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

[Captain Adverse]

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 evade the question. No matter how much a person anthropomorphises a pet, it is NOT truly a member of the person's "family." Granting a pet "family" status is heartwarming but hardly factual.

Asserting a willingness to grant priority to another person saving a family member is a non-issue. That is because people already recognize and accept such a condition since they would likely save a member of their own family first too. Your evasion is presuming that a "pet" is considered by all and sundry as a valid "family member." You know very well that is untrue, and you also know very well that anyone seeing a person saving a pet while letting a member of the viewer's family drown would not agree with you either.

I'm fairly certain that in such a situation your "philosophical" self-deceit would fade as you saw your loved one drown as a result.

 

[head of joaquin]

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.

If you really thought that a pet was part of your family in anything but a metaphorical sense, you would presumably spend as much money on and time with your dog as your child (which regrettably some people probably do). But I suspect you don't. I suspect that you yourself don't really believe that your dog or cat has the same family status as your wife and child, and this is just a disingenuous argument used to support what amounts to a morally odious and selfish position: that you care more about your property than you care about other human beings. I find that morally obtuse.

 

[MaggieD]

If you really thought that a pet was part of your family in anything but a metaphorical sense, you would presumably spend as much money on and time with your dog as your child (which regrettably some people probably do). But I suspect you don't. I suspect that you yourself don't really believe that your dog or cat has the same family status as your wife and child, and this is just a disingenuous argument used to support what amounts to a morally odious and selfish position: that you care more about your property than you care about other human beings. I find that morally obtuse.

Just exactly what does "morally obtuse" mean?

My dog is part of my family. Every dog I've ever owned (four) has been part of my family. In each case, he occupied the lowest level on the family hierarchy. But family nonetheless. Look, if you folks don't get it? It's because you don't really bond with your animals. I get that. I have no problem with that.

But don't have a problem with those that DO bond. It's natural. It's beautiful. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

 

[specklebang]

If you really thought that a pet was part of your family in anything but a metaphorical sense, you would presumably spend as much money on and time with your dog as your child (which regrettably some people probably do). But I suspect you don't. I suspect that you yourself don't really believe that your dog or cat has the same family status as your wife and child, and this is just a disingenuous argument used to support what amounts to a morally odious and selfish position: that you care more about your property than you care about other human beings. I find that morally obtuse.

I love my cats more than anyone else I've ever known. I've gone through 20 girlfriends in my life and none of them are still around. They are just as important to me as my son is and while I have a good relationship with my son, I don't live with him 24/7.

But I've been thinking about this thread since t appeared yesterday and I'll try out a modified version of it. Not addressed specifically to you. But please respond if you like:

We've been discussing this as a choice between your cat (or dog) and someone unknown to you. Some of you argue that a human life is far more valuable than a cat's life and to rescue the cat would be, uh, morally inappropriate. So, I'm curious if that still applies if the other parties are NOT strangers.

Here are a few choices:

1) Your dog and Bashar Assad
2) Your cat or Obama
3) Your dog or Ted Cruz
4) Your cat or your ex-wife

All 4 examples are "humans". Does your human life value still apply? If you answer, please tell us if you do, in fact, have a pet that is yours and with whom you have bonded.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I'd save my dog, no question about it and I make no apologies.

 

[head of joaquin]

I love my cats more than anyone else I've ever known. I've gone through 20 girlfriends in my life and none of them are still around. They are just as important to me as my son is and while I have a good relationship with my son, I don't live with him 24/7.

But I've been thinking about this thread since t appeared yesterday and I'll try out a modified version of it. Not addressed specifically to you. But please respond if you like:

We've been discussing this as a choice between your cat (or dog) and someone unknown to you. Some of you argue that a human life is far more valuable than a cat's life and to rescue the cat would be, uh, morally inappropriate. So, I'm curious if that still applies if the other parties are NOT strangers.

Here are a few choices:

1) Your dog and Bashar Assad
2) Your cat or Obama
3) Your dog or Ted Cruz
4) Your cat or your ex-wife

All 4 examples are "humans". Does your human life value still apply? If you answer, please tell us if you do, in fact, have a pet that is yours and with whom you have bonded.

This doesn't get at the issue.

The first issue is whether we are saving persons or nonpersons. All the people mentioned above are persons; the dog isn't.

The next issue is whether the person is worth saving, regardless of whether a dog is drowning or not. One can rationally decide to let Assad drown, but not because the alternative is to let a dog drown, but because Assad is a war criminal worthy of punishment. On the other hand, it is probably morally obnoxious to act as judge, jury and execution of Assad -- I would prefer to save him and let a court decide (we could be totally mistaken about him, who knows?). However, if the real alternative is that Assad is saved and continues to kill people with impunity, then I might let him drown to protect other persons.

Again, this analysis is not about valuing dogs and persons and then seeing who wins. Persons and dogs are in separate categories. Persons should not be subject to our "valuation" as to worth. That in itself is immoral. I suspect you would think the same if you were the one drowning and the guy by the pool starting doing calculations about your worth to him.

 

[head of joaquin]

I'd save my dog, no question about it and I make no apologies.

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

 

[keith]

I would probably save the dog but recognizing the immorality of the decision say a few Hail Marys afterwards.

 

[specklebang]

This doesn't get at the issue.

The first issue is whether we are saving persons or nonpersons. All the people mentioned above are persons; the dog isn't.

The next issue is whether the person is worth saving, regardless of whether a dog is drowning or not. One can rationally decide to let Assad drown, but not because the alternative is to let a dog drown, but because Assad is a war criminal worthy of punishment. On the other hand, it is probably morally obnoxious to act as judge, jury and execution of Assad -- I would prefer to save him and let a court decide (we could be totally mistaken about him, who knows?). However, if the real alternative is that Assad is saved and continues to kill people with impunity, then I might let him drown to protect other persons.

Again, this analysis is not about valuing dogs and persons and then seeing who wins. Persons and dogs are in separate categories. Persons should not be subject to our "valuation" as to worth. That in itself is immoral. I suspect you would think the same if you were the one drowning and the guy by the pool starting doing calculations about your worth to him.

So, do you have a pet? 20 years ago I might have though just as you do. Now, I feel differently. I'd let all of the humans drown regardless of their "worth" because their loss would not affect me nearly as much as a world without Bugaboo in it.

 

[head of joaquin]

So, do you have a pet? 20 years ago I might have though just as you do. Now, I feel differently. I'd let all of the humans drown regardless of their "worth" because their loss would not affect me nearly as much as a world without Bugaboo in it. ]

Remind never to go swimming with you.

 

[specklebang]

Remind never to go swimming with you.

You'll be fine as long as we don't take the cats swimming with us.

So, PET, yes or no....I think I know the answer. Former pets don't count. Do you have one now? Otherwise, you may be assuming that the ones who choose the pet are cold-hearted but if you have a oet you love, live with, take care of, they become as dear to you as a 2 year old child.

 

[keith]

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

Under advanced socialism they advance to forcibly killing people.

 

[head of joaquin]

You'll be fine as long as we don't take the cats swimming with us.

So, PET, yes or no....I think I know the answer. Former pets don't count. Do you have one now? Otherwise, you may be assuming that the ones who choose the pet are cold-hearted but if you have a oet you love, live with, take care of, they become as dear to you as a 2 year old child.

I have lots of children and lost of pets. Love cats. But they aren't children.

 

[specklebang]

I have lots of children and lost of pets. Love cats. But they aren't children.

Lots of pets? Are they your pets or are they your children's pets? My pets ARE my children. I can show you the scratch marks that damn Queen put in me:roll:

 

[head of joaquin]

Lots of pets? Are they your pets or are they your children's pets? My pets ARE my children. I can show you the scratch marks that damn Queen put in me:roll:

My children are my children. My pets are my pets. I've never confused the two.

 

[X Factor]

You know guys it's ok to disagree without trying to claim some moral high ground. Some of us would save the Human, some of us would save the dog. The chance of any of us ever being in that situation is very unlikely.

I'm going to single out XFactor here (sorry X), because i know him a little better than some of the other posters in this thread. Knowing X and the way he talks about his dogs, i would be very surprised if he didn't pick his dogs over a random stranger and i'm guessing he would be very surprised if i didn't pick a human life over an animal because he knows how passionate i am about my work and trying to keep people alive.

This is true and you're not one that just talks about it either. You've dedicated your life to it, even in very volatile areas. Places I'm not sure I'd have the guts to go. Your actions back your words and that is pretty rare.

It doesn't alter my thoughts of him as a person. I think it's wrong to sit back and take some sort of moral high ground just because someone doesn't agree with you. The whole scenario is not something any of us will probably ever be faced with anyway. Yeah X loves his dogs but i've also heard him talk about his friend and her little baby and you can hear the love in his words when he talks about them. There is no doubt he values human life. He's also one of the first to offer genuine concerns when someone falls on hard times. Judge on that because that's real life right there. Not some "never gonna happen" scenario.

Wow, Serenity, I don't know what to say. I'm genuinely touched. Thank you.

 

[specklebang]

My children are my children. My pets are my pets. I've never confused the two.

I think you have evaded the question enough times to reveal the real answer. You don't have a pet that you dearly love. So, it's probably true that you would save a human even if one of your pets died as a consequence.

I'm not criticizing you for this. Your position is just as valid as my own. We were asked as individuals what we would do in a choice between our pets and a human. You would save the human. I would save my pets.

 

[head of joaquin]

I think you have evaded the question enough times to reveal the real answer. You don't have a pet that you dearly love. So, it's probably true that you would save a human even if one of your pets died as a consequence.

I'm not criticizing you for this. Your position is just as valid as my own. We were asked as individuals what we would do in a choice between our pets and a human. You would save the human. I would save my pets.

I haven't evaded anything. I don't love pets. I love people. I've never confused the two.

Emotional entanglement with nonpersons especially animals, happens, but it's hardly a virtue. I don't think falling in love with money or a car is something that one should do at all, and I suspect you agree. I think we can speak loosely about falling in love with a place or a pet, but I think upon reflection it really isn't the same thing as falling in love with a person. Persons are demanding, independent entities that aren't just there for our pleasure, or even our emotional fulfillment. Pets, places, things aren't in that category. They are fundamentally and extension of our own ego.

I'm not saying deep emotional connections with animals is a bad thing. I am saying that reflection should suggest that it isn't the same thing as loving a person.

 

[MaggieD]

I am saying that reflection should suggest that it isn't the same thing as loving a person.

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

 

[X Factor]

I haven't evaded anything. I don't love pets. I love people. I've never confused the two.

Emotional entanglement with nonpersons especially animals, happens, but it's hardly a virtue. I don't think falling in love with money or a car is something that one should do at all, and I suspect you agree. I think we can speak loosely about falling in love with a place or a pet, but I think upon reflection it really isn't the same thing as falling in love with a person. Persons are demanding, independent entities that aren't just there for our pleasure, or even our emotional fulfillment. Pets, places, things aren't in that category. They are fundamentally and extension of our own ego.

I'm not saying deep emotional connections with animals is a bad thing. I am saying that reflection should suggest that it isn't the same thing as loving a person.

That's all your experience and opinion. Why do you feel we have to believe as you do? You're saying pets are an extension of our ego but children aren't? You've never talked to anyone who's had kids before have you? I do find great pleasure in my dogs, yes I do. That's why I have them. If that's offensive or wrong to you, well, what do I care, I'm conservative so I'm evil incarnate in your eyes anyway. :lol:

 

[PirateMk1]

No you evade the question. No matter how much a person anthropomorphises a pet, it is NOT truly a member of the person's "family." Granting a pet "family" status is heartwarming but hardly factual.

Asserting a willingness to grant priority to another person saving a family member is a non-issue. That is because people already recognize and accept such a condition since they would likely save a member of their own family first too. Your evasion is presuming that a "pet" is considered by all and sundry as a valid "family member." You know very well that is untrue, and you also know very well that anyone seeing a person saving a pet while letting a member of the viewer's family drown would not agree with you either.

I'm fairly certain that in such a situation your "philosophical" self-deceit would fade as you saw your loved one drown as a result.

I might have a unique perspective for you as I have working animals, both cats and dogs. Whose value extends beyond companionship, but has an actual value as well they actively contribute to the well being of the family and the farm. They provide protection from predators both two legged and four, they provide pest population control, and they provide herd functions on occasions. Training and taking care of their medical needs is an expensive and time intensive undertaking. They earn their keep around the house and are VERY much family members such that if someone where to harm them the reaction would be the same as if someone hurt one of my hairless monkey immediate relatives, which would be with violence of the extremely prejudicial kind. Do they have the exact same priority as the children, no. The wife, again no. Also no for immediate family members. As for the rest of hairless simians in my clan, lets just say they better know how to swim. And I know them. If its a child then Sparky and Raider and the rest of the gang, its sorry buddy. Same with a woman, pregnant or otherwise. A younger man I would probably save, older man not so much. There would be pause to consider. In any case an ATTTEMPT would be made for both with priority going to the human in MOST cases though there are a few were I would save the dog or cat first. It would be a rare case but there are cases that my animals lives ARE worth more than a humans life. Mind that would NOT be for ANY dog or cat, just the family dogs and cats.

I should point out that the families relationship with our animals is more akin to familial loyalty, though love does play a part.

 

[head of joaquin]

That's all your experience and opinion. Why do you feel we have to believe as you do? You're saying pets are an extension of our ego but children aren't? You've never talked to anyone who's had kids before have you? I do find great pleasure in my dogs, yes I do. That's why I have them. If that's offensive or wrong to you, well, what do I care, I'm conservative so I'm evil incarnate in your eyes anyway. :lol:

This is a totally invalid argument.

Children are persons. Pets aren't. Whether children are extension of one's ego doesn't change that fact.

So if you want to rebut my position you need more macht than that. You need to claim that dogs are persons. Or that you don't care about the distinction and personhood doesn't matter in your axiology. Either way, good luck with that.

 

[X Factor]

This is a totally invalid argument.

Children are persons. Pets aren't. Whether children are extension of one's ego doesn't change that fact.

So if you want to rebut my position you need more macht than that. You need to claim that dogs are persons. Or that you don't care about the distinction and personhood doesn't matter in your axiology. Either way, good luck with that.

Dogs and animals don't have to be people to be worthy of love, care and protection. You may think otherwise but I don't have to agree.

 

[head of joaquin]

Dogs and animals don't have to be people to be worthy of love, care and protection. You may think otherwise but I don't have to agree.

I didn't say they did, so again, this doesn't rebut my argument.

My argument is that dogs aren't persons and thus in a different moral category when it comes to saving a life. There are many reasons to save a dog's life, and value a dog. But being a person is not one of them. In contrast the drowning stranger is a person. It is immoral and exploitative to calculate the "value" of a person in determining one's relation to him. It reduces a person to an object of use. That on its face is morally objectionable.

Unless you are willing to say that you don't mind being treated like an object by other people, I fail to see how you can argue that you can morally treat another person like an object. At least you can't make that argument without admitting a form of nihilism.

 

[X Factor]

I didn't say they did, so again, this doesn't rebut my argument.

My argument is that dogs aren't persons and thus in a different moral category when it comes to saving a life. There are many reasons to save a dog's life, and value a dog. But being a person is not one of them.

Who said it was?

In contrast the drowning stranger is a person. It is immoral and exploitative to calculate the "value" of a person in determining one's relation to him. It reduces a person to an object of use. That on its face is morally objectionable.

Unless you are willing to say that you don't mind being treated like an object by other people, I fail to see how you can argue that you can morally treat another person like an object. At least you can't make that argument without admitting a form of nihilism.

I'm treated with unconcern by people every single day and I wouldn't expect otherwise. People who are strangers to me owe me no duty to be concerned about my well being as a person. If twenty strangers witnessed me being hit and killed by a car, I wouldn't expect that they would mourn my passing as I am nothing to them. That's not them being callous or mean or bad people. I'm just not someone they know or have any reason to have concern over. They are not my keeper.