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.

Bump together 1-2-3. Like waves across the sea.

.

It just means you're capable of putting on a socially acceptable front AK.

Anyone can do that.

In fact the very worst people often make a bigger show of being "good" than average.

I'm sure there's some recent story about a man who gave to children's hospitals who didn't turn out to be such a great guy after all....

I'm so bothered about the animal savers that don't have their own DC, it's the ones that do and could potentially have other people's kids under their care that I find very worrying

*not so bothered

Well if they put forth the view that it would be acceptable for their own child to be put ahead of someone else's pet (someone said "they wouldn't be pleased but they'd understand) then they can't be overly fussed on their own offspring can they?

I haven't read most of the friends but I am well and truly shocked that people would choose their pet over another persons child. I understand people love and are attached to their pets, but I don't believe they would be so devastated by the loss of their pet that it would compare in any way to the loss most mothers would feel if they lost a child.

Since reading this thread I have decided that I will not allow my child to stay over at any ones house who has a pet.

Dont blame you

Humans are animals.

So those who place no value on non-human animals are simply favouring one form of animals (their own) over another form (all the rest). Sounds odd when you think of it like that.

I would do anything I could to save my animals. I would do anything I could to save any human too, and more especially a helpless one like a child. If I was ever in the unlikely position to save only one I would of course save the human if they couldn't save themselves. But I wouldn't exactly be happy about watching or hearing my dog or cat die. I would regard it as a resonsibility but I'd hate it.

I don't totally understand the absolutes of this argument. it feels a bit McCarthyist to me, as if there is some hideous conspiracy to kill all human beings and replace them with animals! As if the human race is under threat from some subversive group of canine conspiracists and we MUST as loyal humans declare your unthinking and absolute obedience to the cause. It's all so extreme.

A stranger or a child Akak?

Adults and children ie someone I don't know comes lower than any part of family which includes the dog.

It just means you're capable of putting on a socially acceptable front AK.

Hardly - I couldn't give a fuck whether anyone finds me socially acceptable or not. I raise money doing something which doesn't take much effort from me but contributes to the charities in question making a real difference in children's lives and that to me is a real no-brainer. I certainly wouldn't spend all my free time doing charity work.

Anyone who wants to call me evil or morally repugnant please feel free just don't expect a polite response!

Bugger, missed the end of the first one and almost all this one. Has the party finished?

AK I couldn't care in the least about getting an impolite response from anyone with your viewpoint

Still plenty of room maid. Its not place no value on non human life ohmirian its place less value

Gah, long reply eaten - probably for the best.
Outraged To clarify across a couple of points you made...Are you saying that when I choose to save the human, I am being selfish, because I am avoiding guilt/seeking moral superiority/etc? I don't want to follow this path if I have misunderstood you.

Other thoughts:

1. The study cited shows "what people say they would do", not "what they would do". I posted it as much for the interesting comment on the basis for making "moral" decisions (women = emotional argument = team Dog).
2. I agree with Maryz's position but not on the application of absolute morality in this situation. I reject objective morality in any case (too many theological implications). I have never said that anyone was "right" or "wrong" for their decision.
3. Urgently It seems rather convenient that you evoke contractual obligations to justify saving the children rather than your dog. If you truly feel that your dog is as important as child, I would imagine scant regard to any law would be shown.
4. Assuming that the emotional bond between dog and owner/poster is such that the dog would be saved over other humans, Team Dog cannot therefore dismiss the same emotional connection between wasp and owner/poster. Why is it so ridiculous to save a wasp instead of a person? At what "level" in the animal kingdom does Team Dog start to get a bit twitchy? I'm not asking you to condemn (you can't), just wondering when your eyebrow raises a little....

maid - re point 4, that is an interesting question. How far down or up the 'scale' do we go in deciding what is as important as a human. If a drug to treat a rate illness can only be tested on a rate mountain gorilla for example because of their similarity to us, how many gorillas can be sacrificed before we say stop? Do we ever say stop? Does the potential cure for say perhaps 100 humans sanction the death of 1000 gorillas? 10000 gorillas? Or perhaps if it wasn't apes. If it was 'only' dogs - how many could we use? A million?

Point being is there really any limit to what we can do to animals for our potential benefit? If not, why did we ban bear baiting? Why is fox hunting illegal?

We all have to choose where to place our line in the sand. And I think this 'team human' v 'team dog' is so much tendentious bullshit. We all draw our lines in a different place and unless it becomes enshrined in law that 'ALL PEOPLE SHALL BELEIVE THAT THEY WILL RESCUE A HUMAN BEING AT THE EXPENSE OF A MEMBER OF ANOTHER SPECIES' we will continue to draw it where we draw it. What we actually do in a moment of stress and danger might well be very different anyway.

rare!

Ormirian My first response on this subject outlined my hesitation at choosing between human and non-human great ape. My position re: animal testing is that it is never acceptable to test anything on chimps/gorillas/orangutans, just as we would never test on non-consenting humans (it may be the case that, in the face of a worldwide zombie epidemic, some humans offer themselves willingly). This is my position (based on biological affinity) and "what I say I would do", which, as we've established, may bear little resemblance to "what I would actually do" .

So yes, we can limit what we do to/with animals for our own benefit. For example, I choose not to eat animals for my own benefit. I have lines in the sand, presumably you do too.

But you haven't said where your line sits....Mine is (currently) somewhere between dogs and gorillas.

I don't know exactly where my line lies. I was simply trying to point out that for those who find any position other than theirs abhorent to realise that there are shades of grey and there is no moral imperative to feel the same.

Of course no one has to feel the same, but their position would still affect the way I view them as people.

I thought the pet over human stance was odd and didnt sit well with me but it was the prioritising of pets over peoples own DC and DH that I find repugnant

I notice no-one called out Trish for her desire to save non-Christians over Christians...

I didnt see that, how would she know?

Ormirian I was simply trying to point out that for those who find any position other than theirs abhorent to realise that there are shades of grey and there is no moral imperative to feel the same.

I can recognise the differing positions yet still feel abhorrence. I agree that there is no "moral" imperative to feel the same, my only imperative comes from biology (which, in the bigger picture, tends to describe behaviour to which we ascribe the term "moral", in order to make ourselves appear far more thinking a species than we actually are).

Some other thoughts:

1. Do people really think there is doubt that Homo sapiens is the most intelligent species on earth? I appreciate the platitude, and wouldn't doubt that many species are far more intelligent than we credit them with, but to suggest that we aren't the most intelligent seems obtuse. The very fact that we are considering the question answers it (in my opinion).
2. I really like the phrase used somewhere here - "cool misanthropy". There's an awful lot of stranger-Fritzls and not a lot of stranger-Flemings being rescued . Also, much praise about how much animals have done for mankind, with very little recognition about what humans have done for mankind. And of course, that non-human animals are innately "nicer" than human animals...a delusion most wildlife programmes will correct. As if "nicer" wasn't just a human construct anyway.