That sword cuts both ways. I know LOTS of folks who “love” and felt “loved” by someone who treated them like crap. Heck cats don’t beat you or cheat on you, but humans do, and some people keep coming back for more.
“Love” is irrelivant. How something makes you feel is what is important. I can give all my love and attention to someone, but if having someone ignore them makes them happier, then my love means nothing in the scheme of things.
Scientifically speaking, Love is just a chemical process.
But, to set the record straight, I DO believe in a real Love…I just don’t think most people have it when they think they do.
Many cats show a great deal of affection for people, or specific people. We have a cat who loves to be held. Not petted, held. He’ll jump on a table and stand on his hind legs so that he can reach up and wrap his front legs around your neck and purr. Is that different than me resting my hand on my husband’s leg as we sit on the sofa and watch baseball?
Another cat will sit at the front door, staring out the window, unless my husband is home. She then greets him, gets petted, chirps a while, and goes and curls up on her chair. If a person did this, we’d all say that person “missed” my husband in his absence. But if it’s a cat, it’s often ignored, or a different reason is given: “It’s a habit” or “It’s a learned behavior.”
The differences between people and animals are usually matters of degree rather than kind. I know that cats have preferences for foods or beds or toys, why shouldn’t they have preferences for people? And are those preferences really unlike what we would call “liking” or even “love”? That’s not a rhetorical question. I don’t claim to know the answer.
I submit that killing your dog to save a human is a VERY good reason for doing so. It wouldnt matter to me if the human was a stranger to myself or you.
So am I (although in recent years, I have occasionally eaten poultry).
Perhaps it’s not accurate to describe the “save the dog first” argument as “animal rights,” but the references to the intrinsic value of a dog’s life as equal to a human’s life reminded me of Singer’s criticism of “specieism.”
However, as I said in passing, I don’t think that Singer would agree with “save the dog first.” He recognized that human suffering differs qualitatively from animal suffering. A drowning person appreciates their mortality in a manner than a dog simply cannot. Unlike the dog, the person would understand that drowning would prevent them from pursuing or realizing their dreams in life, or from ever seeing their children grow up, or holding their spouse one more time, etc. No matter how scared the dog would be, he or she would not comprehend the idea of their mortality in the same way. The dog probably cannot project into the future, and certainly does not have the same kinds of dreams, hopes, or social attachments that the human has. The dog simply has less to lose by drowning than the human would.
I recognize that the dog’s suffering is real, but his suffering is qualitatively less than what the human is going through. In this particular case, I would save the human, and I’m pretty sure Singer would have agreed.
The dilemma in the hypothetical situation would not exist–or it shouldn’t, anyway–if it weren’t for the fact that the dog in this case is supposed to be your pet. It’s obvious from this thread (and from observations in real life) that for many pet owners, their dog is a treasured companion. It’s quite natural that one’s instinct is to save the being that one is familiar with and feels an emotional attachment to. If both beings in this situation were human, I fully understand why one would choose to save one’s child or spouse instead of the stranger.
But if the choice is between the human or an animal, I feel an ethical and social responsibility to save the human being, and that responsibility trumps any personal responsibilities that I might have for the animal.
No, it’s not the fact that he’s my pet that’s important. Read my post again - I mentioned the bond I share with my dog. Despite having never had any of the following as a pet, I sincerely doubt I would be capable of developing that kind of bond with a hamster or a gerbil or an insect. Simply because IMO they aren’t capable of returning the love and affection to the extent my dog does (or I perceive, if you will, he does).
You’re not getting it. These bonds don’t develop just because you happen to keep a dog or a hamster or an insect. Just like a relationship with a human, it takes time (and a host of other things) to get to a point where the dog becomes an intrinsic part of the famliy. Just because he’s a dog doesn’t make me value him less or more.
As far as I’m concerned, you’re right - it is a selfish act. Which I’ve admitted to twice already. Doesn’t make it wrong.
Since we are debating a hypothetical situation which is not likey to occur in reality (dogs do swim!), I could present to you about ten different hypothetical scenarios (and many more if I really thought hard) where your your VERY good reasons would fall apart instantly. Simply saying that saving a human life is reason enough for my dog to die doesn’t seem very humane, moral or ethical.
My mother is currently in the hospital, and consequently I won’t be able to give this thread the attention I want to. My replies will be intermittent at best.
I sincerely doubt that the bond is shared. Don’t attempt to anthropomorphize your dog too much, because things don’t work that way. You’re likely considered the alpha wolf by your dog. Maybe a little bit of parent figure thrown in. Certainly nothing like what you feel for the dog.
It is when you consider that the human potential for suffering is orders or magnituda above what a dog is capable of. If a situation existed in which you had to save the life of either your dog, or a stranger, your dog would have no clue as to what was going on. You dog wouldn’t be agonizing over never being able to see its children again, or of leaving behind their spouse. Your dog would have no regrets about things left undone in its life. Your dog probably has only a limited notion that a thing called “the future” even exists.
In death, the stranger would physically suffer as much as the dog, but their mental suffering would by far outstrip anything your dog is capable.
In the end, breaking a bond that is more one-sided than any dog lover would like to admit to save the being capable of much greater suffering seems to be the most ethical, moral, and humane course of action.
You have my sympathies. I hope she’s out of there soon.
If I could shoot someone’s dog to speed up her recovery, I would
Well, I sincerely disagree with those who don’t believe that the bond is shared. Sure, maybe my dog doesn’t feel exactlythe same for me to the extent that I do for him. But what he feels, he does to the fullest extent of his capability. Day in and day out, every waking moment of his entire life.
Just as a dog may not be capable of experiencing the mental suffering in death a human can, no human is nearly as capable of giving in life in the way the dog does. As a human being, YMMV over which is more important. To me, the life of my dog remains more important to me than the life of a random stranger.
I was rather ill as recently as 2 weeks ago, and my dog hardly ever left my bedside for the entire time I was bedridden. He didn’t even eat until around the time I began eating again. He did the same with my mom until we had to transfer her to the hospital. You can call it whatever you want - parent figure, alpha wolf, etc. - there is a bond, and it is a strong bond. Just because it’s a canine affection doesn’t, and shouldn’t, lessen it’s value.
And please don’t go shooting any dog!! My mother is recovering, and should be out of the hospital in a couple of days.
i suspect that the answers given so far would not change if the OP was changed to ‘who would you save at the risk of your own life - your drowning dog or a stranger?’.
if that is true then the position of those who choose to save their dogs may be easier to understand, as they are willing to risk their own lifes to save their canine friends that would reflect the value they hold to the bond they share; whereas saving the life of a stranger at risk to your own is not only… not expected by the law in general but usually upheld as something unusual and warrant labelling as a heroic act.
gouda Very sorry to hear about your Mother, hope she is well looked after at the Hospital, and everything works out well.
I also believe the bond between Human and Dog is not one way only. But I know the bond between Human and Goldfish (for example) is one way only, yet I have a friend who anthropomorphizes such a bond with her goldfish. As I have mentioned, I had a pet dog, and Marcus was the only relative of mine whose death caused me to cry (my Grandparents passed away after some time in hospital, so I was more prepared for their deaths). I would save a human over Marcus though, since I would expect the human to be more important to more people than my dog. But if there was no time to think befor acting, I too might save Marcus instead of an unknown person.
As a question to all who would save their dog instead of an unknown human. Would it be wrong for my friend to attempt to save her goldfish from a house fire, in prefferance to an unknown human caught in the same fire?
OK, let´s settle this dog/human life value straight, scenario, a guy comes around and shoots your dog dead, it was a cold blooded action;
Question, would you expect the killer to be punished as if it the victim was a human? Death sentence, prison for life, 30 years, etc.
Its a sad state of affairs when a person saves a dog over a stranger because they’re worried they might be a serial killer or get sued. I clearly was not meant to live during these times, when I guess sociopathic behavior is the rule rather than the exception.
A dog over Adolf Hilter? THEN I might see where you’re coming from. But a STRANGER? I had a dog for many many years, but there is NO QUESTION about who I’d save. Why don’t you just murder your neighbor next time he plays the radio too loud? I mean, if you don’t get caught, who cares? Less annoyance for you. Problem solved. He’s probably a serial killer anyway.
By the way, I don’t care if this gets me banned. That’s my belief and I’m sticking to it.
By owning a dog, you take responsibility for it. You have no such responsibility for the random guy. (Or rather, you may have societal obligations, but so does everyone else. The dog just has you.) And the allocation of resources ain’t murder.
Ha! So this so-called “pet-owners responsibility” is more valuable than a human life? Wow, I’m singularly horrified by your ethics. You peeps are probably the same folks who’d watch a woman get raped before your very eyes and not do anything about it. Welp, I guess when you slip on some ice and crack your skull open, its okay for me to walk on by and let you die. After all, I don’t owe you a damn thing.
Maybe its not murder in the legal sense, but Its willful disregard for human life to value some nebulous “responsibility” to your dog over a dying human. You think the courts are going to lock you up because you failed to live up to some so-called responsibility in order to save a human?
Ashtura, you’d intentionally taken robertliguori’s words out of context by ignoring his words in brackets; it is single-minded views like these which are so quick to draw conclusions that is horrifying.
You are assuming that the OP didn’t ask people to choose between the dog and the stranger. Choosing the dog over the stranger doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t help the stranger at all, just not necessarily first.
By the way, calling someone a marshmallow chicken is really hitting below the belt.
Yes, you don’t. Especially if you have some other task you are obliged to do, as in the OP. Normally, one would ask to be released from, say, the duties of one’s day job to administer aid to a stranger, but one cannot be released from one’s obligation to care for one’s pets.
Thank you, Bippy and Joe Random - my mom is out of the hospital and recovering at home now.
The issue is a little more complex than you’re painting it to be. It’s not only about the owner anthropomorphising the pet. Every single pro-dog poster has mentioned how their relationship with their pet is demonstrably not one-sided. Despite various attempts to disparage the affections/emotions of these pets, it doesn’t change the fact that there is indeed a two-way bond between these posters and their pets, and in most cases it is a strong bond.
If the goldfish in question has regularly displayed anything remotely close to what has been described by these posters, then that goldfish deserves to be in a circus. If not, then this is a pretty pithy attempt at trivialising the issue.
By my understanding, all arguments being put forward in favour of saving the stranger essentially boil down to the fact that the stranger happens to be of the same species as us and therefore should be saved. That’s not reason enough to respect the stranger’s life over that of the pet.
As an aside, I remember reading a thread not long ago, wherein the OP asked something to the effect of which animal has proven most valuable (or something) to man through the ages. Almost every single poster mentioned the dog in his list. Nobody mentioned the goldfish Go figure.
I would save the human before the dog. I doubt I’d even notice my dog if I saw another human being drowning. I probably wouldn’t realize the dog drowned until the human was out and I was done trying to get him to breathe.
I would save the 10,000 people before my loved one without question. Although I’m not sure I’d have it in me to do so myself, I’d hope that my loved one would kill me instead of letting as many as 4 or 5 other people die.
And just to add another note… if I found out someone let a family member or friend of mine die to save a dog, I would be very hard-pressed not to shoot the bastard and the dog.
Go figure.