Animals vs humans

[fifi669]

AIBU to think if faced with choosing a pet over a human (even if a stranger), you should choose the human?

The idea was brought up in another thread and put in life or death situation. Building on fire contains your pet and a stranger. You could only save one, who would it be?

I had a dog, Ralph, I cried my heart out when he died 3 years ago. The only dog I wasn't scared of! But I can't imagine leaving a person to die instead, no matter how my heart would break.

If you told a dog that you'd save a stranger over them, they would not tell you you're a nob or a horrible human being.

True fact.

Outraged Last post not aimed at anything you said. Just a general observation that happened to list evil shit. Would never deliberately is misinterpret - a pet hate of mine.

I go out for a bit and this thread is now like

Partridge you are so right. I'd take on lorries to save a hedgehog but if I saw a person wandering up the M4 I'd call the police. Or assume they were rescuing hedgehogs as well.

Saving your dog would stop you grieving.

Saving the stranger would stop an entire family and their friends from grieving.

(I'm assuming that both dog and person are normal, decent, loving animals).

I think that's why there are criticisms of the dog rescuers - you're putting your own peace of mind above the peace of mind of many.

Husband has just informed me that the toolbox is at the top of his rescue list. Once his toolbox is safely away from the fire, he'd think about going back in for the dog or any other humans.

I did laugh at the poster upthread who said if one of her loved ones died in a fire because someone rescued a dog instead she would run the dog over and accept the consequences.

I think this kind of argument polarises opinion so much, and the two sides will never find it easy to accept the opposing view, so god knows why people are getting so aerated about it. If people are happy to save their animals first rather than their husband, well that's a view opposite to mine and I will never understand it, but again I wouldn't assume someone was emotionally stunted because of it.

Personally, I am am idiot about my adored cats, and anthropomorphise as much as any animal obsessive, but I think if they were I a burning house, they would feel the instinctive animal fear of fire, but they won't be distressed and thinking 'where is my mummy, I want a cuddle, I don't want to die', but the human WOULD be feeling that distress. It's a no brainier for me, I would rescue the human and assume the cats would escape.

My DP though I know would be the type to run back into the burning house to find the cats, and would probably die and we would then find the cats on a wall nonchalantly licking their paws. But he is more silly about the cats than even I am.

Could the people who think it should be the stranger who always gets saved, please provide a logical explanation of why humans are more important than animals in 1 sentence, max 20 words, starting with Because....

(Bear in mind that very early in this thread, I clarified that my 'instinct' to save human animal over non-human animal wouldn't be so obvious when the non-human animal was a great ape...let's go with dogs still).

A human is more important than a dog because (start counting) the meaningful life of a dog resides only with the owner, not wider society.

I have to say I think id save LlamaDog. I would not abandon him because some random other animal human was also in the building.

SharpLily Pretty sure I'd be lower on the list than the bikes....

I love the image of the burning person being outraged and shouting 'you CUNTS' a the the people outside and the smug looking rescued dog.

Oh that sounds quite warped doesn't it.

"Saving your dog would stop you grieving.

Saving the stranger would stop an entire family and their friends from grieving."

That's a pretty large assumption. If my dog died my entire (huge) family would definitely be grieving. Stranger could be a random loner without a soul in the world to care for them.

All my family would grieve. I care about myself, my dog and my family more than someone stranger's, I don't think that's unreasonable.

A human is more important than a dog because (start counting) the meaningful life of a dog resides only with the owner, not wider society

But why does it?

I find this kind of discussion fascinating. Why are human animals better than any other kind of animal?

I'm not saying humans are 'better' than dogs, just that your average specimen is far more likely to cure cancer or solve the energy crisis. Stuff than benefits other humans.

Dogs may have a similar manifesto - do stuff to make other dogs' lives better. I don't care about that, not being a dog and all...(heads it up...)

Maid I see what you are saying but I don't think that's not the case for all humans or all dogs. There are hundreds of thousands of working dogs, for example, that make far more contribution to society than, say the daily mail....

We are all inherently selfish though aren't we? I'm not really interested in strangers who have no impact on my world. My dog on the other hand is a family member. I would understand if a dog was saved over me - as a human I may also have more ability to save myself.

Cats could probably sort themselves out though!

In 20 words...

The Wicker Man wouldn't be quite such a shocking film if the central character was a chicken that got roasted

Animals contribute more to society than people think. Very few of us have lives who haven't been touched by an animal in some way. Be it companionship, medical help, assistance, every single drug you take at some point involves an animal. They have and do save lives every day. The idea that they feature so low on anyone's list of "worthy" is disgusting.

Ideally we should try to save everyone we possibly can but don't pretend it makes you any better a person for leaving your dog to die.

'A human is more important than a dog because (start counting) the meaningful life of a dog resides only with the owner, not wider society'

That's just not true in all circumstances though is it? Only the specific one you are imagining.

The person might be a loner or a massive cunt. You might be doing wider society a favour by letting them die.

The dog might be owned by a large family, with many children who will be devastated by it's death.

If you're going to give a reason why ALL humans should be saved before ALL other animals in ALL circumstances, it has to work for every scenario and that doesn't. Have you got another one?

Outraged As I've said, a few times now, I don't hold the position that ALL humans are worth saving before ALL animals in ALL circumstances. I'm not able to argue the absolutist point you try to tease out.

I'd be genuinely interested to hear the opposing 20 words as well...

"A dog is more important than a human because..."

Apologies Maid I thought you were arguing that we should save the stranger over the pets. Have I misunderstood all your posts?!

"A dog is more important than a human because..."

Well, dogs are simply nicer people. I don't see Dogsnet clogged up with threads about emotional abuse, slagging off in-laws (and the world at large) and calls for so and so to be banned.

Rino I don't think anyone has said that dogs, in general, are more important than humans, in general.

Only that they would save their own dog vs a hypothetical stranger.

I can give you 'My dog is more important than a stranger because I love my dog and I don't love the stranger'.