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.

I would be able to look another family in the eye if I saved my cat over their family member (regardless of whether it was a child or adult)

"That's more than a bit sick"

pianodoodle how is that sick?

I'd direct anyone who needs to ask that question to a professional. I don't think I'm qualified to help sorry!

De-lurking after about six months to try and answer your question, Outraged - hope that makes you feel better about no-one else responding to it

I don't see saving my own (hypothetical) child over someone else's as essentially selfish because, assuming a situation where only one can be saved, the other child's parents and I are going to feel comparable levels of pain over losing our children in a horrible way. In that case it's a straightforward 'me or them' situation and I'm going to do everything I can to protect my own interests. And yes, in some ways that is selfish, but if both people are going to lose out equally then I might as well be selfish iyswim.

If it was a random stranger vs my cat then yes, it would cause more pain to me personally to leave my cat to die horribly, but looking at the situation objectively it would be a lot worse for the other person's family to lose a parent/child/sibling/partner. A human life lost is going to have a far wider ranging impact than that of an animal because it will affect extended family, friends, colleagues etc. Plus I imagine the loss of the human would be felt more deeply, unless you would feel as strongly about your pet dying as you would your children. In which case... fine, I guess, that's a morally consistent argument, but I really can't understand that point of view myself.

When I was about 8 we were in a plane that had to make an emergency landing. I had a black eye from being kicked out of the way by not only the passengers but the cabin crew when we had to go down the slide. I bet they all thought they were the kind of people who would stop and think about the right thing to do like many of these. I just don't believe that many people would be as generous if it actually happened, same as the private school/NHS life saving treatment arguments always go. Anyone, but anyone can pontificate till the cows come home about what they would do. I bet they wouldn't. I think pet owners have come out of this sounding much nicer than the haters and I am glad so many people don't hate animals as much as I thought all MNers did..

Dammit, not only did I x-post with hundreds, turns out other people have answered the question anyway

^* 1) Mill/Bentham's fundamental axiom: the 'right' thing to do is the one that ensures the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Family pet dying will only affect you and your immediate family. Person dying will affect their parents, children, aunts, uncles, grandchildren/parents, friends, co-workers, employers/ees, and more. These people's sadness may very likely have an adverse affect on their immediate and wider circle of acquaintances, and so on.

*2) Utilitarianism again: an average human will live longer than the average dog. Therefore the decision will have a positive outcome for longer. (although I don't want to open a new can of worms, surely most people agree that in a similar scenario they would save an unknown baby/child over an unknown adult)

*3) Possible future potential. A dog will never become prime minister/set up a charity/donate blood or organs/invent something that increase the quality of life for humans and/or animals/write a novel or create a work of art that influences millions/even become a doctor or firefighter that saves others in a similar hypothetical situation.

*4) Reason. Animals can of course feel pain, but they cannot rationalise/understand it in the same way humans can. If left in the fire, they would not feel the full spectrum of emotions (betrayal, terror, panic, loss, despair) that a child or adult would.^

Some very interesting points, silver, but probably too many variables apply for them to decide the issue at hand. For example, points 1 and 2 are referencing unknown quantities here - the stranger could be an ancient, nasty paedophile with no loved ones and whom any number would be glad to see the back of.

As for point 3, well my dog has actually given blood (for other dogs, obviously) - a thing which I, for medical reasons, am not in a position to do. Does that make him worthier than me? He's also participated in charity dog shows that have raised money for worthy causes and improves out quality of life by guarding our rather remote and isolated property that had a problem with marauders before his arrival.

Point 4 possibly hold some water, for some anyway, but for me I don't ned to quantify or justify his pain or fear. I don't want hi feeling any at all. In fact I would argue to the contrary that a conscious adult is in a better position to fend for himself, therefore the more helpless animal needs my assistance more. The unconscious adult would not be subject to those emotions, making the point redundant.

Lol silver do you really want to go there :)

Re points 2 and 3 - humans don't begin to start contributing in Western society anyway until at least 16. Or sometimes until mid 20s. If they can get a job. If you are defining this on financial terms with regards benefits to society. Children and young people are an enormous drain on resources in many regards as it takes so long before they can begin to contribute. I'd be worried if anyone minded this however!

A dog can and does contribute in so many ways. As well as providing therapy and fun ways of educating children at home there are countless working dogs. By the time a human is able to begin contributing there will be another dog around contributing straight away.

Point 1 I'd dispute as my dog is adored and shared round a very big family. And point 4 yes this is true but it doesn't make them any less vulnerable.

silvermantella

Would you still be able to use logic or reason when faced with a dangerous risky situation like fire. The fight or flight reflex would kick in and there would certainly be an emotional response.

"should probably add maid of stars and LeBFG made some of these points more succinctly upthread!"

Yes you're right. This thread is just going round in circles. And other posters are much more eloquent than me.

3) Possible future potential. A dog will never become prime minister/set up a charity/donate blood or organs/invent something that increase the quality of life for humans and/or animals/write a novel or create a work of art that influences millions/even become a doctor or firefighter that saves others in a similar hypothetical situation.

Guide dogs & sniffer dogs do amazing, sometimes life saving work. Not all humans contribute in the same way. So unless you knew what the dog and human had contributed or taken away from society that sent a fair point.

Personal attacks against someone for having a different opinion than you on a hypothetical situation is ridiculous.

You have no way of actually knowing what you would do in this imagnary situation.

More than likely most of you would run out of the place without thinking of anyone.

If you made any effort to save someone else it would probably be the closest person or animal to you.

You have no moral superiority by pretending you know what you would do.

Thos of you making really nasty comments about the way people feel about their pets need t realise you have probably been lucky with humans and unlucky with animals.

It's a nice situation to be in. Being in a situation where you genuinely prefer an animal to most humans you have met...says a lot about the life a lot of people have had to live.

So maybe stop being a twunt about it?

I'd argue that some humans contribute nothing at all to society and actually by their very existence put forward a good argument for Eugenics .

Oh, and don't bother flaming me for that, anyone. Just being flippant in the way that we poor excuses for human being tend to .

I think those who would save their pets (myself included) are not going to change their minds. Those who would save the stranger are not going to change their minds.

This is an debate mainly based on emotional reactions.

I think that in this sort of situation we react on instinct, so it's somewhat difficult to predict what we would do.

However, I think my instinct would be to go for my dog, in the same way that it would be to go for anyone else I love, over someone I have no such feelings for. At that moment, I think the overwhelming fear of losing someone I love would take over. Yes, that someone may be a dog but love is an incredibly strong emotion.

That may sound dramatic to some but he is not 'a dog,' he is MY dog and I love him. My instinct would be to protect someone I love if it was within my power to save them.

I'm sure I would feel unimaginably guilty for the rest of my life though whoever I chose to save

Please stay out and play TirAnna. I always think delurkers have lots to add as they generally only post on things they find important.

APartridgeAmongThePigeons very well put.

SharpLily

Thanks Mardy Don't worry, I'm still reading!

Am v amused at some of the attempts to justify dog superiority, especially the charity dog show. ( Who entered the dog into the show? Did he realise he was bring altruistic? )

Bow wowing out now.

Nice post tiranna, :) I'm in the dog camp but I understand your rationale

"I think those who would save their pets (myself included) are not going to change their minds. Those who would save the stranger are not going to change their minds.

This is an debate mainly based on emotional reactions."

That's right, but I've only seen one half of the debate screwing about how awful those who don't agree with them are. So vehement have some of the human savers been in declaring we dog savers awful that a kind of reverse psychology has applied. They've made me feel very proud of being a dog saver because we seem to be much nicer people .

Off to make more brimstone Mardy? I'll be nice and assume you missed the point of the charity show comment.

I wholeheartedly agree SharpLily. Some of the nasty, vicious posts on here have reaffirmed my decision to save my dog.

"Am v amused at some of the attempts to justify dog superiority, especially the charity dog show. ( Who entered the dog into the show? Did he realise he was bring altruistic? grin )"

Obviously I entered him , but the point I was making wasn't to prove dog superiority, it was a rebuttal to a very specific and intelligent point as requested by the poster. However by the logic of the argument made, my dog does look superior, as the argument measured the value of certain contributions to society. One mentioned was giving blood, a thing my dog has done and I haven't. Given the criteria at hand, that puts him higher up the valuable contributor food chain than me. Or my husband, who has also never given blood. On that basis he's surely a worthier save in a fire than either of us.

Thanks for posting Tir. You give a good rationalization, but I don't believe you!

If you were the only person in the world who cared about your DC and the other child had a massive family, would you let your DC die because fewer people would be upset?

No, of course not! You save who means the most to you.

We all do.

Some people value all human life above all animal life, they would save the stranger.

Others value the animal members of the family more than human strangers.

Either way the decision is selfish.

good points, sharplily! And I never knew that dogs could give blood (which is quite obvious now I think of it) so thanks for teaching me something new today!

littlewhitebag - nah of course in the actual situation I would not have time to sit down, add up all the logical reasons for and against, and check my little book of philosophy. I just thought that as upthread people were demanding logical rather than instinctual reasons so tried to think of some - thought it might derail some of the personal comments going on if we debated it in a more objective way but obviously it is a very emotive topic!