• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Immorality of Saving a Dog, or "Why My Pet is Worth More Alive Than You Are!"

Now my feelings are hurt.

Since your position is that it's not objectionable to sacrifice human beings to save dogs, you can hardly complain about having your feelings hurt. Indeed, you can hardly complain about any mistreatment of any kind, since you've argued that if someone doesn't value a person for any reason, he can sit back and watch them die.

In a morally obtuse world like that, hearing you whine about having your feelings hurt is precious.
 
Since your position is that it's not objectionable to sacrifice human beings to save dogs, you can hardly complain about having your feelings hurt. Indeed, you can hardly complain about any mistreatment of any kind, since you've argued that if someone doesn't value a person for any reason, he can sit back and watch them die.

In a morally obtuse world like that, hearing you whine about having your feelings hurt is precious.

This question isn't about "sacrificing" human beings. It's about who would you choose - your own dog or a stranger. Who KNOWS what anyone would choose in these ridiculous scenerios? But those of us who consider our pets members of our family . . . our first instinct? Is to save that which we love.

Why is that so damned difficult to understand?
 
When are you going to understand that others feel more strongly and have more empathy for their pets than others? You will never convince those of us who view our animals as family members that we should let them drown in the lily-white scenerio you've painted: unknown human being over dog.

I think you should have learned a lesson here. You do not understand those of us who value pets as we value other family members. (Albeit lower on the hierarchy within the household.)

Actually I understand you all quite well. You just don't accept or appreciate the truth of that understanding. :shrug:
 
This question isn't about "sacrificing" human beings. It's about who would you choose - your own dog or a stranger. Who KNOWS what anyone would choose in these ridiculous scenerios? But those of us who consider our pets members of our family . . . our first instinct? Is to save that which we love.

Why is that so damned difficult to understand?

No, it's about the basis of that decision, and why you would come to the conclusion you have. That's what is at issue.

Frankly neither you nor anybody here has provided a coherent explanation of why saving a dog over a stranger is morally justifiable, except some generalities about how they love their dogs like family or strangers aren't worth saving. The upshot is an axiology that either claims dogs are persons or treats persons as things. Both of these claims are indefensible, and in fact you haven't defended them. I don't think you can, and frankly I don't think you even understand the issue.
 
No, it's about the basis of that decision, and why you would come to the conclusion you have. That's what is at issue.

Frankly neither you nor anybody here has provided a coherent explanation of why saving a dog over a stranger is morally justifiable, except some generalities about how they love their dogs like family or strangers aren't worth saving. The upshot is an axiology that either claims dogs are persons or treats persons as things. Both of these claims are indefensible, and in fact you haven't defended them. I don't think you can, and frankly I don't think you even understand the issue.

I don't have to defend the issue. I was asked what I thought I might do -- save a stranger or save my dog. My answer is that I think I would save my dog. In reality, I don't know what I would do. No one of us who says, "my dog" knows for sure. It's typical moral no-win bull****.

If you don't understand that some people love their dogs as if they are family? That they are, in fact, family? No amount of gum-flapping is going to help you understand that.

How could anyone morally defend saving a dog instead of a human being? Can't be morally justified. But that doesn't change that it is what it is for some people. I'm not perfect. I don't beat myself up for it. I acknowledge that I sometimes don't take​ the moral high ground. *shrug*
 
I don't have to defend the issue. I was asked what I thought I might do -- save a stranger or save my dog. My answer is that I think I would save my dog. In reality, I don't know what I would do. No one of us who says, "my dog" knows for sure. It's typical moral no-win bull****.

If you don't understand that some people love their dogs as if they are family? That they are, in fact, family? No amount of gum-flapping is going to help you understand that.

How could anyone morally defend saving a dog instead of a human being? Can't be morally justified. But that doesn't change that it is what it is for some people. I'm not perfect. I don't beat myself up for it. I acknowledge that I sometimes don't take​ the moral high ground. *shrug*

This appears to be an outright admission of my point: that you can't provide any coherent defense of your moral choice. You might want to reflect upon it. Saying you would let a stranger die and you can't explain why (it's just what you'd do) is a rather startling admission of a lack of moral reflection on a rather important issue -- our obligations to others on a clearcut matter of life and death. Ultimately the unexamined life is not worth living.

Frankly I think I'd respect a half-baked defense more than no defense at all.
 
Last edited:
I personally never said otherwise. No one can.

I don't think this is true. I think people can reflect on their moral choices and explain them. I've tried to explain mine and make no apologies for it.
 
Since your position is that it's not objectionable to sacrifice human beings to save dogs, you can hardly complain about having your feelings hurt. Indeed, you can hardly complain about any mistreatment of any kind, since you've argued that if someone doesn't value a person for any reason, he can sit back and watch them die.

In a morally obtuse world like that, hearing you whine about having your feelings hurt is precious.
Really? All that just to say you dont care about my feelings?
 
I don't think this is true. I think people can reflect on their moral choices and explain them. I've tried to explain mine and make no apologies for it.

As I've tried to explain mine. I'm a dog lover. A "my dog" lover. Each of my four German Shepherds was/is (Joshy) with me for 10-12 years. (One at a time, by the way.) During their lifetimes, I built bonds with them that transcend what others (who don't understand) might consider normal...although that is not apparent to anyone but me. IOW, they are still "dogs" in my house. There's a hierarchy. And I'm leader of the pack. They aren't coddled...they are expected to obey, and they do.

Intrinsic to the breed, GSDs are people pleasers...within their pack. They are protective, loyal, quick to learn and eager to please. They love and trust unconditionally. Highly intelligent, if one spends time with them keeping their nature in mind, they learn to read between the lines, easily learn hand signals and their owner's command voice is "The Voice of God." Shoo them? They will back up. Crook a finger, over they'll come. Scold them (which, after age three one seldom has to do) and they appear heartbroken. Talk to them in full sentences? They'll glean what they need to know out of your words. While my love and trust of them isn't unconditional, it is the purest strongest and ONLY (almost) unconditional love I know. Never having had children, I also know I don't quite "get it" in that regard, but it is what it is.

I would give my life for my dog. IOW, I would die trying. Any one of them would have given their lives for me. Or died trying just the same. Ask me to value a stranger's life over the life of one of my dogs, and my basic instincts sitting in the comfort of my living room tell me I wouldn't DO that. I would save my dog. Ask me if I'm sure? I will tell you, "No, I'm not."

I don't know how I can explain it any better than that. I don't justify it. It is what it is.
 
No, it's about the basis of that decision, and why you would come to the conclusion you have. That's what is at issue.

Frankly neither you nor anybody here has provided a coherent explanation of why saving a dog over a stranger is morally justifiable, except some generalities about how they love their dogs like family or strangers aren't worth saving. The upshot is an axiology that either claims dogs are persons or treats persons as things. Both of these claims are indefensible, and in fact you haven't defended them. I don't think you can, and frankly I don't think you even understand the issue.
Morality is subjective.
So your critique of our morality is meaningless.
 
If we assume the moral choice is always to value any human life over that of a pet how can anyone defend choosing to expend resources on owning a pet over using those same resources to feed a starving child?
 
I admit to exercising a somewhat judgmental attitude on my part so the fault is not theirs alone. In any case I sincerely appreciate your attempt to bring the emotions down to a more balanced level. Thank you. :)

"A somewhat judgmental attitude"? Are you going for the understatement of the thread award?
 
If we assume the moral choice is always to value any human life over that of a pet how can anyone defend choosing to expend resources on owning a pet over using those same resources to feed a starving child?

Or using deadly force against a person to protect an animal, which, I'm told is justifiable.
 
If we assume the moral choice is always to value any human life over that of a pet how can anyone defend choosing to expend resources on owning a pet over using those same resources to feed a starving child?

Morally? You cannot. Sefishly (or "economically," or "realistically," etc.)? As seen by many responses...very easily.
 
Morally? You cannot. Sefishly (or "economically," or "realistically," etc.)? As seen by many responses...very easily.

So then you equally condemn people who buy dog food instead of feeding starving children?
 
If we assume the moral choice is always to value any human life over that of a pet how can anyone defend choosing to expend resources on owning a pet over using those same resources to feed a starving child?

It's a fair question. But I think we can distinguish.

First of all, the hypothetical made it clear: there is a clear choice between saving the drowning dog and saving the stranger. It's one or the other under the hypothetical. Not so with feeding your dog or preventing a poor child from dying of malnutrition somewhere in the world. The one is immediate, the second is contingent or at least not immediately subject to preventing. You can give money to a charity and hope it will ameliorate malnutrition and save a life. But it may or may not, and it's not something in your immediate control. The less invidious comparison is between (1) feeding a starving dog or (2) feeding a starving person right there in front of you. I'd give the food to the person. I think it would be immoral not to.

Second, the hypothetical is constructed to involve no risk or burden to the lifesaver. The idea is that you have to choose to save a dog or a person, not weigh the risk of saving one or the other. Weighing the risk is a fair thing to bring up, but it brings up other considerations. If the moral question is, do I risk my life to save a stranger, that's just not the same moral question as do I save a dog or a stranger (both of which without risk). I don't think there's anything particularly immoral in saying, the risk to my life is too great for me to try to save the stranger. It may not be a brave choice, but it's not an immoral one. That's something everybody has to decide for himself. Your question is less like the original hypothetical and more like the risk hypothetical. Helping others doesn't require us to give up everything we have, including the amenities of life (like pets).

So your question certainly raises an honest moral question (should we own certain amenities in an unfair world where 1B people are undernourished?). But it has nothing to do with pets. You could ask the same thing about spending money on basketball shoes, cell phones, and college tuition -- anything beyond the necessities of life -- instead of helping starving children. I would say that it is certainly a virtue for somebody to give up the amenities of life to help others, but I don't know if it's a vice to have some amenities, even if that means giving less to assist others in need. I think a better solution is not to give up every amenity for charity, but to engage in political action for a fairer system of resource allocation. In short, this is a complex social, political and moral question in a way the dog/stranger question isn't.
 
Last edited:
It's a fair question. But I think we can distinguish.

First of all, the hypothetical made it clear: there is a clear choice between saving the drowning dog and saving the stranger. It's one or the other under the hypothetical. Not so with feeding your dog or preventing a poor child from dying of malnutrition somewhere in the world. The one is immediate, the second is contingent or at least not immediately subject to preventing. You can give money to a charity and hope it will ameliorate malnutrition and save a life. But it may or may not, and it's not something in your immediate control. The less invidious comparison is between (1) feeding a starving dog or (2) feeding a starving person right there in front of you. I'd give the food to the person. I think it would be immoral not to.

Second, the hypothetical is constructed to involve no risk or burden to the lifesaver. The idea is that you have to choose to save a dog or a person, not weigh the risk of saving one or the other. Weighing the risk is a fair thing to bring up, but it brings up other considerations. If the moral question is, do I risk my life to save a stranger, that's just not the same moral question as do I save a dog or a stranger (both of which without risk). I don't think there's anything particularly immoral in saying, the risk to my life is too great for me to try to save the stranger. It may not be a brave choice, but it's not an immoral one. That's something everybody has to decide for himself. Your question is less like the original hypothetical and more like the risk hypothetical. Helping others doesn't require us to give up everything we have, including the amenities of life (like pets).

So your question certainly raises an honest moral question (should we own certain amenities in an unfair world where 1B people are undernourished?). But it has nothing to do with pets. You could ask the same thing about spending money on basketball shoes, cell phones, and college tuition -- anything beyond the necessities of life -- instead of helping starving children. I would say that it is certainly a virtue for somebody to give up the amenities of life to help others, but I don't know if it's a vice to have some amenities, even if that means giving less to assist others in need. I think a better solution is not to give up every amenity for charity, but to engage in political action for a fairer system of resource allocation. In short, this is a complex social, political and moral question in a way the dog/stranger question isn't.

Thanks for a well reasoned response - and sorry for the delay in responding - real life gets in the way.......


I'm honestly not sure that the lack of immediacy in my scenario changes things significantly - at least not the way you're suggesting. I agree that when you give to a charity you don't know with any kind of certainty that your dollars are actually feeding someone but I don't think that itself invalidates my scenario. I actually expect that the lack immediacy in my scenario begets willful blindness - I know I don't think about starving kids when I buy my mutts dog food while I often do give obviously hungry people in the subway money - though to his credit Captain Adverse is being logically consistent in a way I think most people wouldn't be.

I agree that my hypothetical isn't a perfect analog for the OP, it raises more issues as you say that the OP doesn't and goes beyond pets - I was, and still am, hoping to go that path and discuss just how far we might be morally obligated to go with self sacrifice in order to help others. My own view has always been that my moral obligation is assure to the extent that I can that my family is successful and lives as good a life as I can provide. Once that's assured then I think the equation changes. Probably time to start another thread.
 
Several members have decided that saving the dog is the "morally right" thing to do.

Nobody said it was the morally right thing to do. they said it's what they would probably do. I would save a dog over a human life, because the dog won't shoot you in the back and take your wallet.
 
Morally? You cannot. Sefishly (or "economically," or "realistically," etc.)? As seen by many responses...very easily.

Of course that same argument applies to purchasing anything above the basic necessities.
 
Back
Top Bottom