The classic 'Who would you save, your drowning dog or a stranger?' question

I’m new to the forum but I’ll risk a comment anyway.

I’ve read through the entire thread and everytime a new variable is introduced it has had an impact on the decisions that would be made by various people.

It seems to me that the issue is humans vs. animals, which is more worthy of life? All the “what if” scenarios just confuse that basic question.

In the heat of the moment, whether it be drowning or some other equally life threatening situation where I was forced to make a snap decision, I would probaly respond to whatever I determined to be the greatest need at the time. If things were relatively equal with respect to need, I would save the human because my level of empathy would be greater for humans since I am one.

The situation is everything to me really.

I have a pretty good idea of how well I can swim and when the waters are simple fatal. As a diver, occasional sailor, and whitewater rafter let me observe: it’s possible I just don’t jump in at all. Put anyone out there in a class V rapids and I’m looking for rope and long branches. “Grab it, Fido!”

I would save the person unless it he/she was a member of PITA in which case the proper thing to do would be to save the dog.

In my head, I realize that letting a human die when I could save them at no risk to myself is almost equivalent to killing them. I know that I would likely be causing horrendous suffering to many people. I can’t believe I would ever do something so awful.

But in reality, I murder people and throw their bodies into various lakes, so that when gas builds up from bacterial decomposition and the bodies become buoyant I can use their corpses as floatation devices in case my dog is ever in danger of drowning.

I regretted this post even as I hit the ‘Submit’ button. I did generalise too much, and I should have elaborated a bit. So here’s my explanation; please correct me where ever I may be misinterpreting what posters have stated.

All the pro-stranger posters have pointed out that human life is instrinsically of more value than canine life, mainly due to the human capacity to feel mental/emotional pain to a degree much higher than what the canine would be capable of. And that this applies not only to the stranger, but to his family and friends too. This greater capacity for mental suffering has been attributed to the greater awareness of his own life that the human has over the canine (or for any other animal, for that matter). It has been admitted though, that the awareness of physical pain is equal.

However, none of these posters seem to accept that the death of a beloved dog would produce pretty much the same emotional response from it’s owners, to the same degree that the family of the stranger would experience. These posters don’t accept that it is indeed possible to have that strong a bond with a dog. And that when this bond is broken, there is real and lasting pain that is equivalent to what they would feel had they lost a beloved human. And it would last just as long - it’s not as simple as just going out and getting another dog.

I do accept that the death of the stranger could have serious financial repercussions for the family of the deceased. As an after-effect of this situation, it’s the only real difference between the death of the stranger and the death of the dog. But going by this argument, we come back around to the ‘by feeding my dog, I am depriving someone else of a much needed meal (or whatever)’ argument. Man instinctively takes care of his own, which in this case happens to be non-human.

Yes, civilised society does value the life of humans over animals. And yet several other societies don’t really value human life that much over animal life. Heck, the society I live in doesn’t put that much value in human life, sadly. Come down and see how the poor live in this country, and compare it with how even the lower middle class family treats its pet. You’d be amazed at the difference, or indifference if you will. That’s how life is in most of the non-western societies all over the world.

If you can accept the above, what does that leave us with? Saving the stranger because…? Because he’s human.

I don’t believe in intrinsic value of life. The value that we perceive in life is a bias of the living: the universe doesn’t care if there is life or not. Therefore, the value that we assign to different forms of life are similarly biased. I value human life over the life of any animal BECAUSE I am human, not because human life is intrinsically more valuable than animal life. I would save the human. I love my dog and I love animals (I have been around them all my life), and while it’s true that I do not love the stranger and their death would not affect me nearly as much as the death of my dog, I feel it is my civic responsibility to save the human. His or her death will cause much more suffering to others than the death of my dog will cause me, and it is selfish to say that you would rather impose immense suffering on many than to save yourself minimal suffering (and the hurt you would feel over the loss of your dog IS minimal compared to the hurt that this person’s loved ones would fell). Those who say they would save their dog because human beings are of no value because we don’t care about each other and we hurt each other: pot calling the kettle black much? You are crucifying human kind but not showing that you can be more compassionate or better.

I don’t believe in the intrinsic of life, nor the intrinsic value of undeath. Which is why I would lodge a bullet in the brain of the stranger, the dog, and this thread.

Wow, let me say I am really very sorry for bringing up a 7 year old thread! I found this thread on google and wanted to comment, and did not realize it was long dead. My mistake.

More thasn 200 posts in I know this thread is probably already rife with insults and outrage, but I’ll just throw in my personal and humble opinion: I’d save the stranger. Human beings are more valuable than anyone’s dog, including my own.

Oh, it would be an awfully sad, terrible thing to be sure, but sometimes we have to make tough choices.

I’d save the zombie.

I know that a person is more valuable than a dog but I’m very emotionally attached to my dog.

I wouldn’t know until the situation arose. Intellectually, it’s right to save the person but I still might pick the dog.

You saved the dog in 2003. You were racked by guilt as the stranger’s dying screams haunt you to this day. In 2008 your dog’s hip dysplasia got so bad it had to be put down. In 2009 the stranger’s unstable violent brother finally tracked you down and shattered your spine with a metal pipe.

How hot is the stranger?

7 years and 5 pages before someone asks the pertinant question.:smack:

My dog.

What if only you would know that you had an opportunity to save the stranger. If you save your dog and let the stranger die and no one would know that you had the opportunity to save the stranger then it would be easier to save your dog. It would just be a moral dilemma that you would have to deal with personally. It may end up bothering you to the point that you confess that you could have saved the stranger.

But if everyone is aware of your choice and you let the stranger die then you must deal with the public criticism of your choice.

I agree that the stranger is nothing to me. I save him and may never see him again. My dog I have an emotional bond with. What is worse to live with? my regret for not saving my dog who means something to me or the regret of not saving the stranger who I have no connection with? I think that is the question. Unless the stranger is a child I save my dog. The stranger should have learned how to swim.

This thread is madness. Anyway, for my own part, I would not allow an emotional attachment to an animal to interfere in my obligation to prevent the death of a fellow human. In terms of potential, if anything. No matter how much you love the animal, no matter its quirks and how adorable it is, a dog is still a dog - its potential is severely limited by that fact, as is its lifespan. A human on the other hand…well, you see where I’m going with this. The stranger you save could have decades of life ahead of them while Fido drops dead in a few short years (depending on breed).

The only way I wouldn’t save the human is if I knew for a fact the human was someone I’d kill anyway. Like if Hitler and Lassie are in a canoe and it overturns and I can save only one, Lassie gets saved.

And anyone who would save the dog in general is, in my opinion, a defective human being. No offense meant. :smiley:

Also, I think zombies sink. So if a zombie were in the mix it wouldn’t affect my decision.

Zombies cannot swim, but there can be a build-up of gasses that causes buoyancy, so watch out.

Back to serious time, and to amend my above post - even if it was some old giffer and I’d just got a puppy, I’d still save the stranger. My pain at losing a (replaceable, let’s face it) pet will undoubtedly be less than the pain of losing a family member, for the strangers family. Saving your own pet is ultimately a selfish decision, saving yourself pain to lump it on strangers. Although I think even the grief at losing a pet would be countered by the joy of saving a life, as well as the guilt at letting someone die to save an animal play further into it for me, the loss of the pet tempered by the former and relief saving the pet forever tarnished by the latter. Phil Collins might write a song about it.

Well, you can just grab a puppy with little risk to yourself- a flailing adult might pose too much of a threat of drowning you, too.

Okay, I’m late to the party, but here is my list of people to save from drowning in order of preference:

1 My Mom.

2 My cat Shuppy.

3 My Brother from Macon, Georgia.

4 My Brother’s Wife.

5 My Brother’s daughter.

6 My Brother’s son.

7 My Brother’s cat Winston.

8 My one friend from my Writer’s Circle.

9 My other friend from my Writer’s Circle.

10 My ex-coworker who I went to Florida with once.

11 My ex-best friend who went nuts on me and I no longer speak to.

12 My ex-best friend who wasn’t nuts but dumped me for a boyfriend.

13 Tom Baker, the Fourth Doctor.

14 That nice lady who drives my Mom to the Kingdom Hall when I can’t.

15 That other guy from my Writer’s Circle who’s an okay guy, but never turns anything in to read.

16 That Starbuck’s barista who gave me a free mocha last week.

17 - 21 The four members of the Tuvan throat-singing group Huun-Huur-Tu.

22 My German cousin Gudrun.

23 Bill Bryson. Damn, he should’ve come earlier. Too late now.

24 Barack Obama.

25 Strangers

26 My neighbor’s cat Loma.

27 Hollywood Celebrities I don’t actually dislike.

28 The Boss who laid me off in November.

29 Cats or Dogs I don’t know.

30 Mayor Daley

31-32 The guys who make “South Park”.

33 Spacemen

34 Red Indians

35 Flemish Merchants, tassels and all.

36 Neo-classical versions of the complete Renaissance Man.

37 Livestock.

38 Politicians

39 Illinois Politicians

40 Hollywood Celebrities I actively loathe.

41 Rod Blagojevich

etc. etc. etc…
…1075 Any loose shipboard furniture still worth a few bucks.

1076 Sarah Palin.

Aaaannnd 1077 - Lebron James.
I hope this clears things up.