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.

Urgent, I'm ambivalent about Hiroshima, my opinion sways based on who is most eloquent in my Year 9s that year, but I can certainly see both sides of the argument, just as I can here. Thankfully, as my subject is all about interpretations, I don't feel the need to belittle opinions other than my own.

I will add that my dog is disabled. Am I allowed to rescue him now? And one of the cats is diabetic.

UrgentNews. Having a family code that says our family versus the world can come back to haunt you. You are not going to be endearing yourselves to outsiders, and we all need help from them sometimes.

Outraged. I thought the idea is to try and not to be selfish. I thought that was a widely known fact.

That's hilarious Trish. Come and live my life for a bit and see how much outsiders help you then.

Hang on a minute, Trish - (forgive me if I've missed this in previous posts but the discussion has been very long!) are you saying you wouldn't put your family before strangers in emergency situations?

It seems that learning to be selfish is being handed down through some families. That is likely to happen, hadnt really thought of that before. But it doesnt necessarily have to be the case, if someone starts to think otherwise, and then teaches the next generation that that is not the best way to go.

'Outraged. I thought the idea is to try and not to be selfish. I thought that was a widely known fact.'

You're being silly aren't you? In normal, everyday life many people are selfless and yes trying not to be selfish is a good idea. In a survival situation, that goes out the window. It's about survival and instinct. Human instinct is selfish. It has to be for us to survive. I know from your posts that you're not stupid, I can only assume you're deliberately misunderstanding me. It really hinders the conversation.

Leaving a human to die but saving an animal?

Evil.
I agree with Maryz.

You are not actually putting the animal first.
You are putting your own selfish need for the animal or sentimental attachment for the animal first. There is no moral argument to support selfishness of that sort.

Spikey I feel for you I really do, but there are some genuinely nice caring people out there, in Britain and the world.

Ah Godwin's Law that's the one - cheers :)

Difficult to keep up with all the various scenarios here they seem to keep changing from the original.

I think in the original one, the idea was that you would know you could only save one life. It pretty much came down to "if you had the power to either save your pet or an unknown person from death which would you choose?"

I'd still maintain that choosing your pet in that situation would be a horrific thing to do.

I haven't read any post that would convince me otherwise.

I do think those animal savers who work in positions of responsibility with children should let their employers know of their gut instinct to save beloved animals rather than random children.

In a survival situation I sincerely hope not Outraged. That is when a human is most tested, and when their true colours come through, assuming they have enough time to think, which may not be always possible in a fire situation.
I think I will leave it there with you and agree to differ.

'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?'

Firstly, it wasn't my logic. I explained it where you misunderstood, but it wasn't mine.

Secondly, yes the logic works in that situation. It's a very simple logic. 'My family first'. If you consider the dog to be in your family and the child not to be, then yes the logic works. It always works, every time.

I don't know why you're struggling with it because it's the same logic that we would all use, even the human savers. My family first. My DD over your DD. My Dad over your Dad.

The disagreement is not about the 'My family first' logic, but about whether or not it is acceptable to consider a dog as part of your family.

I think my headteacher would wonder why I'd have an animal in my classroom, Greythorne. I'm not actually allowed to take my dog and cats to work.

Don't feel for me Trish, I'm fine. I just know that the majority of people in this world would climb over each other to escape a fire, not stop to rescue random people. I worry about those who don't recognise the inherent selfishness of human nature, because they could be in for a shock. Why do you think we celebrate acts of courage and selflessness? Because they are rare.

I care for my disabled, widowed mother all by myself. I'll make sure to let her know that I can't anymore because I'm too evil to care.

I will add that my dog is disabled. Am I allowed to rescue him now? And one of the cats is diabetic.

My view of choosing the pet over the person wouldn't be changed by that fact.

leeds yes! I understand. I addressed you because you pointed out I was wrong, which I was. I meant, that logic would lead one to save a pet over a friend's child, and was asking outraged if they think they would do that. I phrased it badly.

'In a survival situation I sincerely hope not Outraged. '

I think you're wrong, but I really hope you're right. I hope you're the one walking past when I'm in the burning building.

'leeds yes! I understand. I addressed you because you pointed out I was wrong, which I was. I meant, that logic would lead one to save a pet over a friend's child, and was asking outraged if they think they would do that. I phrased it badly.'

I'm OutragedFromLeeds. You asked Outraged. That's me!

To say that I wouldn't use this logic btw. I used to consider my cat part of my family, but still would not have picked her because I recognised that the pain that would inflict on me would be dwarfed by the pain I was inflicting on someone else. Also, I think the person who would have died's life was more valuable.

'The dog isn't family outraged it's a dog.
Yes you may love it like I love my dogs and cats but they aren't my family by any stretch.'

Everlong this could go on forever. For some people they are. That's a fact. You might find that immoral and disgusting and evil and so on, but it's a fact that for some people they are family. We're having enough trouble arguing over the moral side of it without starting on what is clearly fact.

Whether that's right or wrong is a separate issue.

Isn't that the fundamental point of disagreement: Some of you don't believe your animals to be part of your family and some of us do believe our animals to be part of our family. It's how we feel. You can't just invalidate those feelings by saying that you don't feel this way therefore we can't. That's not how feelings work.

Sorry - getting mixed up and being unclear with my lazy one-handed typing (BFing). I meant to acknowledge that you were right, and also to ask urgent if they would make the decision re friend's child that was consistent with that logic.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The battles for Okinawa and Iwo Jima demonstrated that Japan would require total conquest to the last man before capitulation. This fact was further demonstrated by the failure of the Japanese government to capitulate after the Hiroshima bomb.

The Potsdam Declaration of July 1945 warned Japan of prompt and utter destruction if she did not surrender. Japan had seen the rolling triumph of US forces in the Pacific theatre, and for her part, had seen the outcome of resistance on Iwo Jima and Okinawa earlier that summer - the death of the majority of defenders and loss of the island. They called the battles the 'rain of steel', and the 'violent wind of steel'. They knew what they were up against and yet they were prepared to pit themselves against an enemy they knew to be their superior in every important military element (manpower and material resources) to the point of utter annihilation.

Should the US have decided to hold off on the bomb and instead wipe out everyone in Japan either by direct conquest or by starving the country into submission, a process that was already under way by means of the naval blockade? I think the exemplary massive shock to the system had much to recommend it, and was by far the lesser of two evils.

The really glaring evil was the appropriation of the property of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and their internment in concentration camps in the American interior. There was no justification for this expression of sheer prejudice.

My dog is a "part of the family" but I consider there to be reasonable, healthy boundaries and situations where that would not apply.

It certainly wouldn't apply to the extent that I'd let another human die in its place.

Spikeytree

Do you ever organise school trips off school property?

You prioritizing of pets above children is highly relevant to your ability to do your job.