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

[X Factor]

I don't value them equally either, and never implied otherwise. That being said, my dog gets preference over an *unknown, until I KNOW who that unknown is. It still doesn't place a moral obligation on me to save the human over my dog. Morals are specific to social conditioning and circumstances, and even if everyone else in the society agrees that it is my moral obligation to save the human, it still does not make it my moral obligation. It may make it a humanitarian obligation, if I am humanitarian-minded.

And I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, and others reserve what they consider family members (which you apparently don't, with regards to dogs) above strangers.

I already answered your question. They have an obligation towards their family and their first priority is to make sure they are safe and free from harm. If one of their family members are in danger I expect that will do what is necessary to save them and if that means I drown, so be it. *In my eyes they made the moral choice in the situation before them.

No, you left that thread and started this one because you still want to push your sense of moral superiority over anyone who disagrees with you - your arrogance is breathtaking.

Some of you are ready to judge any person on earth who chooses for whatever reason to save an animal over a person, any animal no matter what its value to that person be it trained service dog or the only reason on earth for the rescuer to value life itself, over a virtual stranger who could be anything from a serial killer to a beloved family member of someone the rescuer could not possibly know, as a selfish, inhumane monster... does it give you a moral rush to be take your so-called superior position and denigrate anyone who strays from it?

It's one thing to toss out a philosophical question, and dissect the results, and the reasons different people feel differently on the question on an intellectual level. It's quite another to toss out a philosophical question and presume that everyone who doesn't respond "appropriately" is an immoral, disgusting excuse for a human who should be ashamed of being alive.

I have read this thread and the related one that cloned it, which has solidified my belief that humans as a species are incredibly arrogant, self-important, and desperate to claim power as the "rightful" masters of this planet and all that it contains. Eventually that arrogance may doom not only the planet, but the human species itself. At this moment, I can't honestly claim that would be a bad thing. So by all means, go on with your "only humans really count" scenarios. I've already been disillusioned enough, and will not be reading them.

in a fantasy vacuum like the OP tries to create i save the HUMAN every time, maybe its the president, maybe it the surgeon who is going to save my grandmothers life etc etc


outside the vacuum though there are MANY scenarios i could make up where i leave the human to drown and if any of their belongs wash up on shore i give them to my dog

Just wanted to say something to my fellow animal lovers. I know I could add others, but I focused on people I feel I know a little better or who have spent more time in these particular threads. As I've said numerous times, not everybody feels the way about animals the way I do and that's totally ok. Animal lovers speak a whole different language and not everybody understands it. This is true in real life as well. I know the friends I have that will understand why I couldn't go out because my dog is not acting right and those who won't. The world needs people like us, otherwise who would advocate for animals who can't speak for themselves? Without people like us there would be no animal cruelty laws or ASPCA or adoption programs and things like dog fighting and bear baiting might still be legal.

I'm not sure how much longer I'll see any point in continuing this discussion but I wanted to say that you all don't need to feel defensive or apologetic for your passion for animals. It does not make you bad or cold "human haters". In fact, in my experience people who have empathy for animals are also more likely to have empathy for people, especially children (as well as the elderly and disabled). It makes sense. I've seen several of you express apparent genuine concern over people here that you haven't even ever met. Nobody here knows you or your interactions with other people, so let others judge if that's what they want. They don't have all the relevant evidence. Let it roll off your back.


Sorry for the long ass post. Serenity's post just got me thinking.

 

[lizzie]

I'm not sure how much longer I'll see any point in continuing this discussion but I wanted to say that you all don't need to feel defensive or apologetic for your passion for animals. It does not make you bad or cold "human haters".

I don't feel defensive. If I were an immoral person, then I wouldn't even give the thread a second thought, but that is not the case. I would hold up my own values and judgements against those of anyone else, any day, and not feel intimidated nor inadequate. Let those who wish to judge, do so. It matters not one iota to me. If they believe themselves to be better in some way, then let them talk to God about it.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The final stage of advanced capitalism: no apologies for letting people die.

Obviously you don't have a dog.

 

[Mach]

That's certainly a subjective choice though. What did you base that choice on? Is it because the child will live longer? Does the child, being younger, have more potential?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I am asking you for the general ethical rule you believe to follow, specifically to determine if you're acting "ethically". I have given you my general rule, and showed you that I would use it, and I would consider it good if other people used it. You are now asking WHY I have that rule, which is a different discussion. What we're establishing is that I have an ethical rule that I would believe is good for everyone to apply (in the general sense).

We consider adopted children to be part of our family, yet technically they aren't (biologically) since our wives didn't give birth to them. Would you save an adopted child before a stranger? If so, why? If you created a self-aware android (think Data on Star Trek), would you save the android over the stranger. If not, why not?

I would like to answer these but it's premature. I don't yet have your ethical rule.

 

[head of joaquin]

Obviously you don't have a dog.

Obviously you don't have a valid argument. And in fact I have three dogs.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Obviously you don't have a valid argument. And in fact I have three dogs.

Then you are a bad dog owner. When you got them you took responsibility for their lives being healthy and happy. When they are drowning and look at you with those "I know you''ll help me eyes" and then you don't, their heart will break before they drown.

 

[head of joaquin]

Then you are a bad dog owner. When you got them you took responsibility for their lives being healthy and happy. When they are drowning and look at you with those "I know you''ll help me eyes" and then you don't, their heart will break before they drown.

Yes, yes, deflect since you can't discuss the OP coherently.

You either must claim that dogs are persons, or you much claim that persons can be treated like objects. Either way, you're left with a moral absurdity.

 

[Monserrat]

Then you are a bad dog owner. When you got them you took responsibility for their lives being healthy and happy. When they are drowning and look at you with those "I know you''ll help me eyes" and then you don't, their heart will break before they drown.

I agree. I don't think I would have chosen a stranger over my dog. I raised her from a little puppy, she was like my second half so what moral obligation do I have to put my life at risk in order to save a human being that I do not know over another living being who I am responsible for, who depends on me to take care of them?

The premise in the OP is flawed. Swimming into water to save a drowning victim will always be life threatening to you regardless of how good of a swimmer you are and you are under no moral obligation to endanger yourself in order to save anyone else, whether you know them or not.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I agree. I don't think I would have chosen a stranger over my dog. I raised her from a little puppy, she was like my second half so what moral obligation do I have to put my life at risk in order to save a human being that I do not know over another living being who I am responsible for, who depends on me to take care of them?

The premise in the OP is flawed. Swimming into water to save a drowning victim will always be life threatening to you regardless of how good of a swimmer you are and you are under no moral obligation to endanger yourself in order to save anyone else, whether you know them or not.

I have heard of people jumping in a river to save their dog and drowning in the process, the bond is strong or at least can be.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Yes, yes, deflect since you can't discuss the OP coherently.

You either must claim that dogs are persons, or you much claim that persons can be treated like objects. Either way, you're left with a moral absurdity.

I will stake my morals against anyones. But my estimation is that person put themselves in that position, my dog wouldnt have.

 

[Mach]

I will stake my morals against anyones. But my estimation is that person put themselves in that position, my dog wouldnt have.

You haven no idea. The other person may have jumped in to save your dog, who had bitten through his rope leash to chase a rabbit. The point of a hypothetical is in the case that the circumstances are *unknown*.

 

[CRUE CAB]

You haven no idea. The other person may have jumped in to save your dog, who had bitten through his rope leash to chase a rabbit. The point of a hypothetical is in the case that the circumstances are *unknown*.

Unknown means I would know about the broken leash and his trying to save my dog.
IF the one in some million shot that my dog was drowning, I have yet to see a dog drown, and a person I dont know from Adam were drowning, I would save my dog.
Start throwing in all the other what ifs, and the outcome may be different.

 

[Thorgasm]

BTW, I have to laugh at the OP flouncing out of the original thread saying that was his final word on the topic only to start a new thread on exactly the same thing. Lol.

Yeah, it's like his voice wasn't loud enough.

 

[calamity]

Irony is no one would admit to saving a suitcase full of money from flowing over a waterfall by letting a child drown, but few would risk their lives to stop the government from blowing to bits a village if the offending country wherein the village lay happened to be blocking the flow of oil.

 

[Thorgasm]

Human life isn't that precious. There are over 7 billion people on the planet. That population is growing exponentially every day. That means that human life's value is decreasing every day.

These people who think they are more moral than others are full of it. They should take a vow of poverty until children stop starving in third world countries and America. :lol:

 

[head of joaquin]

I will stake my morals against anyones. But my estimation is that person put themselves in that position, my dog wouldnt have.

Since you haven't explained your position, why should anybody take your word for it?

 

[CRUE CAB]

Since you haven't explained your position, why should anybody take your word for it?

Then dont, just dont be trying to breathe water around me. I wont get my watch wet to save you.

 

[head of joaquin]

Then dont, just dont be trying to breathe water around me. I wont get my watch wet to save you.

Exhibit A in the conservative cavalcade of moral obtuseness.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Exhibit A in the conservative cavalcade of moral obtuseness.

Now my feelings are hurt.:lamo

 

[Captain Adverse]

Human life isn't that precious. There are over 7 billion people on the planet. That population is growing exponentially every day. That means that human life's value is decreasing every day.

These people who think they are more moral than others are full of it. They should take a vow of poverty until children stop starving in third world countries and America. :lol:

LOL According to your logic there are too many pets too.

According to the 375 page survey that tracks hundreds of pet ownership trends, Americans own approximately 73 million dogs, 90 million cats, 139 million freshwater fish, 9 million saltwater fish, 16 million birds, 18 million small animals and 11 million reptiles.

How Many Pets Are in the U.S.? - Netscape Home & Living

That's 356 million pets in the USA alone! Thats 39 million more pets than there are US citizens (317 million)

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

So perhaps according to your logic we need to care a lot less for pets than for humans?

I can only hope all these people who argue for saving their pets over a stranger (yet admit they would hope a pet-owner would save THEM or THEIR loved one instead of a pet) find themselves in just such a situation...and DROWN!! (Not sincerely, if I were present I'd still save your worthless hide.) LOL

 

[X Factor]

LOL According to your logic there are too many pets too.



How Many Pets Are in the U.S.? - Netscape Home & Living

That's 356 million pets in the USA alone! Thats 39 million more pets than there are US citizens (317 million)

Population Clock

So perhaps according to your logic we need to care a lot less for pets than for humans?

I can only hope all these people who argue for saving their pets over a stranger (yet admit they would hope a pet-owner would save THEM or THEIR loved one instead of a pet) find themselves in just such a situation...and DROWN!! (Not sincerely, if I were present I'd still save your worthless hide.) LOL

You've proven yourself to be wholly dishonest and you call others (who've answered honestly) worthless. Lol. Did you not want honest responses to your question? Not everybody is as duplicitous. I doubt you'd save anything or anybody. No offense. You just seem like you're all talk.

 

[X Factor]

Yeah, it's like his voice wasn't loud enough.

Well you know, empty wagons rattle the loudest.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You've proven yourself to be wholly dishonest and you call others (who've answered honestly) worthless. Lol. Did you not want honest responses to your question? Not everybody is as duplicitous. I doubt you'd save anything or anybody. No offense. You just seem like you're all talk.

It's always funny how people about to intentionally give offense typically preface it with "no offense."

In response, let me say this. I could list all the dishonest, fallacious, underhanded, etc., etc., etc. methodologies you have used here hidden behind a faux freindly face...but I won't. It's just not worth it.

 

[Thorgasm]

LOL According to your logic there are too many pets too.



How Many Pets Are in the U.S.? - Netscape Home & Living

That's 356 million pets in the USA alone! Thats 39 million more pets than there are US citizens (317 million)

Population Clock

So perhaps according to your logic we need to care a lot less for pets than for humans?

I can only hope all these people who argue for saving their pets over a stranger (yet admit they would hope a pet-owner would save THEM or THEIR loved one instead of a pet) find themselves in just such a situation...and DROWN!! (Not sincerely, if I were present I'd still save your worthless hide.) LOL

I knew you would go here. It's erroneous logic though. I don't have millions of pets. I only have four. 7 billion people are strangers to me.

 

[MaggieD]

LOL According to your logic there are too many pets too.

How Many Pets Are in the U.S.? - Netscape Home & Living

That's 356 million pets in the USA alone! Thats 39 million more pets than there are US citizens (317 million)

Population Clock

So perhaps according to your logic we need to care a lot less for pets than for humans?

I can only hope all these people who argue for saving their pets over a stranger (yet admit they would hope a pet-owner would save THEM or THEIR loved one instead of a pet) find themselves in just such a situation...and DROWN!! (Not sincerely, if I were present I'd still save your worthless hide.) LOL

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.)