Who would you save?

[southsamurai]

just a note on the one link in OP. the guy leaves his wife and saves the dog before going back to save the wife. notice the breed of dog, and that it wouldnt have survived long enough to go back for it in all likelihood. a human can handle the situation better. so again, save the dog, go back for the wife is my choice too

 

[All_Mina]

I think people place too much favoritism on animals in our culture but if the dog is "mine", I would choose my dog over a "foreign tourist". In most other circumstances, human lives > animal lives.

 

[Just Me]

We wonder why the evil and crazy things happen in the world. Racism, jingoism, genocide, school shootings, wars etc etc. Maybe there is something really screwy in our brains that would allow a fellow human being to die over a beloved pet. When you can anthropomorphise an animal so much that you no longer see strangers as human it doesn't take a big stretch of the imagination that people can commit genocide by seeing "others" as less than human. :crybaby:

As much as I have loved all my pets and they have been a part of the family. I would never let another human being die because of my feelings for an animal. There was a reason I asked for no other hypothetical's, although I knew it would not happen. :lol: People will try to rationalize everything.

I was not too surprised that Hitler was brought up so soon. :lol: Can you guarantee the world would be in a better place without Hitler? Imagine this:

There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany[1] and the Nazis took several measures to ensure protection of animals.[2] Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring, were supporters of animal protection. Several Nazis were environmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime.[3] Heinrich Himmler made an effort to ban the hunting of animals.[4] Göring was an animal lover and conservationist.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

It has also been said there were strict laws about humanely treating any pets people had, although it was actually against the law at the time for non-aryan people in Germany to own pets, when they were sent to the concentration camps.

There was something about this question and the fact that so many would save their dog that deeply disturbed me but in the end made me realize why such hatred and other atrocities can happen in the world. Still a scary thought though.

 

[Nordling]

Holy cow and egad and good grief! Now that's even stretching fantasy. Certainly, one may judge people harshly because they like humans better or dogs, cats, or wombats, but how does that lead to genocide?

Many people think that humans being superior to all other life forms is a given, but where is this actually demonstrated? Look what beloved humans have done to the planet.

Dogs and cats...not so much.

 

[JickyJuly]

How is it hateful to believe that a living creature deserves to live equally as much as human? I don't really follow that. Humans aren't the end all be all despite what our egos lead us to believe. The most sensible answer is to try to save whichever you have the best chance at saving. If you've not made an oath to protect other people (fire, police etc), you don't owe anything to strangers. However, if your dog is in the wrong place at the wrong time, you've likely made a bad decision as a pet owner directly leading to the possible loss.

 

[Brad]

I may not be an expert BUT I have studied a ton of WWII info which includes Nazis. I laughed hard when I read this which is totally wrong.

[4] Göring was an animal lover and conservationist.

Here is actual video of him showing off his large group of deer that he killed. He was a big time hunter so I have no idea where that BS comes from.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/goeri ... ting-lodge

I have no problem discussing Nazi leaders if someone wants to start a specific thread about it but I really don't want to muck this one up any further as it doesn't apply to this topic.

 

[mynameisbob84]

How is it hateful to believe that a living creature deserves to live equally as much as human? I don't really follow that. Humans aren't the end all be all despite what our egos lead us to believe.

I dunno. I love animals but wouldn't say the life of an animal is equal to the life of a person. The effect of one person dying has a far greater effect on a far greater number of people than the death of any animal. Even the death of a beloved pet can't compare with the loss of a child or a spouse or a close friend.

Plus, if we were to accept that all living things are equal, then we have to take into account not just pets, but insects, and vermin, and sealife, even plantlife. Is a human life really no more important than a jellyfish? I'd argue it is :twocents-02cents:

 

[Nordling]

How is it hateful to believe that a living creature deserves to live equally as much as human? I don't really follow that. Humans aren't the end all be all despite what our egos lead us to believe.

I dunno. I love animals but wouldn't say the life of an animal is equal to the life of a person. The effect of one person dying has a far greater effect on a far greater number of people than the death of any animal. Even the death of a beloved pet can't compare with the loss of a child or a spouse or a close friend.

Plus, if we were to accept that all living things are equal, then we have to take into account not just pets, but insects, and vermin, and sealife, even plantlife. Is a human life really no more important than a jellyfish? I'd argue it is :twocents-02cents:

You've demonstrated how specific humans are of great value to specific other humans, but what you're demonstrated is really just how humans are constructed--we are social creatures who tend to form bonds.

But how does this demonstrate that we are in some way, objectively of greater value than a jellyfish? I mean, you and I may very well value humans more than wombats, but our likes and dislikes don't add value for anyone but us. I'm sure a wombat, if it was capable of self-contemplation, would argue for wombats.

 

[Anonymous]

I dunno. I love animals but wouldn't say the life of an animal is equal to the life of a person. The effect of one person dying has a far greater effect on a far greater number of people than the death of any animal. Even the death of a beloved pet can't compare with the loss of a child or a spouse or a close friend.

Plus, if we were to accept that all living things are equal, then we have to take into account not just pets, but insects, and vermin, and sealife, even plantlife. Is a human life really no more important than a jellyfish? I'd argue it is :twocents-02cents:

^What he said.^

 

[Brad]

I value life. But I expect that I would always choose to save a family member before saving a stranger. That means just what it says. That does not mean that I value an animals life any higher nor any lower then that of a human. It only means that my family comes first and that our animals are part of our family.

Personally I do not even care to start tossing around other hypothetical questions such as "what if it's your dog and your child? Then who do you save?" To me that question is no different then saying which child would you save. I don't care to think of choosing ANY family member over another one. That's why for me it is easy to answer if one is a stranger. Family always wins there.


As far as the more generic question of if an animals life is more important then a humans I can't give just one standard answer. I know plenty of humans that this world would be just fine without and I'm sure the same could be said for many animals. The answer is too dependent on the actual person or animal for me.

 

[JickyJuly]

How is it hateful to believe that a living creature deserves to live equally as much as human? I don't really follow that. Humans aren't the end all be all despite what our egos lead us to believe.

I dunno. I love animals but wouldn't say the life of an animal is equal to the life of a person. The effect of one person dying has a far greater effect on a far greater number of people than the death of any animal. Even the death of a beloved pet can't compare with the loss of a child or a spouse or a close friend.

Plus, if we were to accept that all living things are equal, then we have to take into account not just pets, but insects, and vermin, and sealife, even plantlife. Is a human life really no more important than a jellyfish? I'd argue it is :twocents-02cents:

I guess the question is who gets to decide which life is important? To a human, human life is going to seem important. To a lion, a human is just a squishy upright lunch that she can share with her pack. It's okay to feel like human life is more important, but that is just a feeling. It's not a fact. We're all just the same crap in different packages destined to be dirt.

 

[Just Me]

How is it hateful to believe that a living creature deserves to live equally as much as human? I don't really follow that. Humans aren't the end all be all despite what our egos lead us to believe.

I dunno. I love animals but wouldn't say the life of an animal is equal to the life of a person. The effect of one person dying has a far greater effect on a far greater number of people than the death of any animal. Even the death of a beloved pet can't compare with the loss of a child or a spouse or a close friend.

Plus, if we were to accept that all living things are equal, then we have to take into account not just pets, but insects, and vermin, and sealife, even plantlife. Is a human life really no more important than a jellyfish? I'd argue it is :twocents-02cents:

I guess the question is who gets to decide which life is important? To a human, human life is going to seem important. To a lion, a human is just a squishy upright lunch that she can share with her pack. It's okay to feel like human life is more important, but that is just a feeling. It's not a fact. We're all just the same crap in different packages destined to be dirt.

If you truly believe all life is equal to human life then logically you can not own a pet, eat meat, wear animal skins, visit a zoo, kill a bug etc. It is nothing to do with ego and all about evolution. It is great we have the leisure time and a highly evolved brain to worry about how animals are treated but in the end the survival of our species is what matters. We can get existential with the question and wonder if the human race is worth saving or how terrible we are to the planet and each other but to do that we must survive as a species.

I just found it very disturbing that some people can so easily dehumanize other people over a pet. What if you were the foreign tourist? Would you think, Oh, that's fine they let me die because it was their pet they were saving.

 

[Just Me]

I may not be an expert BUT I have studied a ton of WWII info which includes Nazis. I laughed hard when I read this which is totally wrong.

[4] Göring was an animal lover and conservationist.

Here is actual video of him showing off his large group of deer that he killed. He was a big time hunter so I have no idea where that BS comes from.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/goeri ... ting-lodge

I have no problem discussing Nazi leaders if someone wants to start a specific thread about it but I really don't want to muck this one up any further as it doesn't apply to this topic.

You can be an animal lover and conservationist and still hunt animals. Some of the biggest supporters of conservation are hunters and hunting organizations. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I may not be an expert BUT I have studied a ton of WWII info which includes Nazis. I laughed hard when I read this which is totally wrong.

[4] Göring was an animal lover and conservationist.

Here is actual video of him showing off his large group of deer that he killed. He was a big time hunter so I have no idea where that BS comes from.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/goeri ... ting-lodge

I have no problem discussing Nazi leaders if someone wants to start a specific thread about it but I really don't want to muck this one up any further as it doesn't apply to this topic.

You can be an animal lover and conservationist and still hunt animals. Some of the biggest supporters of conservation are hunters and hunting organizations. They are not mutually exclusive.

EXACTLY what I was thinking. One of the major reasons ducks in general are thriving is because of the duck stamps allowing people to hunt them. Without the hunters there would not be the quality wetlands for their habitats today.

And deer hunters keep the population down to a manageable level so there isn't mass starvation and disease. Like it or not there isn't woodlands to support a lot more deer in most areas with encroaching human populations. Without hunters it would be much worse for deer.

 

[GemmaMarie]

How is it hateful to believe that a living creature deserves to live equally as much as human? I don't really follow that. Humans aren't the end all be all despite what our egos lead us to believe.

I dunno. I love animals but wouldn't say the life of an animal is equal to the life of a person. The effect of one person dying has a far greater effect on a far greater number of people than the death of any animal. Even the death of a beloved pet can't compare with the loss of a child or a spouse or a close friend.

Plus, if we were to accept that all living things are equal, then we have to take into account not just pets, but insects, and vermin, and sealife, even plantlife. Is a human life really no more important than a jellyfish? I'd argue it is :twocents-02cents:

I guess the question is who gets to decide which life is important? To a human, human life is going to seem important. To a lion, a human is just a squishy upright lunch that she can share with her pack. It's okay to feel like human life is more important, but that is just a feeling. It's not a fact. We're all just the same crap in different packages destined to be dirt.

I have to agree with this. & equally as important, all of us, each and every one of us, get to determine in THEIR life who is or what is important and who/what isn't important. & that is what determines who we would save and why. I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing a pet over a human or vice versa.

To me, honestly, I would be in either of these two situations: Freaking out so bad my only thoughts were Kokomo! or Jack! (those are my pets currently) & I'd probably save them. because they are very important to me and my natural instincts to protect what I care about would kick in or I'd actually have some form of rational sense and be able to decide who can I save? Who has the most likely chance? & if they both could theoretically be saved I'd obv try my best to save both but probably choose the human over my pet bc I know the loss the family would incur without that person.

Without being in this situation, for most of us it's hard to say how we would react. We might not react at all and simply swim to shore and freak out, or we could be level headed. We all wish for one thing but unless you've trained for such a scenario it's hard to say how it'll go!

What really angers me in this debate is being told a pet can be replaced. They can't. They ARE a life and like every living being in life, are the ONLY thing in life that can't be replaced. Sure I can get a new dog, but on the other hand you can get a new husband/wife/son etc. I know it sounds harsh, it is. But it's true. When Kokomo dies, she can't be replaced. She will never be again, & whose to say that she means LESS to me than someone's husband/wife/son/daughter. For many people, their pets are their life. They don't have parents to speak of, no husband or wife, no children. Just their pet. Their pet is their world. Different people & different personalities form different bonds and a relation between what one person feels for something vs another can't really be accurately made.

 

[PunkInDrublic]

"Teller and I would personally kill EVERY chimp in the world, with our bare hands, to save ONE street junkie...with AIDS."
Close enough to my feelings whenever these types of questions are asked.

 

[Brad]

I may not be an expert BUT I have studied a ton of WWII info which includes Nazis. I laughed hard when I read this which is totally wrong.

[4] Göring was an animal lover and conservationist.

Here is actual video of him showing off his large group of deer that he killed. He was a big time hunter so I have no idea where that BS comes from.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/goeri ... ting-lodge

I have no problem discussing Nazi leaders if someone wants to start a specific thread about it but I really don't want to muck this one up any further as it doesn't apply to this topic.

You can be an animal lover and conservationist and still hunt animals. Some of the biggest supporters of conservation are hunters and hunting organizations. They are not mutually exclusive.

To me they are when your biggest concern is showing off your kills (look at my dick size) and mounting the heads on your wall, but this is just my opinion anyway.
:twocents-02cents:

They didn't like any animal torture but killing them was still just fine if done humanly. (except if it is kosher of course, they didn't like that either) They didn't like the hounds killing the fox. They prefer to kill it themselves. Hitler was a vegetarian but the others weren't and mostly went along with him as they did in many other matters. Hermann Goering could give a rats ass about animals other then killing and displaying them. At least from everything I have ever read about him. Just the wrong guy to put out there as an animal activist. Way wrong guy!

The official Nazi biography, which was written by Erich Gritzbach, says: "Goering is a fanatical friend of animals. He says: 'Whoever tortures animals violates the instincts of the German people.'

The same love of animals which he demonstrates in all he has to do with the animal world also imbues the Reich hunting law of 1934. Indeed it gives this law its deep ethical meaning. In Germany hunting on horseback, chasing animals with a pack of hounds, is banned."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... boten.html

So hunting and killing a fox is still OK. Just don't use a horse or a hound to do it. Yep, real animal loving stuff there!
:roll:

ANYONE who kills simply for the sport of it is no animal lover.
:hand:

OK, I'm done.
:angry-soapbox:

 

[JickyJuly]

How is it hateful to believe that a living creature deserves to live equally as much as human? I don't really follow that. Humans aren't the end all be all despite what our egos lead us to believe.

I dunno. I love animals but wouldn't say the life of an animal is equal to the life of a person. The effect of one person dying has a far greater effect on a far greater number of people than the death of any animal. Even the death of a beloved pet can't compare with the loss of a child or a spouse or a close friend.

Plus, if we were to accept that all living things are equal, then we have to take into account not just pets, but insects, and vermin, and sealife, even plantlife. Is a human life really no more important than a jellyfish? I'd argue it is :twocents-02cents:

I guess the question is who gets to decide which life is important? To a human, human life is going to seem important. To a lion, a human is just a squishy upright lunch that she can share with her pack. It's okay to feel like human life is more important, but that is just a feeling. It's not a fact. We're all just the same crap in different packages destined to be dirt.

If you truly believe all life is equal to human life then logically you can not own a pet, eat meat, wear animal skins, visit a zoo, kill a bug etc. It is nothing to do with ego and all about evolution. It is great we have the leisure time and a highly evolved brain to worry about how animals are treated but in the end the survival of our species is what matters.

I think it's possible to enjoy your spot at the top of the food chain without thinking your life matters more than the other links in the chain. I, personally, choose not to eat mammals. But, I recognize that my choice is based on emotion. Living in Florida, many creepy crawlies find their way into my home. Some I pick up and set gently back outside. Some I stomp. None are more important than the others. I just associate some with nice things and others with yuck. My feelings don't make one creature better than another. They only dictate my actions. Factually, our spot in the food chain makes us the LEAST important part of it all. If we die off, the rest of the animals and the ecosystems will be fine without us. :lol:

Questions like "who would you save?" are provocative because the answer is purely emotion. People get upset, but it's not morality. It's not fact. There isn't a wrong answer.

 

[Zoomer]

I'd save both... I'm awesome like that

(the human, mainly as I don't have, or like, dogs).

 

[WickedTouch]

How about save the human, sacrifice the dog... and then clone a new dog.

:thumbleft: