# Who would you save from a horrible death?



## Imbored21 (Jun 18, 2012)

Your pet or a random stranger?? I choose my pet.


----------



## keyboardsmahshfwa (Apr 22, 2014)

What's preventing me from saving both? What am I saving them from?


----------



## Seegan (Mar 24, 2015)

My pet 100% of the time...


----------



## iCod (Feb 17, 2015)

My pet. **** that other dude I hope he suffers.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Is the stranger wealthy?


----------



## Memory (Mar 4, 2011)

sorry random guy but I love my pets


----------



## meandernorth (Nov 12, 2014)

splendidbob said:


> Is the stranger wealthy?


I had a feeling that this question would be asked. lol


----------



## Owl Eyes (May 23, 2011)

My pet, duh.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Its always the first question you should ask in these trolleyology scenarios


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

But seriously, I don't have a pet, but if I did it would be the random stranger, regardless of his wealth.


----------



## meandernorth (Nov 12, 2014)

I'd save the stranger. Losing my pet would still be hard to deal with.


----------



## scooby (Jun 24, 2009)

I've posted in a thread just like this in the past. 

But basically: Sorry little kids, partner, and family of random dude. I chose to save my stupid cat instead of letting you grow up with a father.


I'd save a stranger every time.


Imagine if someone told you the reason your father/partner/brother/friend that you loved died because they decided to save their dog or cat. "Oh okay, thats fine then, since it was your pet."


----------



## meandernorth (Nov 12, 2014)

splendidbob said:


> if you had to kill either your pet or a random human, would you still kill the human?


Morally, a life is a life. As far as I know, the legal penalties are much for severe for killing a human.


----------



## kageri (Oct 2, 2014)

My dogs beat you and your whole family. Well not the shiba. That exists in the house only because of my husband. My husky and akita are getting saved before any strange human of any age or gender. Throw me in jail for letting a human die if you can find something to charge me with. I would feel even more miserable out of jail with my dog lost. Now my cat or favorite chinchillas versus human is a bit more grey area and I'd probably save a person before my guinea pigs.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Random human being every time. I truly cannot understand the (lack of) morality of people who say pet.

Would it change your mind if the 'random dude' was a child? If so, at what age does a person have to be before you decide your pet is worth more than human life? Would the sex of the random person make a difference?

"Sure, it's sad that the 15 year old girl had to die but she had a decent enough run, also, my fluffy wuffy has a good 5-6 years left."

Euuughh, I know that sentence above is made up but anyone who chooses pet in this situation literally disgusts me.

Edit: The imposing of my own morality needs more emphasis: *You make me physically sick.*


----------



## TheWildeOne (May 15, 2014)

scooby said:


> I've posted in a thread just like this in the past.
> 
> But basically: Sorry little kids, partner, and family of random dude. I chose to save my stupid cat instead of letting you grow up with a father.
> 
> ...


This can be easily reversed.

Imagine you save the stranger, and he goes on not to have kids, and to instead be a deranged serial killer.

Then, to precisely the same extent as you are responsible for the feelings of the person being told they "died because you saved your pet," you are now responsible for them being at large.

My point is that this is a silly concept. I would save my pet out of familiarity and love. I place no objectively higher value on human life.


----------



## gopherinferno (Apr 7, 2009)

there are too many variables to this question

are people gonna _know_ which one i picked?

what kind of pet? cuz if it's a goddamn goldfish


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

TheWildeOne said:


> This can be easily reversed.
> 
> Imagine you save the stranger, and he goes on not to have kids, and to instead be a deranged serial killer.
> 
> ...


Oh yeah, cause the odds of a random stranger being a deranged serial killer is equal to them having a loving family. A rubbishy false equivalence there.


----------



## DistraughtOwl (Mar 1, 2014)

gopherinferno said:


> there are too many variables to this question
> 
> are people gonna _know_ which one i picked?
> 
> what kind of pet? cuz if it's a goddamn goldfish


Hey! goldfish are people too!


----------



## gopherinferno (Apr 7, 2009)

LichtLune said:


> Hey! goldfish are people too!


Shut up little mermaid


----------



## JustThisGuy (Mar 24, 2012)

I love my cat, but the person. I hope people in here are being hyperbole. Course I see it a lot in comments about animal deaths and people following it with why it couldn't have been people instead. I'm all for humane treatment of animals and stuff, but come on. People are animals, too, you know.


----------



## scooby (Jun 24, 2009)

TheWildeOne said:


> This can be easily reversed.
> 
> Imagine you save the stranger, and he goes on not to have kids, and to instead be a deranged serial killer.
> 
> ...


What percentage of people are deranged serial killers? Now compare that to how many people have a family. And no, you wouldn't be responsible for them being at large. It is not any of our place as civilians to hand out justice ourselves.


----------



## TuxedoChief (Jan 11, 2015)

I far prefer animals over humans, that's for sure. 

Especially if it's a well known pet of mine.


----------



## Seegan (Mar 24, 2015)

Basically, I would never betray my pet, someone who loves me for who I am and doesn't judge based on petty personality bull****.

Let's see: save the one who's always there for me, has heard me cry out of sheer loneliness and depression or save a member of a species that is _the very reason I'm crying out of sheer loneliness and depression_?

Yep, no contest. My pets win every time. Sorry, random dude. I guess all the dehumanization by other people worked, because I now feel more of a kinship with animals than humans. You can blame society for your death.


----------



## kageri (Oct 2, 2014)

I don't care if the person is a serial killer or not. There are plenty of humans. I don't care about every single last animal in the world and the same goes for humans. There have been times I would probably have committed suicide if I lost my dog because I had nothing else. Saving a human and losing my dog is not going to even that out no matter what the details.


----------



## 2Milk (Oct 29, 2014)

Would i be in some kind of danger? If yes, then no one.


----------



## Cashel (Oct 29, 2013)

The human.


----------



## TheWildeOne (May 15, 2014)

scooby said:


> What percentage of people are deranged serial killers? Now compare that to how many people have a family. And no, you wouldn't be responsible for them being at large. It is not any of our place as civilians to hand out justice ourselves.


But we're not talking percentages. This isn't a statistical dilemma, it's a moral one.

The fact of the matter is that, numbers aside, I'm not responsible for what someone _else_ does or has, just because I wish to save that which is familiar to me. I have no obligation to this person's family whatsoever, moral or otherwise. Whereas I have a personal connection to the animal. I'm not a murderer for not saving a person, and if I were, I'd be a killer in a similar way for knowingly allowing a pet to die.


----------



## TheWildeOne (May 15, 2014)

Sean07 said:


> Oh yeah, cause the odds of a random stranger being a deranged serial killer is equal to them having a loving family. A rubbishy false equivalence there.


I'll say it once again. This is not a question of "numbers and chances." This is a fairly common psychological and philosophical dilemma being presented. And it's not the bloody trolley dilemma. So numbers are irrelevant. In isolating an incident like this, I am not responsible for statistics. The question has nothing to _do_ with who the person is, which is the point I was attempting to make. The question gauges the degree to which you are "species-ist," or else gauges how much emotional attachment affects your decision-making.

Fact of the matter is, if you're doing wrong in not saving the person, you're doing wrong in not saving the pet.


----------



## chinaski (Mar 1, 2010)

i'd assume the dude is miserable like me and wanted to die so i wouldn't save him. 

and i've never had a pet

i would have voted "neither" if that was an option


----------



## scooby (Jun 24, 2009)

TheWildeOne said:


> But we're not talking percentages. This isn't a statistical dilemma, it's a moral one.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that, numbers aside, I'm not responsible for what someone _else_ does or has, just because I wish to save that which is familiar to me. I have no obligation to this person's family whatsoever, moral or otherwise. Whereas I have a personal connection to the animal. I'm not a murderer for not saving a person, and if I were, I'd be a killer in a similar way for knowingly allowing a pet to die.


You're throwing in things I never claimed. I didn't say you'd be a murderer. I brought up the percentage thing, because you for some reason brought up the incredibly low chance that someone could be a deranged serial killer. The problem is, a persons death is far more likely to have a greater impact on people around them than a pet. Because we live in a human society, humans will have much more effect on more people. Humans can comprehend and be affected of something like this on a much more cognitive level. Basically, I'd rather save someone else because my empathy for others loss of a family member and the impact it has in society is stronger than my personal connection to my pets, where I'd only be saving it for my own selfish satisfaction.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

TheWildeOne said:


> I'll say it once again. This is not a question of "numbers and chances." This is a fairly common psychological and philosophical dilemma being presented. And it's not the bloody trolley dilemma. So numbers are irrelevant. In isolating an incident like this, I am not responsible for statistics. The question has nothing to _do_ with who the person is, which is the point I was attempting to make. The question gauges the degree to which you are "species-ist," or else gauges how much emotional attachment affects your decision-making.
> 
> Fact of the matter is, if you're doing wrong in not saving the person, you're doing wrong in not saving the pet.


You'll say it once again will you? I replied before him dude no need to be an arse. The thing is, most people do have families and that would certainly come into the equation when it comes down to choosing. The chances of there being be a real external as well as internal emotional backlash proceeding the situation, should you choose your pet over another person is also higher.

You have a point about being 'species-ist' but that's perfectly natural. I know I'd lose much less sleep knowing I let my dog die over a human being as I'm not a douchebag existential nihilist who places no intrinsic value on human life. Our experience of life is much more enhanced than that of a common house pet. Would you agree a the life of a moth is inherently less valuable than a human beings? Would it be morally different if some guy loved his pet moth?

You also said you're not a murderer if you could save someone but decided not to, I'd say that hypothetical is far more nuanced and situational than simply 'I didn't kill them personally therefore I'm not guilty of murder' morally speaking anyway, maybe not legislatively. Eg. Vast swathes of the German populace turning a blind eye to the holocaust. Not guilty of law breaking but **** them.

And so ****. It's a pet, not a human being. I've admitted earlier in this thread I'm imposing my own sense of morality as is everyone. Mine is clearly different to most SAS people (so far)


----------



## TheWildeOne (May 15, 2014)

scooby said:


> You're throwing in things I never claimed. I didn't say you'd be a murderer. I brought up the percentage thing, because you for some reason brought up the incredibly low chance that someone could be a deranged serial killer. The problem is, a persons death is far more likely to have a greater impact on people around them than a pet. Because we live in a human society, humans will have much more effect on more people. Humans can comprehend and be affected of something like this on a much more cognitive level. Basically, I'd rather save someone else because my empathy for others loss of a family member and the impact it has in society is stronger than my personal connection to my pets, where I'd only be saving it for my own selfish satisfaction.


I apologise if it seemed as though I was claiming things for you - I was simply reading implications. Regarding what you say here, though, I suppose that's a way of reasoning it, and perhaps one that this dilemma was constructed to elicit. I simply do not share this level of empathy for the troubles of random passers-by. Is it selfish? Perhaps. In fact, most likely. But I tend to weigh life as life, and what's really being asked in this question is, to inject your reasons, "do you care more about the life that's important to you, or about the life that may be important to numerous others."

Then again, like all philosophical dilemmas, it's useless because it neglects absolutely every variable outside of the species you're saving.


----------



## TheWildeOne (May 15, 2014)

Sean07 said:


> You'll say it once again will you? I replied before him dude no need to be an arse. The thing is, most people do have families and that would certainly come into the equation when it comes down to choosing. The chances of there being be a real external as well as internal emotional backlash proceeding the situation, should you choose your pet over another person is also higher.
> 
> You have a point about being 'species-ist' but that's perfectly natural. I know I'd lose much less sleep knowing I let my dog die over a human being as I'm not a douchebag existential nihilist who places no intrinsic value on human life. Our experience of life is much more enhanced than that of a common house pet. Would you agree a the life of a moth is inherently less valuable than a human beings? Would it be morally different if some guy loved his pet moth?
> 
> You also said you're not a murderer if you could save someone but decided not to, I'd say that hypothetical is far more nuanced and situational than simply 'I didn't kill them personally therefore I'm not guilty of murder' morally speaking anyway, maybe not legislatively. Eg. Vast swathes of the German populace turning a blind eye to the holocaust. Not guilty of law breaking but **** them.


I likewise apologise here. I made my posts in between doing things, and sort of just vomited my opinion out there without paying attention to tone. 
Anyway, I see your point, and I suppose in deciding it _would_ come up. But as I said in my post just before this, the question ignores essentially every other variable. For instance, is this an on-the-spot decision? If so, I would reflexively choose my dog. If not, I may reflect on the situation and decide that the people to whom this person is important should be given more weight than my own attachment to my pet. I can't say for certain which I would choose then.

And _you _have a legitimate point about the "douchebag nihilism." But it's one with which I disagree. I don't think that any life has intrinsically more value, but I do think that pragmatically, we do not or cannot act as though all life is similar. For instance, whether we assume an ant's life is worth the same as a human's, we can accidentally end an ant's life far more easily than we can a human's. It's a question to which the answer is, outside of isolated hypotheticals like this, largely irrelevant, because no matter what we believe, it's impossible to act in accordance with it on-the-spot.

This is true, and something which I've just *****ed about a little - this kind of hypothetical ignores all the important bits: the details. As I read in an article once, does it make a difference if the stranger is Hitler, or Peter Singer? Of course it does. 
Anyway, this is a topic that is incredibly obnoxious to discuss here (what with the quotes being stupidly long and all), so I'll save this for when I'm not making someone roll their eyes as they scroll past it.


----------



## kageri (Oct 2, 2014)

It is not a common house pet. It is my partner, my other half, my protection, my only friend in the past 20 years.... For awhile my entire life and point of existence. My dog is my family nearly as much as my sister and husband are (those are the only 2 people I interact with and like as far as family). The person just happens to be the same species as me. Due to a not hypothetical situation I was once in I feel fairly confident I will not regret my choice later.


----------



## HenDoggy (Jul 26, 2014)

I never had that special bond between a pet like others on here, so I wouldn't know how difficult it would to be in this predicament. Although if I did have a loving pet, I would still pick the stranger everytime because I value human life more then an animal no matter how much I love it.


----------



## HenDoggy (Jul 26, 2014)

im gonna save both cuz im superman, i hope the cat isn't wearing some type of kryptonite device deployed by my arch nemesis lex luther


----------



## Puppet Master (Jan 1, 2012)

Let me see do I save the one I value or some human who's death wouldn't change my life in the least. Yeah I'll save my pet age of the person doesn't matter either. You want to know why? My pets have been the only thing that have really kept me going over the years when everything in my life has fallen apart and turned to ****. I feel a certain loyalty to them and strangers frankly I have no loyalty to, no bond to, no relation to and even those I know well I really don't tend to bond to.


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

My favourite girlfriend

a lawyer in Turkey - Izmir or Istanbul

when sailing a friend's boat near coast
when she was swimming, windsurfing in danger

passing by
reaching out to pull onboard to hug


----------



## nightfly (Sep 9, 2015)

i would let the cops handle it tbh


----------



## reaffected (Sep 3, 2011)

My dog.


----------



## Surly Wurly (May 9, 2015)

is the stranger hot?

if so, definitely my pet.


----------



## mishapisha (Aug 27, 2015)

Whoever can do the best puppy dog eyes.


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

Save em both! And that little kid hiding in the closet too. Sorry grand pa, didn't have time for you.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

Sean07 said:


> Random human being every time. I truly cannot understand the (lack of) morality of people who say pet.
> 
> Would it change your mind if the 'random dude' was a child? If so, at what age does a person have to be before you decide your pet is worth more than human life? Would the sex of the random person make a difference?
> 
> ...


Than my comment will make you even more sick.
If it was a young, jerk looking dude, I would happily let him suffer.
Same goes for a woman, no difference for me.
In other words, the person's life would depend on my not always so great people perception.
That's really hilarious.
Seriously though, I would probably safe the person if I could, no matter who it was. My pet anyway, no question.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

It's weird how firemen haven't adopted a 'pets first, humans second' policy yet, you know, despite all this popular support. Thatcher and Reagan have done an absolute job on destroying the principles of human solidarity. Thread is shameful af


----------



## Idontgetit (Nov 1, 2013)

Surly Wurly said:


> is the stranger hot?
> 
> if so, definitely my pet.


Yes, you have to find a fire extinguisher and save the poor fellow, ain't got time for that !

I would save my pet if I had one, unless it was a snake or some ****.


----------



## Xisha (Apr 19, 2015)

I can't decide but some people are taking this thread way too seriously (indirect message ignite!).


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

To be fair to me, I don't normally take things too seriously on here but I think the general consensus that the value of random human life is less than their pets is interesting. If you don't know the family starving and struggling then why bother giving to charity? I guess it just struck a nerve, I'll go back to my jokey ways now. (Indirect message put out)


----------



## Skeletra (Aug 30, 2012)

What kind of accident would place a stranger and my cat together?

Is this an intruder that is burning down my house? I save my cat.


Either way, I think I won't be able to cope with seeing my cat dead or some random stranger. And I'm going to avoid the therapy I'd need for either choice.
Yeah, he is "just a cat". But.. My cat is family. He's been my light in my darkest hours a few years. Of course I'm going to try to save him.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

TheWildeOne said:


> This can be easily reversed.
> 
> Imagine you save the stranger, and he goes on not to have kids, and to instead be a deranged serial killer.
> 
> ...





Sean07 said:


> Oh yeah, cause the odds of a random stranger being a deranged serial killer is equal to them having a loving family. A rubbishy false equivalence there.


 Damn, have you guys been watching Monster by any chance ;-p ?


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

Sean07 said:


> It's weird how firemen haven't adopted a 'pets first, humans second' policy yet, you know, despite all this popular support. Thatcher and Reagan have done an absolute job on destroying the principles of human solidarity. Thread is shameful af


 People aren't logical, yes when you think about it the right thing to do is to save the person. But with the pet you have an emotional bond and people therefore are going to instinctively choose it if it's a split second decision.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

Seegan said:


> Basically, I would never betray my pet, someone who loves me for who I am and doesn't judge based on petty personality bull****.
> 
> Let's see: save the one who's always there for me, has heard me cry out of sheer loneliness and depression or save a member of a species that is _the very reason I'm crying out of sheer loneliness and depression_?
> 
> Yep, no contest. My pets win every time. Sorry, random dude. I guess all the dehumanization by other people worked, because I now feel more of a kinship with animals than humans. You can blame society for your death.


That's a good argument.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Paper Samurai said:


> People aren't logical, yes when you think about it the right thing to do is to save the person. But with the pet you have an emotional bond and people therefore are going to instinctively choose it if it's a split second decision.


Yeah I understand the reasoning behind it but it just gets to me when they try and justify their selfishness using false logic. "my pet loves me for who I am" blah blah blah.


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

Sean07 said:


> Yeah I understand the reasoning behind it but it just gets to me when they try and justify their selfishness using false logic. "my pet loves me for who I am" blah blah blah.


Who would use that logic?

It's obviously the person that loves their pet. I am unsure but I would probably almost definitely save my pet. My pet was born in my room.

He has lived with me all his life. Slept on my bed everyday. Eaten the food I've given to him everyday.

There is absolutely no way i'd let him die easily.


----------



## xxDark Horse (May 13, 2015)

Random dude definitely. 

Sure my pets mean a lot to me but a human life is more valuable then the life of a cat or dog.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Icedout said:


> Who would use that logic?
> 
> It's obviously the person that loves their pet. I am unsure but I would probably almost definitely save my pet. My pet was born in my room.
> 
> ...


Great, I have no problem with people loving their pets. I loved my dog more than anything. I just don't think the love of a pet can then be used to justify your decision as the moral choice in this case, only the selfish choice.


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

Sean07 said:


> Great, I have no problem with people loving their pets. I loved my dog more than anything. I just don't think the love of a pet can then be used to justify your decision as the moral choice in this case, only the selfish choice.


There is no morally right or wrong choice here. What is right and wrong is only measured by the eye of the beholder. 
It's a man made concept, and it's there is no absolute "morality".


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Icedout said:


> There is no morally right or wrong choice here. What is right and wrong is only measured by the eye of the beholder.
> It's a man made concept, and it's there is no absolute "morality".


I disagree. I think societies only function well in tandem with our man-made sense of morality, that's why we have laws. I'm not a nihilist as I previously mentioned. Just because the universe is indifferent doesn't mean we should be. I never claimed there to be an absolute morality, just my humanist one.

Put it this way, if some prick thinks blowing himself up in the name of his god is a perfectly moral cause, it doesn't mean I should have to accept his sense of morality.


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

Sean07 said:


> I disagree. I think societies only function well in tandem with our man-made sense of morality, that's why we have laws. I'm not a nihilist as I previously mentioned. Just because the universe is indifferent doesn't mean we should be. I never claimed there to be an absolute morality, just my humanist one.
> 
> Put it this way, if some prick thinks blowing himself up in the name of his god is a perfectly moral cause, it doesn't mean I should have to accept his sense of morality.


No, you shouldn't, because it's all subjective. People form societies because they believe in one form of morality, the same morality.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Icedout said:


> No, you shouldn't, because it's all subjective. People form societies because they believe in one form of morality, the same morality.


And my morality is based on secular humanism, which is why I disagree with most on here and said they're morally wrong, in my opinion. I never mentioned an absolute morality, only my own.


----------



## Silere (Oct 19, 2014)

I think it's a gamble either way. I don't know what this human is like. If he's/she's a complete sociopathic dickhead then I would regret not saving my pet. But if he's/she's a lovely person who gives to charity etc. I would feel really bad about not saving that person. I think it would depend on how this person comes across to me. Would also depend on the age of pet and human.


I also must confess, I don't really trust people are how they seem. I've had experiences of people who seem to be nice, act nice, but turn out to be truly horrible and selfish. I've had people take advantage of me, truly selfish, seemingly soulless people. So all I'm doing in life is giving people the benefit of the doubt, I trust no one. How can I let a loyal, loved, trusted pet die for some random *******?


----------



## Robleye (Sep 26, 2012)

I think I would save the person. I couldn't live with myself if I let another human being die just to save my pets.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

My animals = my responsibility

Someone else's spawn = not my problem


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

Sean07 said:


> And my morality is based on secular humanism, which is why I disagree with most on here and said they're morally wrong, in my opinion. I never mentioned an absolute morality, only my own.


Because you agree that morality isn't objective, we can go on with our lives.


----------



## Magnus (Jul 1, 2012)

The stranger of course, simply because he or she will have more connections to this world than my pet.

The poll results really scare me


----------



## SD92 (Nov 9, 2013)

Of course I'd save the human, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I let someone die when I could have done something. And their family would ask questions, I could hardly say "Your loved one died a terrible and horrifying death, but look on the bright side, my cat survived"


----------



## RandomGentleman (Aug 4, 2014)

Is this even a question?

My pets > Everyone else. I'm sure this random stranger I have no relation with can just get up and save themselves anyways.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

In a Lonely Place said:


> How dare people put down those who would save their best friend on a social anxiety site. People that have zero friends and no social life in a lot of cases. Is that person you save going to love you unconditionally for as long as they live? Be by your side through thick and thin? No, they will praise you to the heavens very briefly before returning to their life, any contact will be because they feel indebted to you, it won't last.
> 
> Exactly what is wrong with saving your best pal. The one who knows when your feeling down, kisses your tears away and curls up against you. Always happy to see you, waggy tail and kisses when you wake, never judges you, tells you to get out of the house and go for a walk, teaches you to love and to care for more than yourself when you've been isolated and lost hope. The one who will love you till their last breath.


How dare I? I dunno mate, because I'm a humanist and fundamentally disagree with them I suppose? How dare you undermine the value of human life, on a anxiety website full of random human beings and no pets? (tut tut).

What is exactly wrong with seeing the tears in a little girl's eyes while she's trapped in a burning house and putting her life ahead of your own selfish desire to feel unconditionally loved by an animal that relies on you for food and would eat you if you died? What is exactly wrong with acting selflessly and not doing it in order to feel indebted or praised but just because it's the right thing to do?

You can have a go at my righteous indignation all you want but I think there's a lot wrong with selfishness. You obviously don't.


----------



## Imbored21 (Jun 18, 2012)

Sean07 said:


> What is exactly wrong with seeing the tears in a little girl's eyes while she's trapped in a burning house and putting her life ahead of your own selfish desire to feel unconditionally loved by an animal that relies on you for food and would eat you if you died?


You wouldn't eat a dead human if it was the only thing available?? That's hardcore. Thnking about it, what better diet than eating another human?? You'd get all the nutrients a human needs lol.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

In a Lonely Place said:


> I'm not your mate and human life isn't the be all and end all on this planet. Humans have a lot to learn from animals, oh and by the way, humans will feast upon human flesh if they are starving to death. OMG! wonderful intelligent human beings can even contemplate what they are doing but still eat human flesh.
> 
> If it's selfish to save the one you love then so be it, I'm selfish.


Oooo saucy, you're like Samantha from Sex and the City. You are aware that saying the word 'mate' doesn't mean 'you're my mate' aren't you? You are from England after all, it's just being friendly. I guess that fact shouldn't get in the way of a good bit of the snipey rhetoric you're renowned for on here though eh?

I am aware humans would eat other humans, I mentioned that as hyperbole to reverse your original sentiment. I'm also aware that human beings aren't the be all and end all of life on the planet, just the most important to me personally, being my species after all. But nice of you to tell me how I think.

It doesn't take your declaration to save the animal you love ahead of a human being to understand your selfishness, the vehement anti-immigration/any difference at all posts do that on their own.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

In a Lonely Place said:


> Haha nice fail. When all is lost resort to a flimsy character assassination.


All is lost? I still agree with everything I've said and you've done nothing to sway that, what are you talking about?


----------



## Fey (Nov 4, 2014)

Sean07 said:


> It doesn't take your declaration to save the animal you love ahead of a human being to understand your selfishness, the vehement anti-immigration/any difference at all posts do that on their own.


Do you think it's selfish when people eat animals killed specifically for their own selfish needs? Just curious. 0


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Fey said:


> Do you think it's selfish when people eat animals killed specifically for their own selfish needs? Just curious. 0


Yes, but I'm a hypocrite in that regard. I've seen videos and read articles that outline the outright disgusting nature of the farming industry. That said, I was brought up eating meat and it's the easiest and best way to ensure protein in my diet and of course my survival.

I don't see how that piece of hypocrisy in my nature does anything to question the humanist principles I've been espousing here though. Probably a better question to ask those who value human life no differently to an animals.


----------



## Fey (Nov 4, 2014)

Sean07 said:


> Yes, but I'm a hypocrite in that regard. I've seen videos and read articles that outline the outright disgusting nature of the farming industry. That said, I was brought up eating meat and it's the easiest and best way to ensure protein in my diet and of course my survival.
> 
> I don't see how that piece of hypocrisy in my nature does anything to question the humanist principles I've been espousing here though.


Exactly. You were brought up thinking that eating meat was okay. You were brought up to follow a certain god. You were brought up to act a certain way and categorize people. You were brought up to think that humans are more important than any other living thing on the planet. You were brought up to sit with your legs together when you were wearing a dress (don't deny that). Just because you were brought up a certain way doesn't mean it's morally right (but keep your legs together).


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Fey said:


> Exactly. You were brought up thinking that eating meat was okay. You were brought up to follow a certain god. You were brought up to act a certain way and categorize people. You were brought up to think that humans are more important than any other living thing on the planet. You were brought up to sit with your legs together when you were wearing a dress (don't deny that). Just because you were brought up a certain way doesn't mean it's morally right (but keep your legs together).


I agree with you that there is no objective morality, I said that earlier on in the thread. I also agree with you that eating animals to ensure my survival is selfish if there are other means of doing so, I've admitted my hypocrisy on that front.

However, If anyone truly believes every creature's life is equal to that of a human's then they'd best never go outside in fear of murdering insects with our built-in deadly weapon feet. I'm just arguing my opinion on this thread and you're welcome to disagree with me.

And to be fair, no one wants a candid upskirt view of my scrotum. Making sure I keep my legs closed while in a flowery skirt is the closest thing to an objective moral cause that you'll find in this thread.


----------



## Fey (Nov 4, 2014)

Sean07 said:


> I agree with you that there is no objective morality, I said that earlier on in the thread. I also agree with you that eating animals to ensure my survival is selfish if there are other means of doing so, I've admitted my hypocrisy on that front.
> 
> However, If anyone truly believes every creature's life is equal to that of a human's then they'd best never go outside in fear of murdering insects with our built-in deadly weapon feet. I'm just arguing my opinion on this thread and you're welcome to disagree with me.
> 
> And to be fair, no one wants a candid upskirt view of my scrotum. Keeping my legs closed while in a flowery skirt is the closest thing to an objective moral cause that you'll find in this thread.


Oh you agreed to objective morality already. Haha okay I didn't read through the whole thread so as long as you agree to that then I'm fine with it. But if you agree that it's objective then why do you keep putting down those that don't?

Nuh uh, that's the difference between intentional and unintentional. When you buy animal products to use or eat, you know that they were killed for your use. When you step outside, you have no idea where they are nor are you intentionally trying to add to their death.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Fey said:


> Oh you agreed to objective morality already. Haha okay I didn't read through the whole thread so as long as you agree to that then I'm fine with it. But if you agree that it's objective then why do you keep putting down those that don't?
> 
> Nuh uh, that's the difference between intentional and unintentional. When you buy animal products to use or eat, you know that they were killed for your use. When you step outside, you have no idea where they are nor are you intentionally trying to add to their death.


Because I have my own sense of morality that is at odds with many other folk. Like, I won't just sit down and accept racism or homophobia just because someone else thinks they're right to think that. I may not be able to objectively prove that racism and homophobia is wrong but it doesn't mean I shouldn't feel disgusted by it

Also, I'm only putting my views across on a forum, I'm hardly imposing them on others, it's just my opinion.

Your question of intention though, you also have the benefit of foresight to know that you 100% _*will*_ kill insects when you go outside, bacterial life when you wash your hands, whether with intention or not. I personally agree with you that intention matters and think it's silly to not value certain life higher than others. For example, I value the lives of dog's and cat's extremely highly and would do my best to save them in almost every real-world circumstance if I could. Just not as highly as I do humans.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

The random stranger, they will have family and friends. A pet is just a pet.


----------



## Fey (Nov 4, 2014)

Sean07 said:


> Because I have my own sense of morality that is at odds with many other folk. Like, I won't just sit down and accept racism or homophobia just because someone else thinks they're right to think that. I may not be able to objectively prove that racism and homophobia is wrong but it doesn't mean I shouldn't feel disgusted by it
> 
> Also, I'm only putting my views across on a forum, I'm hardly imposing them on others, it's just my opinion.
> 
> Your question of intention though, you also have the benefit of foresight to know that you 100% _*will*_ kill insects when you go outside, bacterial life when you wash your hands, intentional or not. I personally agree with you that intention matters and think it's silly to not value certain life higher than others. Eg. I value the lives of dog's and cat's extremely highly and would do my best to save them in almost every real-world circumstance if I could, just not as high as I do humans.


Yes but they're not insulting anyone while they do it (unless someone did and I skipped over it). You can state your views without putting others down. You have every right to.

100% will is not true. It's like when you drive a car. There's a chance that you'll kill someone but it's not your intention and you'd do your best to not. And it's not proven that bacteria has emotions or feel pain...


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Fey said:


> Yes but they're not insulting anyone while they do it (unless someone did and I skipped over it). You can state your views without putting others down. You have every right to.
> 
> 100% will is not true. It's like when you drive a car. There's a chance that you'll kill someone but it's not your intention and you'd do your best to not. And it's not proven that bacteria has emotions or feel pain...


He can take it. It was a dig at his politics more than his views on this issue. I don't think I insulted anyone else as I try not to as a rule. Thought I'd make an exception here however. Sorry if it got to you.

I'd say almost 99.999% of the time you go outside for a decent amount of time you will kill something unintentionally. You've also just proved my point. You value life that can feel pain or emotions higher than life that doesn't, thus, you value some life more importantly than others. I value humans higher than dogs or cats for exactly the same reason; we're the most complex beings on earth with much more advanced cognitive ability, like I'd also value a dolphin over a fish.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

In a Lonely Place said:


> Yeah because you had nothing else


mate (here we go...) read what i've already said in this thread and you'll see I think it's wrong to value pets over humans. That's all I've got and I can't prove it objectively either way.


----------



## Fey (Nov 4, 2014)

Sean07 said:


> He can take it. It was a dig at his politics more than his views on this issue. I don't think I insulted anyone else as I try not to as a rule. Thought I'd make an exception here however. Sorry if it got to you.
> 
> I'd say almost 99.999% of the time you go outside for a decent amount of time you will kill something unintentionally. You've also just proved my point. You value life that can feel pain or emotions higher than life that doesn't, thus, you value some life more importantly than others. I value humans higher than dogs or cats for exactly the same reasons; We're more complex beings with more advanced cognition, like a dolphin over a fish.


Oh no you didn't insult me or get to me! Don't be sorry! This forum's far too tame to be taken seriously. :grin2: But I meant you were indirectly insulting people, whether they actually take it to heart or whether you actually meant to (which you probably didn't) isn't something I know but you don't have to quote someone to put them down.

That's my point! I don't value the life of anything that can't think for itself, feel anything or have any emotions but I do equally value the life of anything that does or at least try to. That's my hierarchy. Your hierarchy of what you value the most when it comes to these is different to mine because of your own reasons and what you were subjected to and all that and that's okay! I don't agree with it and I'd rather you didn't think like that but I'm not going to just push your beliefs down or step over others because that's your understanding of the world and the ideals you've come to put forward. Encourage all you want but what's morally right or wrong is different for everyone and there's no universal right or wrong so there's no need to take a jab at someone that thinks differently (that goes for both sides btw).

All I was trying to say which probably went off on 20 different tracks is that you can think something is right or wrong but that's your own view and it doesn't mean it's any better, worse or higher up than others. But I think you got the message either way.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

Fey said:


> Oh no you didn't insult me or get to me! Don't be sorry! This forum's far too tame to be taken seriously. :grin2: But I meant you were indirectly insulting people, whether they actually take it to heart or whether you actually meant to (which you probably didn't) isn't something I know but you don't have to quote someone to put them down.
> 
> That's my point! I don't value the life of anything that can't think for itself, feel anything or have any emotions but I do equally value the life of anything that does or at least try to. That's my hierarchy. Your hierarchy of what you value the most when it comes to these is different to mine because of your own reasons and what you were subjected to and all that and that's okay! I don't agree with it and I'd rather you didn't think like that but I'm not going to just push your beliefs down or step over others because that's your understanding of the world and the ideals you've come to put forward. Encourage all you want but what's morally right or wrong is different for everyone and there's no universal right or wrong so there's no need to take a jab at someone that thinks differently (that goes for both sides btw).
> 
> All I was trying to say which probably went off on 20 different tracks is that you can think something is right or wrong but that's your own view and it doesn't mean it's any better or higher up than others. But I think you got the message either way.


Well I didn't mean to indirectly insult someone, I maybe tried to emphasise my disgust at the apparent lack of value people place on humanity compared to other animals but that's it.

I respect your views and I'm sure you can follow them to the best of your ability, I assume you're a vegetarian? (I've seriously been flirting with that idea recently tbh) But when push comes to shove; like the situation given in the OP, I'm almost sure you wouldn't hesitate with your decision if the situation of saving one thing only was between a random bunny rabbit and a random child screaming for help. You'd pick the child because you know they have a predisposition to feel more complex emotions than a rabbit does, they'd have a better understanding of the situation and you'd feel guilt knowing they understood you let them die, the knock on effect to the family of the child, etc.

It's only the love of the pet that makes people illogical in this situation, if you didn't know either it would be an easier decision for the reasons listed above. I know in my heart of hearts I couldn't let a person die at the expense of my pet, as much as it may kill me inside to lose my pet.


----------



## Fey (Nov 4, 2014)

Sean07 said:


> Well I didn't mean to indirectly insult someone, I maybe tried to emphasise my disgust at the apparent lack of value people place on humanity compared to other animals but that's it.
> 
> I respect your views and I'm sure you can follow them to the best of your ability, I assume you're a vegetarian? (I've seriously been flirting with that idea recently tbh) But when push comes to shove; like the situation given in the OP, I'm almost sure you wouldn't hesitate with your decision if the situation of saving one thing only was between a random bunny rabbit and a random child screaming for help. You'd pick the child because you know they have a predisposition to feel more complex emotions than a rabbit does, they'd have a better understanding of the situation and you'd feel guilt knowing they understood you let them die, the knock on effect to the family of the child, etc.
> 
> It's only the love of the pet that makes people illogical in this situation, if you didn't know either it would be an easier decision for the reasons listed above. I know in my heart of hearts I couldn't let a person die at the expense of my pet, as much as it may kill me inside to lose my pet.


Vegan but you should give vegetarianism a go and see how it is for you!!

It depends on the situation and I don't think I could make a decision without actually being there because there's too many factors but if it was where people knew I had the choice, I'd go for the person. Not because I'd want to myself or because my morals kick in but because of the backlash I'd receive in the long run if I didn't and that's my selfish part in it. If people didn't know I had a choice, I might think differently, might not.

That's where it's not illogical, at least not to me. Not everyone's priorities are set on the same thing which is where their logic follows.


----------



## SilkyJay (Jul 6, 2015)

As much as I just want to say my pet, my initially human reaction would be to go towards the person. Then I'd probably die trying to rescue my cat. There would be no saying no.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

When you realise you've been saying pet rather than dog the entire thread because now Errol is dead, you're already envisioning the possibility of other pets. Nuh uh, I love you Errol. 

My god is that sad.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

Sean07 said:


> Random human being every time. I truly cannot understand the (lack of) morality of people who say pet.


As seems to be agreed upon, there is no objective morality. In my view, the only important morality is that which is a direct product of empathy. And it's natural to feel more empathy toward a human or animal we have a personal relationship with. I don't cry when I hear about people dying I've never met. With that said, I wouldn't say it's a lack of morality that causes people to choose their pet. I probably would. A lack of philosophical ethic that puts human life above animal life always, sure.


----------



## probably offline (Oct 8, 2012)

My cat.


----------



## Sean07 (May 9, 2014)

joolz said:


> As seems to be agreed upon, there is no objective morality. In my view, the only important morality is that which is a direct product of empathy. And it's natural to feel more empathy toward a human or animal we have a personal relationship with. I don't cry when I hear about people dying I've never met. With that said, I wouldn't say it's a lack of morality that causes people to choose their pet. I probably would. A lack of philosophical ethic that puts human life above animal life always, sure.


Counter argument to that would be that it's more natural to empathise with the human being considering you're the same species. You can understand exactly the emotions that other human is feeling because you have a shared understanding of what it's like to be human and to experience things as a human. With a pet you can only speculate and anthropomorphically impose your own feelings onto them. You can't literally feel how they feel at the same level you can other people if you know what I mean?


----------



## Nekomata (Feb 3, 2012)

A pet. My pet. Someone's pet. So long as it's a complete stranger I'd pick the animal to save each and every time.


----------



## Memories of Silence (May 15, 2015)

My dogs.


----------



## AnonymousPersonG (Nov 5, 2014)

Sorry, I care nothing for strangers. I'd save my pet, she's one of the few reasons I'm staying alive.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

Sean07 said:


> When you realize you've been saying pet rather than dog the entire thread because now Errol is dead, you're already envisioning the possibility of other pets. Nuh uh, I love you Errol.
> 
> My God is that sad.


[CHEESY]

New one will occupy a different spot of your heart, not replace the old one. Give it a lil time, you'll know when it's right.

[/CHEESY]


----------



## Judy123 (Sep 15, 2015)

In a Lonely Place said:


> How dare people put down those who would save their best friend on a social anxiety site. People that have zero friends and no social life in a lot of cases. Is that person you save going to love you unconditionally for as long as they live? Be by your side through thick and thin? No, they will praise you to the heavens very briefly before returning to their life, any contact will be because they feel indebted to you, it won't last.
> 
> Exactly what is wrong with saving your best pal. The one who knows when your feeling down, kisses your tears away and curls up against you. Always happy to see you, waggy tail and kisses when you wake, never judges you, tells you to get out of the house and go for a walk, teaches you to love and to care for more than yourself when you've been isolated and lost hope. The one who will love you till their last breath.


Beautifully written! That's how we feel about our dog, a whoodle.


----------



## herk (Dec 10, 2012)

easy


----------



## Torkani (Nov 9, 2012)

My pet, definitely

Most people are complete ********* and will do utterly horrible things to each other as long as it's in their best advantage and they can get away with it.

Animals are much better.
Animals > people


----------



## bad baby (Jun 10, 2013)

my teddy bear


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

If it was a one or the other situation, then I really don't know what I would do or how I would react until I was in that situation. It sounds like a horrible lose/lose scenario to have to face though, one I hope I never have to be in.


----------

