Well I think if the scenario is that you don't even notice the human fall through, most people would probably save their dog...
I posted about it earlier, but if I'm trying to imagine what truly would happen, once I saw the dog go through I don't know how rational I would be. Last time he fell through the ice, I certainly didn't stop to consider anything. I might be aware that someone else had also fallen through, but I'd be so focused on the dog I don't know that a debate would cross my mind.
Remember what I said before about this being the logic of a psychopath? Well I used the wrong word. I should have said sociopath. But my main point is, you're really not helping your case here.
This troubles me. In real life, I am a complete stranger to all of you. So, your dog walks out on the ice, and I see him out there and decide to join him. 35% of you see us both fall and you let me drown. I hate 35% of you. Thanks, you really know how to hurt a guy. I would choose all of you over my dog, and that's even knowing that a few of you are lousy people.
Fair enough, but I think that sort of makes this whole scenario pointless. "I would save my dog because I wouldn't notice the human." Well... yeah, you would. I'm wondering how many of the "I would save the dog" people are just getting hung up on the details. A lot of people seem to be assuming that anyone who falls through the ice is definitely a stupid asshole, and that's becoming a big variable. I would again like to propose my earlier, alternate (ridiculous) scenario where someone has a gun and is going to kill either your dog or a random stranger. You can't stop him or talk to anyone, and there's no ice anywhere, fuck you.
Evidently the fellow in our office who was on the opposite side of the fence posts on a tech forum. Last night he posted the same question I did, and he linked me to a back-and-forth between himself and another member. It's an interesting take on scenario: Another way to frame it is that I am being asked not only to put my life in danger to try and save someone unknown to me, but I am also being asked to sacrifice something I hold very dear for the privilege of doing it. Is it so hard to understand that 35% of the people here decline?
You're misunderstanding the hypothetical. It's your father/mother/husband/child that has died because of this stranger favoring his own dog or cat. How would you feel about that? Also, your last sentence is both troubling and contradicts the original focus. We don't know anything about the circumstances of the calamity, correct? Why are you assuming it's the victim's fault, especially when it's an unpredictable natural phenomena? Exactly. It could be a crackhead with a virulent hatred of Jews and blacks like ballsack, and I would still pull the bastard out over my own pet. Unless the hypothetical moves into the territory of "the human is a criminal scumbag", my response would be the same. Edit- Last I checked, this hypothetical didn't occur in the midst of a "Zombie Apocalypse", nor am I reliant on a dog for food. Responding to his argument, I readily admit to being very selfish in this context and vastly prefering my friends and family over a random human. I would save a family member over 100 random humans without thinking. But I would save a random human being over all my beloved pets put together. Again, anyone who equates the life of an animal to that of a human is someone that frightens and repulses me.
His point, I think, was to try and break down some of the psychology between the two different schools of thought. He's using an extreme example to illustrate how we might have evolved to see the value of animals over strangers. Then we simply have differing opinions. That's all.
You changed the conditions. The original premise states you have to choose between the stranger and your pet. In order for there to be a choice, you must realize that a person fell through also. So either you're cheating on the premise, or you're version of the "honest truth" (as opposed to what? The dishonest truth?) is as warped as your sense of morality.
Once upon a time, you people knew how to take a premise (no matter how serious), stick to the focus, and consistently produce funny responses. Yeah, those were the days. I vote that we go back to debating lion/gorilla fights and placing bets on tsunami deaths. This moral high ground over imaginary crises isn't even chuckle-worthy; it's just sad. DANCE, MONKEYS, DANCE!
People in the military do this all the time. The repeatedly sacrifice their own home life (something they hold dear - often at the expense of losing their marriage or quality time with their children) and their life in dange to save someone unknown to them. All. the. time. God bless them for that. Holy crap, I am sorry. I just do not get saving any dog, beloved or not, over a person.
I'm willing to bet handlers for combat dogs would save their partner over some random Iraqi civilian.
I know this isn't the popular answer, but I save the dog. If a person falls through the ice, there is still a chance they will make it out alive. They have the mental capacity to figure a way out of the situation. I also think there would be less of a risk for your own life when saving the dog. A full grown adult is heavier than most dogs. What if you can't pull the person out and both the person and the dog dies. I think that would haunt me more. Keep in mind, I did say this isn't the popular answer.
Depends on the person. If it's a kid, I'm going for the kid, without a doubt. If it's an adult, I'll make a pretty quick calculation as to my chances of actually saving him. Anyone here ever lifeguard? I had it drilled into me that it is an absolutely TERRIBLE idea to try to save a person if you are alone and have no equipment to help you. How much can I actually do to save him? Ice rescues are risky, dangerous, and very difficult if you aren't trained. Odds are, you're going to end up in the water with him and die. And now there's two dead people in the pond. If there's no way to save the guy, then letting your dog die is a futile gesture. Better to save your dog than let both of them die and say, "Well, at least I tried." On the other hand, let's say that you can make a difference. Whomever you try to save will make it, and the other will die. In that case, it's the person, without a doubt. I simply would not be able to justify looking that man's family in the eye and saying, "Sorry, I could have saved your dad / husband but chose not to." Having lived with dog handlers, I can say that this is 100% true. Hell, some of them would save their partner rather than save a fellow Marine. This actually brings up a good point, though - I have never owned a dog. I've owned a few cats, and while I enjoy their company, I do not and have never had the sort of bond that Dcc has with her dogs. If my cat died, I'd definitely feel bad, but I would get on with my day. Judging by how she's acted with her dogs before, it seems like she treats her dog like she would her kid. You'd definitely save your kid before saving some random stranger, right? Even if your kid was completely fucked and the stranger had a good chance, you'd try defy all odds and do whatever it took to get your kid.
At the very least, we can all agree that if it came down to saving your own dog or Brett Favre, the pooch gets the nod. I mean, fucking retire already! Amirite??
Whoa whoa, I didn't realize we were including cats in this equation. In that case, I change my answer. In order of priority, I would: - save human child; - save human adult; - save dog; - drown cat. Cats are evil.
The ethics and the reality of this differ for me. If my dog fell into the ice, and I wasn't already aware that there was a person in peril, id have saved the doh or died trying before i noticed a person in trouble. Is feel terrible after the fact, but I just wouldn't notice another incident until is saved the dog. That's in no way the moral position, but reality of how my mind would work. If I was trying to rescue a person, and the dog fell in? I'd feel really bad and probably hate the person I was trying to rescue. But couldn't ignore a person. My understanding is that is probably kill myself trying to save the person by myself, but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't try.