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.

[MaidOfStars]

An interesting editorial addressing this issue:
Article
Summary:

1. The closer the kinship, the more likely you are to say you'd save the human (but at max, only 40 % of people say they would save their dog over a complete stranger, so the "minority" label stands).
2. Women are more likely than men to say they'd save any dog.
3. Human-savers gave logical arguments, dog-savers gave emotional arguments.

[fifi669]

sleepy for me, although pets may be part of the family, if mr fireman could only save dog or DP I'd want him to save DP. The devastation at losing DP, not just for me, but for his friends and family as well as mine would be so much higher, the grief deeper and would change my life.

I suppose it's thinking of the other persons family and understanding my grief for my pet would never be on the same scale as theirs.

[MaidOfStars]

Sleepyfish Nothing to do with moral status (at least, in the moment thta all this theoretical stuff is happening), everything to do with speciesism. Humans have taken over the world, largely by cooperation. This trait was highly advantageous and, I suspect, now innate - instinct, if you like.

[KittensoftPuppydog]

That's their job.
But talking about the medical profession, my family doctor has just been struck off for sexually assaulting patients, so I'm probably not the best one for defending them at the mo.
I would go to war to defend my family. Including the dog.

[MaidOfStars]

And agree with fifi, a high capacity for empathy?

[KittensoftPuppydog]

Maid. What are the logical arguments? Genuinely interested.

[OutragedFromLeeds]

In an emergency house-fire situation won't most people be thinking emotionally though?

You might logically say 'i'd save x because y', but when it comes to it I think emotions would take over.

[ScarerStratton]

DDs
LittleDog and Bridget.
I'd chuck the cats out of a window.

[KittensoftPuppydog]

Just had a look at the article. It doesn't give the logical arguments. I think that what is a logical argument is very subjective.

[MaidOfStars]

Kittensoft Well, I think they've been mentioned as we go along. I would also say that the article didn't really define what "logic-based" meant, only to say that the "emotion-based" arguments were things like "But I love my pet"....

For me, the logic-based arguments are:
Biological imperative.
Reciprocal altruism in the social contract.
Capacity for empathy.

[LST]

Ahh stratton! I didn't think of chucking the cats out of a window!

[manicinsomniac]

haha, I actually have tears in my eyes thinking about the hypothetical situation - and I don't even have a dog! I'm imagining poor howling Fido and shouting, crying human both begging for their lives while poor X stands between them looking from one to the other through the smoky haze and wondering who to save. really, I have tears!

Seriously though, it would have to be the stranger. It might well feel unnatural but I think most people would do it. When it came to it they wouldn't be able to put an animal's life over a child's.

I've never had a serious crisis decision to make and would be very interested to know what I'd do. One thing I sometimes think about is that I'm a teacher in the school where my children are pupils. I teach the older one 7 times a week. If there were a fire/explosion/crazed gunman etc while I had that class in my room I have an equal responsibility to each of those children to get them out safely. I couldn't run to the back of the classroom and get my own daughter out first. It might be instinct but I'd have to override it. I also couldn't run all over the school looking for my own children and ignoring others in distress. I'd have to treat all the children the same. Similar to the dog I guess. You might want to save it and hange everybody else but you couldn't actually do it.

[ScarerStratton]

We do have a 'Fire Plan', and we've practised it

[OutragedFromLeeds]

What does that research tell us though? No-one in the event of a house fire is thinking about biological imperative, reciprocal altruism in the social contract or capacity for empathy. They're all thinking 'but I love my....kids/mum/dog/art collection'.

[KittensoftPuppydog]

Biological imperative I can understand. This is not a morally superior argument. It's quite selfish
Altruism, is not exclusively about humans. The social contract is self interested.
I empathise with my dog.
Next?

[MaidOfStars]

Outraged That's a perfectly valid point, to suggest that emotion takes over when all the hypothetical drama is happening. However, these studies were conducted in (presumably) a non-emergency situation, where people had time to think about what their answer would be. And in that case, some people didn't think "Well, I'd save X because Y but maybe emotions would take over", they immediately gave the emotional response.

But of course, it would be impossible to predict what people would actually do (despite what they said they'd do beforehand). I personally think instinct would take over.

[OutragedFromLeeds]

You could manic and I think most people would. No way would you let your child burn to death while you saved another.

[littlemslazybones]

I don't think an emotional response is the same as an instinctive response. (Or at least, this is what I believed to be the case half an hour ago). The social contract isn't ( just) a lofty theoretical position. It's genetic programming, the crocodile brain and a biological imperative that is written in to our survival as a species.

[OutragedFromLeeds]

Exactly maid, so maybe those who gave the emotional response were more accurate in thinking about what they'd do in an emergency? So the 40% vs 60% doesn't tell us much about what anyone would actually do and is therefore pointless (except maybe it's interesting that a majority of people were unable to think emotionally?).

[littlemslazybones]

In other words, I think this would kick in before an emotional response.

[livinginwonderland]

I don't think ANYBODY knows what they'd do until it happened. You can't predict that kind of response.

[MaidOfStars]

Kittensoft As a species, humans are selfish. As individuals, most of us are not. That's why we're the dominant species on the planet. It's why we are the most enlightened, the most capable, the most advanced species in the known universe. That "self-interested" social contract is part of your human DNA.

The human condition is selflessness when faced with greater need. It's pushing a child out of the way of a car. It's trying your best to minimise hurt and pain in fellow man. If you want to opt out of that, fine.

[HellsAngel81]

My order of rescue would be:

1. My kids/other family member first

1. My dog and cat next

1. Any other human last!

Sorry, just being honest! But I don't think any of us would truly know, until we are actually in that situation.

[OutragedFromLeeds]

That's interesting little, I wonder if there is any research into what people actually do in an emergency.

Given that there are so many murderers, child abusers, rapists, war criminals etc. I think the idea that we can definitely count on human instinct to protect or save the life of other humans is a bit far fetched tbh.

[fifi669]

I think saving the person is an emotional response, its that split second your head runs through the faces of their family....