Animals vs humans round 2

[livingzuid]

I was enjoying our previous debate started by Fifi. Not sure if we were done!

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.

You would save a person because that would hurt you less

No. I would save a person because people have complex emotional bonds and feelings on a level an animal doesn't. I would be thinking about the persons mothers grief. Or their partners. Or their children crying for them in the night because they're not there. I would be thinking of not only the person but how completely it could ruin other lives to lose them.

The thought that anyone would save a dog before a person, with all the grief that would bring, I find abhorrent.

"It's totally bizarre that someone with such extreme views can be so adamant that they're right"

I haven't seen an awful lot of Team Animal insisting they are right, more sustaining that they are entitled to that opinion without being called reprehensible/abhorrent/insert appropriate adjective based upon thread history. I haven't seen any of us try to persuade Team Human to change their minds about whom they should save or criticise their mental capacity. That has all been on the other side, so sure their view is the only acceptable one and insisting that those of us who don't agree with them are morally suspect (at best).

trish I'm a mix of one and three, so let me try and explain.

Firstly, imo, it would be a selfish decision for EVERYONE. We would all choose to save the one that causes us less grief. That could be the stranger because you couldn't live with yourself otherwise or your pet because losing them would hurt more than letting the stranger die.

With regards group 3, I think my instinct would tell me to save the most vulnerable first. That would be animals and children. It's not that adults have less value than children or than pets, just they are less vulnerable. If the situation were two children, both strangers to me, a 2 year old and 10 year old, instinctively, I'd go for the 2 year old first. If it were two adults and one was disabled and one wasn't, I'd save the more vulnerable one first.

SharpLily, "they", cant remember who exactly, did say some things about me! Not going to look who, and I can take it. On this thread and the last.

KeepingUpWithTheJonses that's my point, you wouldn't be able to cope with thinking of the grief that the loss of that person would cause. On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to cope withthe grief that the loss of my dog would cause my family.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your reports. We're all for robust discussions but we'd really appreciate it if you'd stay within the talk guidelines.

But it would hurt you more to save the dog and think of anothers grief. It would hurt you less to save the child and deal with your own grief. Therefore it would hurt you less to save the child.

I'd rather have 'questionable morals' than leave my animals, the only thing I live for, to die.

That wouldn't be my reason for thatdecision Outraged, though it might be for others.
And yes Outraged, you were a poster that I didnt get. As you are a mixture, that was probably why I didnt understand. I now understand your viewpoint on vulnerable, but I think probably most people would think like that. But even say healthy 20 or 30 year old very able adult versus a pet, no contest for me. But I can see that if you Outrage choose self, then your pet would win against a healthy 20 year old.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to cope withthe grief that the loss of my dog would cause my family.

Really? You wouldn't be able to cope?

I imagine you cant ask your DC what they think on the issue after all they've been through

' would be thinking about the persons mothers grief. Or their partners. Or their children crying for them in the night because they're not there. I would be thinking of not only the person but how completely it could ruin other lives to lose them.'

No you wouldn't. You'd be thinking 'HOLY SHIT, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE'. You're saving someone from a burning building not writing a poem. You'd grab who/what your instincts tell you to, your instincts, that for survival reasons, are selfish.

That was to urgent by the way

May I ask that everyone keeps their opinions as opinions, instead of masquerading them as fact. No one in this thread is wrong/twisted/evil/inhuman, they are only that in your opinion.

I do feel genuinely sorry for those with only animals for live for, life can be harsh

The logic is valid. 'My family over yours' is the logic, even if the dog is lowest in the family it trumps ANY member of someone else's family. Not my view necessarily, but the logic is valid.

Okay OutragedFromLeeds thanks, that made it clearer.

So to those of you who see it that way. Your dog is one step down in importance and other people and their children are one step below that.

Something like this?
My family = 10
My dog = 9
Other people = 8
Or are other people even lower? 5 perhaps or 3?.

Is there anything else you'd put above the lives of other people and their children. Your TV perhaps or your car?

My family = 10
My dog = 9
My TV = 8
My car = 7
Other people = 6

'Doesn't make that 40% right though.'

No, but you didn't say they were wrong. You said the weren't moral or similar.

Yes Maryz, the only thing I live for. As I said on the other thread, humans have hurt me, raped me. Why would I save a random one over my companions? They die I die the next day.

I've managed to have my say in this debate without name calling, mental health slurs or other such 'questionable' tactics. It is a shame those with 'decent, normal morals' haven't been able to do the same.