, who happens to have 4 legs, die.
I would rather die with her, if I am brutally honest.

How that means I am a psychopath/sociopath/lacking empathy.... I have no idea how that tallies up. Surely a psychopath would stand and watch everyone die whilst fucking about with their phone.

That doesn't work. I wouldn't be in a stranger's flat and nor would my dog be.

Also, why was the kid not with the parents?
Why would the kid be loose in my flat, with my dog? MN gets hysterical about leaving kids alone with dogs.

Mind blowing 🤯

That’s the situation…

It sounds like child neglect to me.

But some people love to blame everyone else but the parents for some reason.

That can't be the situation. The OP says it is a stranger's child. A stranger's child would not be in my flat and I would not be in a stranger's flat. Pick a scenario that fits the brief, then I'll answer.

There wont be one. Hence why it is batshit to judge people and label with very serious mental health conditions over an answer about something that will never happen.

I'd save my pets (waits to be flamed) because they are my children, they mean something to me. I don't have 2 legged children I have the 4 legged variety.

You wouldn't ask why a parent chose to save their child and not a strangers. Same goes in my situation, unless you don't have children you won't understand the bond between someone without a child and their pet.

Having anyone's death on my conscience would destroy me though be they 4 legged or 2.

Hmm.. You took it the wrong way.Sorry if I gave that impression.

But I guess it's actually a good question for a debate. Do you think that it might be possible some people who never had any type of experience with kids (let's say this scenario, rather than a non parent, because people might be familiar with kids in any other way like , fostering, kids in the family, being a nursery teacher etc) might not have the same level of empathy towards kids or their parents in the same way as parents or people with significant kid experience do? I know I'm a very sensitive to news stories about childrens suffering now, more so than before being a parent. It was all theoretical before, and now I witness how innocent how precious they are first hand, so equating a child (a strangers child, in op's words) with a pet (and I have and love my pets dearly) is nonsensical to me because I can imagine just how much, a lifetime of pain it'd give to parents losing a child...

"It sounds like child neglect to me." Yep could very well be. So a neglected child is lower down the hierarchy than a dog. Right.

If it won’t ever happen you wouldn’t be called anything….

Yeah. Sure. That's what I said.

People are being called psychopaths for their answer over a hypothetical situation.

but they’re only being called Psychopaths hypothetically too.

It shows you how some people think. When Madeline McCann went missing, some people blamed her parents for their neglect, and others treated them like they were the victims. IMO, the only victim was the child.

And in this made-up scenario, the only victim is the child. Not saving someone is not the same as killing them.

It is said that the first sign of psychopathy is cruelty to animals. So I am not sure how saving your own pet would make someone a psychopath.

In emergency situations, people act on instinct. People have died leaping into rivers to save their own dogs (which have gone on to swim to safety). Unless you work in emergency services (so are rehearsed and taught on what to do), all reasoning goes out the window. Your primitive brain takes over.... and it tends to favour those you have bonds with... and for many, that is a beloved pet that is a huge part of their life... not a child that they have never met.
People have posted for certain what they might do, but the reality might be very different.

But for some of us, trying to come up with a scenario where we have to choose between a pet and a stranger's kid does not compute as we think too logically about it and maybe ask too many questions.... and come to the conclusion that it will never happen so it is daft to judge people so harshly for their answers.

Plus a lot of those people who jump into water to save their dogs have children at home. So it just goes to show that the automatic reflex/instinct to save something important to you takes over everything. Even the possibility of leaving your own child without a parent. There is nothing psychopathic about it.

It would be a hard choice as obviously your emotional attachment would be towards your pet over a strangers child, however, my instinct and morals would kick in and I would save a strangers child over my pet, because that is the right thing to do as a member of society. We help (or should do) the most vulnerable in our societies.

I'd hope my pet would be able to help themselves (especially in a natural disaster type scenario) and as an adult of their own species they probably would be more capable than a small human child.

However I couldn't promise to help a strangers child over a human member of my own family, even if my family are adults and potentially more capable than a strangers child. I would help a stranger (child or adult) if it didn't compromise me helping my own family. So basically, yes, I would help a person over my pet, but not a stranger over my own family.

Changing it a little - I work with small children who I have grown very attached to (I see many of them all day, every day) in a scenario where all our lives were at risk (fire, mad man, etc) I would put myself at risk to save them because I have a bond with them and as an adult I'd instinctively need to protect them.

It’s placing the life of an animal over a human child. I will never be able to understand this. Yes they are hypothetical situations but think of the outpouring of grief for babies that have cancer for example. People want to help, the public get on board because they desperately want yeh child to get the best possible outcome. Whole communities are affected by it because it’s so tragic so they fundraise.

That wouldn’t happen for a cat. Yea they’re lovely and part of the family but most propel who are rationale view the life of a human as more important.

I also find it cruel that peope buy certain breeds where it’s knows that they can barely breath and have life long problems but they look cute and fluffy. The demand for them will be there so the supply will be there.

is it just cute and fluffy animals who have lives worth saving? Sod the spiders, rats and cockroaches. Where is the line drawn?!

You are wrong that people don't pull together to help poorly animals.
I follow a few dog rescue pages, and people dig deep into their pockets when a poorly dog is taken on and needs lots of vet treatment.
Have a look on FB at Galgos del Sol. They rescue dogs that have been treated appallingly by humans. We owe them love and care.
The rescue my own dog is from often has a case that needs a lot of treatment, and people donate what they can.

I guess some might see people who donate to animal charities as being in the wrong, when they "should" be donating to kid's charities.

Actually, people who are autistic have plenty of empathy, in some they may actually feel it more acutely. What some may have is more difficulty showing it.