Hmm. Some of these guys seem to be dodging the question.
Now I´m completely shocked, if the answers to this question have any statistical value, I´m not only shocked but absolutely horrified that about 7 or 8 out of ten people would favour the life of a dog over a human.
And Brutus “All this talk of helping out a ‘fellow human’ and ‘the brotherhood of man’ is heartwarming and all, but a bunch of hypocritical rot.” Mind you, I was speaking my mind when I said I´d go for the stranger and not the dog; so I´m not a rotten hypocritical, OK?
I still would like to hear about the legal aspects of the OP.
Even more, I´m not even a rotten hypocrite. 
Ale
I looked into the legal idea of ‘failing to render aid,’ but it seems that only applies if it was your fault in the first place. Like, if you hit a biker with your car, you have the legal duty to help the guy you hit.
But…
So, it sounds like unless the drowning person and dog are in Minnesota or Vermont, you have the ethical duty to help them, but not the legal duty.
By the way, IANAL.
Well you can relax because I’m talking about my dog not a dog. I’d save you over your dog (if that’s what you want).
quote:
Originally posted by autz
I seriously question the morality of anyone who would chose a dog over a person.
A very clever way of phrasing an insult such that it is still allowed in GD.
I’d use a giant straw to suck all the water out.
It’s the same question as the OP.
Julie
Let me bounce back the button question to you.
Left we have a big tank with 10000 people in it. Right we have the most important person in your life (So, parent, kid, whomever). Choose a button please.
Let me guess the answer. So 10000 strangers are less important than that single person? Then why is it so strange that many of us value our dog more than a single stranger?
Ale, I was shocked as well when reading this thread while it was only 20 posts long. I deliberately avoided it since then because of the depressing effect it had on my mood. Now reading it again, I commend you and Joe Random for standing up what I always thought to be the commonly shared moral viewpoint. I’ve got two (longish) remarks.
1. Bias in replies
Bear in mind that we may well see a very selective set of replies. The title is rather suggestive and I assume ironic, since it is decidedly not a classic in this specific form. Indeed, I assume the OP does this for shock value, since I still believe most people in polite company would say they naturally prefer to save a stranger over a human being. On a message board you can more easily voice shock opinions, since you don’t know the others and don’t have to live with their changed opinions of them (or be more ‘honest’, as Brutus interprets this).
It stand for reason that most people would think this is a no-brainer (like John Mace said) and wouldn’t bother to debate this. Hence you will only read opinions of posters who are vaguely aware that their opinion diverges from the majority, and pride themselves on their higher level of insight or honesty.
That, or Brutus is right. I hope not. He wasn’t in Act 4, Scene III.
2. Legal issues
In Anglo-American legal systems there generally is no duty to rescue a complete stranger where such a rescue would be ‘easy’, though everyone acknowledges there is a moral duty (and several authors argue in favor of such a legal duty). In Contintenal Europe, however, there exist both civil and criminal sanctions against those who neglect to rescue someone where they can do this without getting themselves in danger. These provisions are rarely used, though. Maybe everyone already does follow their duty, or it is hard to prosecute in case someone didn’t follow it. Either way, I prefer this moral sentiment.
Sources for Anglo-American law:
- B.S. Markesinis, ‘Negligence, Nuisance and Affirmative Duties of Action’, LQR 105 (1989) 104-124.
- Ernest J. Weinrib, ‘The Case for a Duty to Rescue’, The Yale Law Journal 90/2 (1980) 247-293.
In contrast to some of the pro-mankind opinions, who immediately started mounting their high horses, I for one do not claim to have a higher level of insight or honesty. I give an honest reply.
The situation is not as simple as some of you may think. Not everyone is convinced that mankind is by definition so much superior that the life of a total stranger is always more valuable than the life of your dog.
That analogy is specious, since many of the respondents have been arguing on the basis of the inherent value of human life.
Moreover, speaking for myself, I would rather save the 10,000 people of which you spoke. This would not be an easy decision, by any means; indeed, it would be utterly gut-wrenching. Still, it would be the proper thing to do.
Your first remark brings us back to the point whether hman life is by definition more valuable than canine. And apparently there is quite some disagreement on that.
Your second remark: I am just as flabbergasted by your answer as some of the pro-human posters have been on the point of view of the ‘my doggie first’ club.
No! You guessed wrong.
And, if I was the one at risk, and one of my loved ones made the decision and saved me, then I’d be very unhappy indeed.
Where’s the OP, who promised to return and “explain their reasons”?
Fascinating difference in opinions.
Is there disagreement on whether human life is more valuable than canine life? Certainly. There is also disagreement on whether black people deserve the same rights as white people. Some things simply shouldn’t be a matter of dispute amongst civilized human beings.
As for the second remark, I’m not saying that it would be an easy decision. In fact, I explicitly said that it would be a most difficult one. Nobody said that doing the right thing would always be easy. Nobody said it would always be convenient.
The dispute is still whether it IS the right thing.
And can we please keep the discussion civil? Yes, you are not calling me a discriminating uncivilized oaf, but you’re cleverly inferring it with nice phrasing.
And just to point out what has been pointed out before: it is not a general human vs canine case. It is a stranger versus beloved dog. There is a difference there.
Like it or not, discussions about morality will ultimately boil down to matters of basic moral intuition – the basic concepts of right and wrong that civilized people hold to be true, and which require no justification. There are certain things that civilized individuals simply know to be true, such as the wrongness of rape or the abominability of torturing young children. This is another such matter.
So JThunder I can assume that a choice between saving a murdering child molester human and a search&rescue dog would still be a no-brainer for you? Any other “Human over all” people feel the same way?