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.

Saving non-Christians over Christians (assuming you could differentiate)
Why not? When confronted with two people, one of whom think they are going to live with God for ever, and another who thinks this life is it, why not save the one who most values the here and now?

Haven't read the thread , but I, for one, couldn't listen to a child cry for help and go after my goldfish or any other animal. But I am veggie, so not in favour of killing any animals (if not absolutely necessary)..

"my only imperative comes from biology" What do you mean? Our biological sameness dictates our desire to preserve life?

Yes, Christianity could be a factor (if the person was an adult with strong faith), as well as age, occupation, whether they have children or are carers, etc..

You wouldnt have the time to establish any of that

Seriously? Followers of certain religions are more worthy than others?

Forgetting the family argument, given that a number of posters don't seem to accept the place of a pet in the family, would you choose to save your best friend over a stranger in this hideous, hypothetical fire?

Ormirian Probably not going to explain this very well....At least part of our evolutionary success (a major part, I believe) is down to the priority of collective fitness over individual fitness (cooperation for the good of all) as a survival strategy. Thus, by "biological imperative", I am referring to something that is an intrinsic part of our makeup as a species and something I wouldn't underestimate the power of in a "burning building" situation. So maybe, yes, it is our "sameness" that dictates our desire to preserve life - we are all human animals, we are all here by dint of being willing to share, and that is no longer simply a social construct but something that has been selected for in our very biology.

The way you treat other people's children/family is also a way of protecting your own surely?

I'd want to model the same behaviour towards another child in danger that I'd hope a stranger would display to my child if they were in danger.

That's a part of why the idea that another parent in particular, would opt to save their dog and ignore a child, is particularly disturbing to me.

ak do you honestly believe that the devastation you would feel if you lost a pet would compare in any way to the devastation most mothers would feel at looking a child?

I can't believe anyone would be so selfish and cruel to save a pet over a child.

The best friend analogy would only work on the people who equate their dogs with a human ie a best friend and I dont so it doesnt

Hickory would save a pet over her OWN DH and DC

Hickory would save a pet over her OWN DH and DC

I think you mean over her H and C. It doesn't sound as if the D applies

That is true!

Well quite everlong

"Shades of grey" my arse...

Shades of shite more like.

Grim

You probably wouldn't have time to ponder about stuff in real life situations, but if you did, lots of factors come to play. It is all theoretical, of course. But human over animal every time, unless they are Hitler or Fritzl, or someone like that..

bloody hell just looked back and read that hickory would save her horse over her own child. I find it strange enough that she chooses her husband over her child but a bloody horse... I think that some people must not really love their children the way that they are meant to.

Can I check if the 'human over animal' everytime camp would judge a blind person for saving their guide dog over a person?

Assuming the scenario was such that the guide dog and human in the fire were unable to save themselves and the blind person was able to.

No because that is nit the same hypothetical scenario now is it. The question is you CAN save a dog or a stranger and obviously the blind person in your tale Cant

I would understand better than with an "ordinary" pet, but still judge.

2tired the blind person in this scenario is able to save his dog or the person. Is it wrong if he chooses his guide dog over the other person?