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.

'nya nya you are evil'

and the human savers have done so much better?! 'You're evil because you are....' is a fantastic argument.

I don't believe either side are evil.

I think there have been some threats, which if carried out would be evil. Namecheck for Back, KeepingUp and, everyone's favourite dog killer, Curlew.

'I'm sure I read somewhere that means you lose your argument but I can't remember where'

We've had to kill Sharp. It was her or the dogs.

"The difficulty with "I believe I'm entitled to my position and you are entitled to yours" is that, in my opinion your (talking now to the more, erm, insistant animal-only savers) position is wrong. And totally morally unacceptable in a civilised society."

There's rather a difference, though, between saying that someone IS wrong and saying that in your opinion they are wrong. I'm fine with the second. I'm not sure the first has a place in a hypothetical argument.

"No, I don't see how anyone could claim that rescuing the human was evil. The two sides are not symmetrical.

I mean someone could post "You are evil" but I see no way to make an actual argument for it. At most team animal could claim equality for animals. How would someone structure a claim that the animals had more right to live? and if they succeeded wouldn't they be obliged to commit suicide and give the land back to the bunny rabbits?"

But I haven't seen anyone calling Team Human evil. That was all directed the other way. No have I seen anyone structuring a claim of animals having more right to live.

'So you don't think that making a concious decision to save an animal over a human is evil, Outraged?'

MaryZ may I ask you to re-read my earlier post? I think you've misread/misunderstood it

''How conscious are split second decisions though? If you intend to leave the child to die when you could save it, that is evil. I don't think there is any intention to let someone die when rescuing a loved one from a burning building though.''

Maryz I don't know about Outraged's opinion but I for one think that the decision depends on the human and the animal.

Some evil rapist or child abuser vs Lassie=Lassie wins

Gandhi vs Cujo=Gandhi wins

My current dog vs a stranger=My dog wins

I should clarify that my latest post was in my opinion

'Gandhi vs Lassie' would be an amazing film

"making a concious decision to save an animal over a human"

I'm not really defending a position on conscious decisions. My position is that in the hypothetical situation originally quoted (dog/stranger/fire) my instinct would be to rescue my dog and have every intention of going back in for the human - bearing in mind that at the time of making the decision, standing outside gasping at the fiery horror, I am not privy to the information that I'll only be able to save the one. Nor do we know at that point the age or social value of the human (by which I mean are they friendless, familyless paedo rapist murdering waste of skin or are they Mother Theresa - happy for the former to burn, by the way). My extreme wisdom does not include psychic powers even at times of immense emotion .

Maryz But sometimes a morally wrong decision can also be the right one. The UK performing its own blitz against Germany was morally wrong but also necessary to win the war,. The Hiroshima bomb was beyond evil but it still ended the war between the US and Japan. Morally right decisions aren't always the right decisions to make. I haven't claimed to be morally right, I have just said what I would actually do and explained why.

urgent

I think it's also philosophically relevant to mention that non-human animals aren't a homogenous mass.

What about primates, human's closest relatives? They've taught chimpanzees sign language. I think I would quite possible reflexively pull almost any human, no matter what I knew they'd done, out of wreckage first, but that is pure emotions. I can't actually see a philosophical justification for such a blanket reaction.

'I get your point Outraged. But there are a fair few posters who have categorically said they would make the choice to save the animal and leave the child'

but that's because they've been told they can only save one and they're in a burning building.

If you enter a fire to save your dog, the intent is to save your dog, regardless of who else is in there. There is no intent to let someone else die, that's the result, but it's not the intent.

Think about what evil really means. Someone desperate to save something they really love and as a result leaving someone else to die is not evil imo. They may have made the wrong choice, but I truly don't believe that they are evil. To be evil you need to intend harm.

'I'm not really defending a position on conscious decisions. My position is that in the hypothetical situation originally quoted (dog/stranger/fire) my instinct would be to rescue my dog '

^^This is exactly it.

Save the human please, save the human.

Who is deciding which code of morals we live by anyway?

With regards to Hiroshima, my Year 9s always vote (by a large majority) for it being a justifiable decision to drop the bomb. Even though it was probably only dropped to scare the USSR and justify the vast sums spent on it. Surprises me every year, but I'm able to accept their opinions as valid opinions because they explain to me why they think that.

I am still puzzling over one of Urgent's posts. He says that him and I think it was his sister and mum and child would all save the dog before a stranger. And he readily admits and is proud, that he is selfish. Presumably your other family members are selfish too? So how does your family dynamics work, if everyone is selfish?
Are you the boss? Is it your family and dog against the world?

Human nature is inherently selfish. It is how we survive.

Everyone is selfish when it really comes down to it. It's how we survive. Put your own mask on before helping others.

I thought this was a widely known fact?

x-post!

"Who is deciding which code of morals we live by anyway?"

Certain contributors to this thread, apparently.

And fuck me, I should probably be grateful to them for pointing out the error of my ways. All this time the people in my life haven't realised what a danger they are running by being around me. What if my propensity for evil were to rub off? Holy underpants, Batman! I need to rethink my place upon the Earth!

I am very proud of my family for not backing down in an argument that is basically 'what they believe vs what society wants them to believe'. Why should we let political correctness and other people's opinions decide what we should do.

Spikeytree I totally agree about Hiroshima being justifiable, it was still a horribly evil thing to do, but justifiable.

I can't keep up with this thread, but to say to outraged and urgent you're right that the logic could be 'my family above anyone else.' That however does lead to the conclusion that one with that logic would also rescue their dog over a friend's child. Does your logic still stand in that case outraged?

What I was getting at was that people who are saying their dog is family and claiming that has equivalence with someone's else's family, including DCs, are disingenuous. They would save their children first because it would hurt a hell of a lot more to lose them, but would inflict that same pain on someone else. That is breath-takingly selfish.

Also, often hypothetical scenarios are a way of exploring people's beliefs so the wider discussion is fine. No one knows what they would do if it actually happened, even if you can be 99% sure.