Last seen at the shore, with a human and that human’s beloved pet.
Seeing how this thread degenerated into ridiculous casuistry, I began to feel an emotion toward the OP which I couldn’t quite catch into words, until I read The Great Unwashed’s last post.
Then the sentiment was gone.
Brilliant post, and it quite well redeemed this whole thread. 
I’m now going to browse the thread it spawned with your help.
And I allow millions of such people to die. I feed my cats despite the fact that someone, somewhere, is contemplating their own mortality for lack of a crust of bread or a shot of penicillin.
You want me to claim that the stranger I can see should be more important to me than the stranger I can’t–that any sacrifice of non-human life should be worth it because humans are exquisitely able to suffer.
I simply don’t buy this proximity argument. If I can save the human, I will. I might sacrifice my own life, but I won’t voluntarily sacrifice anyone else’s life to do so. I won’t renege on my responsibilities to do so.
(Note: If someone has dependents, I question whether they should risk their lives to save others.)
A human may have more ability to suffer mentally, and the human has more ability to come to grips, mentally, with her own predicament. Sounds like the human has both advantages and disadvantages again.
If faced with the situation (well, first I’d have to get a dog), I cannot say which I would choose. I have no way of knowing, other than my resistance to the notion that human beings are better than dogs. Humans are better at some things than dogs, and vice versa, but humans aren’t better than dogs. They aren’t kinder, or more moral, or gentler, or more loving (however you choose to define “love”), or more loyal, or more capable of sacrifice than a dog. The human just happens to look like me.
In the heat of the moment, if I were drowning, I assume I would be angry that someone chose their dog over me. Of course, I’d also be angry if they chose their child over me. I’d be angry if I didn’t get to be saved. I think most people would.
But that doesn’t mean that I assume my life should mean more to Jane Schmoe than her poodle’s life. If I assumed such, I’d wonder why Jane Schmoe is spending her money on her poodle rather than on me. She doesn’t. Is she immoral?
Julie
Sorry, I didn’t read though the hypothetical situations because it’s a pretty silly question. I mean, life is life. You might as well as me how many cats I would kill over my late cat.
But to try to answer your question. I can say that if aliens kidnaped me and asked me straight up: how many humans is my SO (or various loved ones) are worth? you’re not going to like the answer.
I would probably not be against 2/3 of the entire human population gone over my SO. I figure any more than that and we might not survive very long. I would of course be against the total elimination of humans because that’s just dumb.
As you might have heard, one life lost is a tragity, a million is just a statistic. I feel pretty much the same way.
Gah! Tragedy! not tragity.
You’re whole previous post was a tragity. Thank you for playing.
Ah badmana my first thoughts were of the order 2/3 humanity vs my most loved one, hell all but a few breeding pairs of humans vs my loved one. Then I thought, but my loved one couldn’t live with the fact that she had been saved for such a huge cost. So I changed my thought process too
how many people would I expect my loved one to allow to die in order to save my life, or equaly
how many poeople would my loved one expect me to allow to die in order to save her life
Put this way the answer for me at least is more like 10 than 1,000,000,000.
I don’t buy this “I don’t buy this whole proximity argument”, look, if you eat a big fat sandwich, say it costs you five bucks (it’s a good sandwich) then you’re right, that five bucks could have been spent on a jab to immunise some poor third-world urchin wretch from godknowswhat disease, thus (perhaps) saving their life.
And yet, we still eat those big juicy sandwiches. Hypocrite bastards that we are, right?
No, a big freakin NO!
If you were by the side of the road, a stranger comes to step in front of a truck they haven’t seen, you can save them, but you have to drop your big juicy sandwich ™, do you drop it?
Of course you do, jsgoddess! So leave off with your sophomoric casuistry* and admit that you do indeed “buy this proximity argument” (or commit all those hypothetical absent-minded pedestrians to an untimely squishing).
*nice word, Tusculan, had to look it up, but nice word nevertheless (had to cut and paste it, lest I spell it wrong (gah! Look at that you’re horror in my previus post)).
So ends the first meeting of the Tusculan-The Great Unwashed mutual appreciation society.
It’s funny how this thread has brought libertarians and animal rights together on the same side–though for different reasons, namely:
-
We have no moral obligation to help a strange human. If we want to help our dog, then tough luck to the human, whoever he or she is. (Libertarian in the Objectivist/Ayn Rand vein)
-
The value of the animal’s life is equal to the human’s (and, according to some posters, the animal’s life is usually more valuable). (Animal rights POV, in the Peter Singer vein–though even Singer might disagree with the conclusions that are being reached here)
Based on the scenario described in the OP, it is difficult to draw a hard and fast moral conclusion. However, I would have to say that in most cases, I would go for the human. When directly involved in a situation wherein a human’s life is endangered, I feel a moral obligation to help that person in whatever way I can.
When the drowning person is alongside my drowning dog, I would still try to save the human’s life first in nearly every circumstance. If I knew the other person was someone like Adolf Hitler, I expect I’d make a different decision. But in most cases, I would consider the human’s suffering to be greater than what the dog would experience, and that for that reason alone the human’s life take priority over the dog’s.
I’m very fond of animals, and it would be painful to see my dog drown… but I would feel much worse if I’d saved my dog while letting the human drown.
If I had the choice, I would do like Bippy and save the human first and then go back for the dog. But if I have to choose between my dog and an average (that is, not child molesting etc.) human, I would choose the human’s life without really thinking about it.
I’m sure my SO wouldn’t like it either (but who knows). Again, being placed in the reverse situation I would understand both ways if she killed off 2/3rds for me or let me die. I accept that my level of love is probably a little too extreme for many.
Of course the point of the OP wasn’t your SO vs everyone else. It was about pets vs everyone else. I, for one, don’t see the difference. I love my pet (don’t bother asking about spiders and stuff, I don’t like spiders) and treat them very much like humans. And why not? Most pets are better than humans. They don’t judge, insult, bully and make snide posts like The Great Unwashed. A good pet simply looks to you for a little love, food and shelter.
I guess the true question isn’t of value of humans vs animals but rather, how do you measure your love against your fellow man? I wouldn’t save an unknown animal over a stranger but anyone I love will get “front of the line” service when needed. Any life I love will be move valued over the lives that I don’t know.
Sorry if that offends the moralists around here (funny, I thought sticking up for your convictions was a moral?).
Skopo, you may or may not care, but, I am vegetarian (allbeit a pesco*-lacto-ovo-vegetarian)
*fish are ugly and deserve to be eaten
(cite) , I wouldn’t save a drowning fish, under any circumstances
The person I could save isn’t more important suddenly just because they are handy. As I said, I would try to save them because I would try to prevent being a witness to their suffering, not because human life is the utmost importance. If I argue that human life is of the utmost importance (which others in this thread appear to be arguing), then I am a hypocrite if I don’t behave as if human life were of the utmost importance.
You want the morality to be different between feeding your dog (thereby letting a child starve) and rescuing a dog (thereby letting a child drown). How are they different? I can feed the child. I can save the child. If I choose to rescue my dog (thereby saving her life and letting the child drown) how is that more immoral than if I feed my dog (thereby saving her life and letting the child starve)?
The only difference is that in one I can see the person and in the other I can’t.
Both ways, I’ve chosen the dog.
I don’t buy that someone’s proximity to me changes my responsibility to them. It might change what I do, but it doesn’t change what I should do.
Julie
Stop it now, you’re cracking me up. Your “level of love”, indeed!
How debased,
Your love must be,
If you would choose four billion,
Over (s)he.
Look I wrote you a poem (replete with poetically-licenced grammar)! Can your non-spider pet do that?
From you, I take
as an accolade.
Julie, would you drop your sandwich or not? It’s a perfectly simple hypothetical, five-dollar sandwich versus a stranger’s life. Yes, or, No?
If you would, then I maintain that your “I don’t buy this proximity argument” argument is hogwash, and you should withdraw it.
But perhaps your point is well made – maybe we are all hypocrites, indulging ourselves with our first-world lifestyles and indulgences while half the world starves. Food for thought.
My last post for the night, so you can breathe a sigh of relief, if that is your wont.
The Great Unwashed, you’re helping me make my point for me. By you being petty over a hypothetical question is very showing.
Sure, the “level of love” thing is pretty weak, how about I rephrase it to “my version of commitment (is to me)”?
Are you commited to someone TGU? So how much is your commitment worth? 1 human? A child? 10 humans? 4 dogs and 6 cats? all the money you will ever need? Many people have a price, mine is just really high.
I don’t care if what I love is a human, alien (sentient or otherwise) or a cat. When I love someone, I commit myself to that person and hold faith with them while I do. Is this truely strange?
Would I drop it? Probably.
Is it more moral of me to drop it to save the stranger’s life than it would have been for me to give the money to a stranger so that he might buy a sandwich? No.
That’s my point. Saving the guy in front of the truck is no more moral than buying a starving person a meal. My failure to spend all of my money on other human beings is no less immoral than my failure to save one from drowning. My choosing my dog to rescue from drowning is the SAME CHOICE as buying him a bag of Kibbles ‘N’ Bits.
But you are saying that one is fine and the other is immoral. You are saying, therefore, that my proximity to the victim changes morality. I disagree.
Julie
I do find the sentiment which I will phraise in my own words as
“Most pets are better than humans. They don’t judge, insult, or bully. Pets simply look for a little love, food and shelter.”
To be as disturbing to me than racism or homophobia. And I hate to my fullest capacity both racism and homophobia.
Why does it disturb you?
Julie
I don’t know someone could call it racism. I’m trying to say that this is how I feel about loved pets (not “animals” in general). I don’t know how you made that connection.
I don’t pick animals over humans. I pick my pets over humans. I specified “pets” because pets denote a loved member of your family. Animals in general don’t intereste me (although I’m against general suffering of animals) either way. I eat pleny of meat.
Well, it is like homophobia and racism, a judgement of inferiority put against a large dissperate group, based on what seems to me to be a highly unreasonable premis. Which in this case is that people judge, insult and bully. Whilst people don’t simply look for ’ love, food and shelter’.
It is homosapienphobia.
Like claiming that all dark skinned people are better than all light skinned people, because dark skinned people don’t judge, insult or bully. Dark skinned people just enjoy life, foor and love.
( Including the idea that it is rediculous to say pets don’t judge, insult, and bully. Pets do judge some people and pets they will behave well towards, others they will not. They don’t insult simply because they have no language so cannot insult, as daft as saying pets don’t tell jokes. They do bully, have you not seen the vieing for dominance between two cats or two dogs, they can get very unpleasent to each other unless the owner intervenes and teaches them not to. )