No question about it…the human. Hell, if someone told me to either shoot my dog or he would kill a stranger, ol’ Fido would have to go! For that matter, I would shoot YOUR dog to save a stranger!
Another question for dopers tho…
If a Creationist or an Evolutionist were drowning who would you save?? 
Balderdash. Merely having a pet does not kill anyone.
And how is that relevant? Merely spending money on pets does not cause anyone to die. In fact, scientific studies have shown that having pets can make people healthier and more productive, thereby increasing their ability to provide assistance to other human beings.
In other words, all this talk about how pet ownership causes other people to die is a colossal red herring.
I’m sure that people levelled the same sarcasm at those who opposed slavery, back in the day. What close-minded people those abolitionists were!
There is nothing close-minded about taking a hardline stance against wrongful acts – ESPECIALLY where human lives are involved. One might dispute whether the act is truly wrongful, but taking an uncompromising stand is not the same as close-mindedness.
Heck, one could just as easily argue that you’re being close-minded, for refusing to consider the possibility that there IS only one right answer in this situation!
Saving the dog also doesn’t kill anyone. It allows someone to die.
Failing to feed them also allows them to die. Having a pet means you are dedicating some of your limited resources to the pet rather than to other humans. You are putting the pet before humanity.
Julie
JThunder,
You refuse to see simple cause and effect. The world has finite resources. And at any given time, we have a finite ammount of resources that animals (including humans) use to live. Any time part of the pool or resources given to one organism while at that time another is dying due to lack of resources, one is indirectly responsible for the other’s death.
Look at it in smaller terms (rather than the trillions of animals on the planet). If we have 3 humans and a dog in a room that they cannot leave, and the room only produces enough food to feed 3 of the 4 beings in the room. If 2 of the humans feed themselves, and make sure the dog is fed, the cuased/allowed the 3rd human to die.
The difference is that in the real world, you don’t see most of the people starving to death. We, as superior beings, don’t like to see that when I spend money (resources) on my internet bill (which is far from a nessessity) during a period where people somewhere are dying becuase they lack the money to buy food, that was a deeath I could have prevented. Just becuase they are thousand of miles away, we overlook it.
So, when I feed my dog, I just gave him food that some human could have used to live. I picked my dog (my own selfish desires) over another human being. ‘Luckily’ I don’t have to deal the consiquences of my actions.
My dog is as much a member of my family as are my parents and my brother. As such he deserves, and gets, the same love, affection and general treatment that we, his human family, give each other.
As an example, just as I would spare no effort or expense to get my ill mother properly treated, I would spare no effort or expense to get my ill dog properly treated. Even though the old homeless chap sitting outside the vet’s clinic could really use some of that money. Sure, if I had the spare money I would give some of it to the homeless chap - but only after my dog has had his due treatment.
I’d save my dog over the stranger. And I’d take all the crap I’d get for that decison of mine. Again, and again, and again. Because for me, in this situation, societal mores, humanity and morality don’t come into the picture. Like I said in my first post in this thread - selfish, maybe. So sue me.
And for those who don’t share that kind of bond with their dog - I pity you. Yes, even you who doesn’t want the pity. You really have no clue.
Dob, if you shoot my dog without very good reason, be afraid of me.
gouda (nice cheesy name b.t.w.), if you can equate your dog in value to your human close relatives. What if you had a pet hampster instead, would you give your hampster that value.
If you would, then what if you instead had a pet insect?
Is it the fact that the animal is your pet that is important? or is it the fact that you perceive that the animal loves you and is emotionaly attatched to you?
JThunder
You have repeatedly stated that there IS only one answer to normal people, even putting saving your own dog on the same line as rape and child abuse.
I dare you to start a thread on child abuse. Everyone (well, 99%+, there are always idiots) will agree that that this is wrong. The same if you start a thread on rape.
Whether you like it or not, this particular question does not meet with the same response. There are a lot of us who choose what you in your limited view of the world consider an unthinkable point of view.
If you open your mind for just a tiny moment, maybe you’ll realise that this means that in contrast to your other examples this is obviously not such a clear cut case and is therefore clearly not by definition a question of logical society morals or not. Therefore your response “Heck, one could just as easily argue that you’re being close-minded, for refusing to consider the possibility that there IS only one right answer in this situation!” is ludicrous.
Every time you post, you automatically retreat to your own position and state implicitly or explicitly that of course you are right. Mixed in with some nice suggestive statements about rape, child abuse and slavery.
I am done here. Discussing against a brick wall is a waste of time.
Not true. People aren’t dying due to a lack of world resources. They are dying due to a maldistribution of those resources.
That is why it’s foolish to say that feeding a pet causes other people to starve. By and large, they aren’t eating food which those people would otherwise eat. Indeed, if a conscientious individual were to be more productive because he owned pets, then that person would be in a far better position to provide continuing assistance those individuals who are in dire need.
Besides, a great many pets consume food which humans do not eat! There goes the theory that pet ownership intrinisically causes other human beings to die.
Moreover, as pointed out earlier in this thread, there’s a big difference between providing financial assistance that may save the life of an individual in some remote country, and saving the life of a proximate someone who needs immediate life-saving aid. The problems of world hunger and starvation are complex, having been complicated by institutionalized theft, graft, corruption and explotiation. As such, short-term donations often do not generate the desired effect, as their effects are mitigated by entrenched systems of corruption. In contrast, saving a drowning human is an opportunity to make an immediate difference for which there is virtually no trade-off. The two situations simply are not comparable.
Bippy,
You keep harping on the love thing. Does it really matter? How do YOU know whether a dog, hampster, or spider can feel “love”. And how do you know how they respond to that feeling? I can’t say if my dog loves me. I can say that he treats me better than many people who have claimed to love me have.
And even if some person loves me and my dog doesn’t, if the end result is that my pet makes me happier than the person, his love (or false love, or instinctual actions, or whatever) are better FOR ME, than the “real love” that the person gives me.
Heck, I know more people for whom human love has ended up being a negative thing, than I do having it be positive.
They are very comparable, you’re just choosing not to compare them.
Dogs eat food made from corn, beef, chicken, rice, lamb, etc. Think people can’t eat that?
A bag of cat food costs me $25. I walk past the begging man with the “I’m homeless and hungry” sign to go to the supermarket. How many meals would that $25 buy the man?
He’s there. It’s your opportunity for immediate impact! Do you walk by? I do. Lots of people do. They feed their pets with that $25. They choose their pets over the homeless, hungry man.
Sounds pretty darned “comparable” to me.
Julie
And the slavery issue did not meet with the same response, either. That does not mean that both slaveowners and abolitionists had equally valid worldviews. The fact that people disagree on this issue does not mean that both sides are valid.
Again, that is demonstrably false. A significant number of people may advocate saving the dog, but that means nothing. There was a time when a significant number of people said that blacks belonged in the back of the bus, but their did not make their stance any more legitimate. The presence of disagreement means nothing about the validity of your stance.
Get real. You say that I’m close-minded for refusing to consider the possibility that there are multiple answers to this quandry. I say that you’re close-minded for refusing to consider the possibility that there is only ONE answer!
I’m know that I’m not allowed to save them both. But, I’d throw my damn dog (must’ve escaped) on shore and dive back in. Hopefully the impact would knock the water out of her (the boy beagle is just too lazy, and the shepherd to disinterested, to escape) lungs. Then, I’d drag the ‘drowned’ victim out (much safer than fighting them when they’re actually drowning) clear his or her (preferably a really hot girl, not that I want one to die, anyway…) airway, start doing breaths, check for a pulse, CPR if necessary, maybe turn her over or sideways to clear the airway, whatever. You know, not give up and let her die. Same procedure if it’s a guy. No double entendre intended. I’m not a lifeguard, but living in FL it’s hard not to learn something about drowning.
Well, you might get a few more takers on your “ONE answer” if you had anything to back it up other than “Because I said so!” and “It’s obvious!” and “It’s true because it’s true!”
Julie
I would like to choose to save my dog.
I wrote a huge post analyzing all the factors and lots of other stuff and got tremendously confused. It boils down to the above. I’m not saying that I would or wouldn’t.
My dog, my pet. If it was an unknown dog and a stranger then I would choose the stranger.
You’re. Not. Paying. Attention.
Feeding people is not a zero-sum game. Sure, the ingredients in that dog food could have been used to feed those people; however, this does not mean that owning a dog will cause those people to starve. PAY ATTENTION. If owning a dog causes people to be healthier and more productive, then they can be in a better position to feed the hungry and to provide lasting solutions to their problems.
In other words, this is not as simple as saying “Feed your dog and you cause other people to starve!” It’s not even close.
Moreover, at the risk of sounding pedantic, I’d like to point out that you and robertligouri specifically talke about having pets, not dogs. (Hint: Not all pets are canines.) ERGO, even if we grant that feeding a dog causes other people to starve (a thesis which I refuse to grant), it does not follow that pet ownership has the same effect.
And finally, as we’ve pointed out before, there’s a huge difference between failing to feed the world’s hungry (a situation borne of institutionalized graft, theft and corruption) and refusing to save someone in your immediate vicinity. I daresay that most people would consider the latter to be a far more abominable act, and rightfully so.
sghoul you never do know that something else loves you or is emotionally tied to you. But you can deffinately know that something doesn’t, because it has not got the brain capabilities to do so. I jsut used the term love because it had been used before in this thread.
The idea of the “dog treats you better” is a much easier metric to deal with. Very strong and a valid reason to rank your dog above many humans. But this leads cat owners into a problem, I have known cat owners who are treated with dissdain by their own pet cats, but non the less would say they loved their cats, and would see their cat as more valuable to them than an unknown human.
I am pushing at the idea that it is not some inherrant property of the pet that gives it value to us, but instead our own emotional attatchment to the pet independant of whethet the pet is emotionally capable or not.
This would lead to the saving of the pet instead of the human being essencially a selfish act, but by no means necessarily a wrong act.
I am exploring the edges of this problem, in the hopes of better understanding the way I feel about the problem, and the way I feel about people who would give a different answer to mine.
I hope most others in this discussion are probing their own feelings as well.
You’re not making an argument, therefore paying attention is a bit tricky. All you keep saying is that your way is the right way because it’s right.
No, not all pets are dogs, but since this thread started with a dog versus a stranger, it makes sense to talk about dogs.
The MONEY that I spend on my dog doesn’t go to feed the STRANGER in front of the supermarket. The TIME that I spend on my dog doesn’t go to help the STRANGER who needs my help. I put my dog in front of the stranger, as does EVERYONE who has a dog.
Fine, then I can say that rescuing my dog from drowning will leave me healthier and more productive, putting me in a better position to feed the hungry and to provide lasting solutions to their problems! Excellent!
Julie
JThunder,
Do you have ANY proof that food is a zero sum game? I don’t know that owning my dog helps me produce the extra money I need to keep him alive. As a matter of fact, I make about the same as I did before I met him.
And why is it different choosing now to save someone near you, or thousands far away? I actually find it philisophically worse that you are able to say “I would save someone if I could see em, but screw em if they are out of eyesight”.
Like it or not, the “Haves” allow the “Have nots” to die everyday. And most of us (including me) don’t lose a minute of sleep.