The human.
Personal is not the same as important.
I agree with this analysis; most people wouldn’t do anything. And maybe that’s sensible because a significant proportion of those people who do attempt a rescue end up drowning.
I was just talking more generally about moral dilemmas. Life or death dilemmas aren’t common but when they do come up people rarely make a callous calculation of personal utility. e.g. most people find it unbearable to watch a human die a slow death.
Too true. I once saved a man’s life while about five other people stood around and stared like morons, and I still had to tell them to call and ambulance.
General advice if your dog is struggling in water is not to go after them: dogs are good swimmers and if he is struggling so will you. Plus you will be more affected by the cold, and so more likely to drown. People drown all the time saving their dog, while the eventually gets out on the other side. Just recently a whole family died going after a dog, one after the other. A sort of “swallowed the spider to catch the fly”-situation.
That said, if it were my lab I’d be a moron and drown myself saving her (I bravely declare, comfortably behind my laptop).
Exactly.
And I will go one further and call “bullshit” on most of the posters in this thread saying they’d chose the person. There are literally BILLIONS of people on this planet whose life, death and suffering we are totally indifferent to. How many people in China died of preventable industrial accidents last year? Who knows and has even thought about it? How many people in the Ukraine watched a loved one die of cancer yesterday? Again, who knows and who even thinks about it? The bottom line is that we are indifferent to the vast amount of routine death that occurs everyday. I see know reason why I should all of a sudden be compelled to place the interests of a being that means a great deal to me and my everyday life over that of just some other random person whose life otherwise means nothing to me.
The person.
This shouldn’t even be a debate.
Presumably then if you saw a man attempting to rape a child you’d do nothing.
After all, rapes happen all the time and most people aren’t aware of how many rapes happened in, say, Ukraine last year. Most people don’t lose sleep over it.
So why waste some of your valuable time, and maybe even put yourself at risk, helping a stranger?
Lots of people know about it, yet the sale of I-phones, and other dreck, isn’t decreasing as a result.
I have a lot of trouble with this hypothetical, as our dog is such a tireless swimmer I can’t conceive of her drowning.
But I’ll bet that’s hardly unique among Labrador retrievers.
Now if it was a mini-Schnauzer and a person both drowning, I’d throw the person a rope first (Schnauzers aren’t good catching ropes and the breed is meh anyway).
I’d save the human. But only because I wouldn’t want people giving me shit for the rest of my life.
Given the circumstances of my dog vs stranger, I’d save my dog. The dog is a member of our family despite being a different species, and in an either/or situation I’d always put my family first over strangers.
With that being said, if the situation were slightly different: my dog vs another family member (human), I’d save the human family member. As important as the dog is to our family, my sister, parents, grandmother, etc. are that much more important in my eyes.
Sorry to anyone who feels this is selfish or immoral, but as I have said, I feel our dog is a family member and I will always put my own family before strangers if I can only choose one or the other.
Am I allowed to hold the dog under until I’m sure it’s dead before I save the person?
[sub]I’m not very fond of dogs.[/sub]
So you’d prefer to save a soulless non-sapient beast over a human?
Since the soul exists only in the imagination, it’s the least relevant factor I can … imagine.
Or vice versa.
He didn’t say that. He was talking about his dog. Since there is no such thing as a soul, this dog not having one is pretty irrelevant. I can’t speak to this dog’s sapience, but it could well be more intelligent than a human 2 year-old.
Who said anything about politicians in this hypothetical?
No… there is a right answer unless you’re a Sociopath.
I have a great lab who has been with the family since birth and is loved. However, while we often refer to her as a “member of the family” she is - in fact - a dog and I am a human. As a human… who I might add does not generally find strangers likeable, it would be inhuman to let another person die while saving a dog.
Easy answer for any normally adjusted and sane person and I would be wary around anyone who thinks otherwise.
That’s one smart dog (e.g. a human at age 2 has an average vocabulary of 150 words), but in any case the human has far greater potential sapience.
I still doubt that all but a tiny minority of people could be that callous in RL. Can you imagine listening to someone drown? Each time they get their head out of the water they use what little air they have to beg you to help them…getting increasingly panicked…
Meanwhile I love my dog, but he’s only going to live a few years and not develop much in that time. Indeed you could think of this as the selfish option: I’m choosing my sanity over Fido’s few years sniffing butts (I don’t believe that’s really the reasoning that would go through my head, I’m just saying that’s one way of looking at it).
I don’t believe in souls. But I’m also not convinced that dogs like sapience. They’re not as intelligent as most humans, true enough, but they are clearly self-aware and capable of emotion.
As backwards as it sounds, I would save my dog precisely because the human has the capacity for abstract reason. My dog has been a faithful companion, a family member, for me to forsake her in her moment of need would be a brutal blow to my psyche that I might never recover from. I would ever after be haunted by the memory of her dying alone, miserable, confused and, above all else, betrayed. I can take comfort in the fact that the human’s ability to reason means that they can recognize that I was a fucking asshole for not saving them, and I can live with that better than the guilt I would feel from forsaking a family member.
This nonsense about “soulless creature” is religious claptrap from people who have never bonded with a pet. If humans have “souls”, animals do as well, I have seen enough to know there is no real difference in our existences and self-awareness, it just ends up as a way to rationalize some of our more deprecable behaviors.