Philosophical Questions

I value human life more as a rule. But then, a dog is certainly more pleasant than the most odious of folk.

So, there are individuals I wouldn't want to save. Simple as that.

 

Wait, by refuting, you mean disagree with someone else's opinion? Or doing that in a nasty way? If it was just "Let's not discuss why this scenario would be flawed, just answer the question", I understand.

My opinion: Well...my first reaction would be to try and save them both. I love my dog, and I see another human in mortal danger.

As for what this human could be, we don't know that. All we know is that there's a human in peril, and if we don't do something, that human will die.

I guess...as much as it'd pain me, I'd have to go for the human.

 

I value dogs as much as I value people. Furthermore, I am primarily responsible for the dog being at risk. I would save the dog, and shout to the man to stand up or try to swim across the current.

There is a chance I can talk the person into a self rescue, but I know the dog and his capabilities. I know he cannot save himself.

This, however, is a reasoned response. In the heat of the moment, I cannot say which I would immediately act to save. Probably whichever was closer, and would still hold out hope the other could hold on long enough for me to rescue both.

 

Ok, How many of you guys that said they'd go after the dog would change their minds if the person was a woman?

Then consider a child.

How would you deal with the issue in a story. Say if the story was just some guys and/or ladies sitting around discussing the topic?

 

That's pretty much what I'm thinking. Save the dog while shouting at the person to hold on while I get to them (or encourage them to save themselves.)

 

I save the dog, even on the basis that choosing to save him certainly condemns the human. (As the question dictates).

Xenophanes famously said that if oxen and lions could draw they would draw their gods in the form of oxen and lions. A neat point, but I fancy that if your dog was asked to draw his god, he would draw you.

When he barks, he is fed, or watered, or let in. His prayers are daily answered.

You command mighty machines and make him better when he is ill. You are a maker of miracles.

So, the dog is drowning and he looks to his god for salvation.

To not act, at this point, would be to destroy his theology and his metaphysics. He will die utterly alone, his whole life rendered a taunting mockery.

The man suffers mere physical death. The dog would suffer a death both physical and spiritual.

And (we might speculate ), it would be a shock so devastating and so plangent that it would surely – by a mechanism beyond our understanding – tear asunder that beautiful doggy/human relationship that has obtained for millennia.

 

This kind of skirts around the point. The dog/person drowning situation is only an example of the big question of "who would you save?", meaning there cannot exist a situation where both parties can be saved. If you save the dog, the person will drown 100% of the time (and the "you" in the situation knows it). That's what makes the choice philosophical/psychological in a sense.

Philosophy is full of hypothetical questions like this, where you just have to go along with it, even if it doesn't make any real sense.

 

Woman or man, I'd still save the dog. A child? Kind of an even split - then it would be down to which was closer, I suppose. But I'm only supposing.

I think part of my decision making comes down to intelligence or ability to reason. The dog (or child, depending on age) cannot understand why I'm letting them drown, or even what's happening to them. They die in confusion and terror. The adult, on the other hand, knows what's happening to them. They can thus reconcile themselves to dying.

 

Is part of you're decision based on a sense of responsibility? As an intelligent being there is a sense of duty to the dog, life of a lesser intelligence, while another human should be capable of being responsible for their own safety?

 

I'd save the child. I think the dog would want me to do that.

 

Let's look at this in the most rational, cruel way possible.

A dog is an animal, it is not a human.
A cow is an animal, it is not a human.
A cow and dog are both animals, they have the same worth.

We eat cows, we don't eat dogs. This decision is completely arbitrary.

If you are a MEAT EATER, and you would save the dog over the human (no matter what) you are a hypocrite.


I'd save the human every single time because humans have more moral worth than animals. What if he's a criminal? Well, chances are he isn't. What if he is absolute scum? Well, I'm a meat eater so I can't logically say, "Screw it, I'll save the dog over the human being because somehow I know that he's a monster." There's almost no way of knowing what kind of person the drowning guy/girl is, so I can only function on logic. Human =/= Animal. So I'll save the human.

Also, please, no one debate my point. Although this is a website for learning, and learning is often achieved through debate, I do not believe that debating belongs on this website. I won't debate you guys, so please don't debate me. Debating is bad because sometimes people's feelings get hurt. I don't like to hurt feelings.

 

I think that's a good share of it, yes. Particularly under the circumstances described - I brought the dog there. I didn't bring the human.

 

So a vegetarian could save the dog and not be a hypocrite?

If saving the dog makes me a hypocrite, I'll gladly wear that mantle. I don't happen to think it fits, but it's only opinion either way.

 

And if anyone here wants to hurt nice people's feelings, I'm letting you drown and saving my lunch.

 

Yes they could, but please let's not get into a debate. Debating will only hurt people's feelings and no matter what debating is wrong. Let's call it clarifying our opinions.

Of course it fits. We use animals for food, we don't give them any rights or any humane treatment (when we do, we pick and choose). If you believe that dogs have a certain moral worth, then you should believe that all animals have the same moral worth and you should be against eating meat.

That being said, there's really nothing wrong with being a hypocrite. It's just an unfortunate result of illogical reasoning/actions. But it doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that you are a bad person/wrong/ect.

 

For the people talking about the realism and plausibility of the situation, I should have mentioned that the question was completely figurative! Like stated before it's all about the choice and the reasoning behind it.

For the people asking me how I would feel if it was me, or my relatives drowning. Well obviously I wouldn't be happy but in my opinion that's beside the point. You have no idea how they got there. If you weren't there, they still would be. I believe letting the dog die constitutes murdering it. Whereas the person, it's just negligence. And don't say it would be murder, since you let it happen. I'm sure there's been many people to drown at beaches where there were onlookers who were either: in too much shock to act, or unable to do anything. Actually this happened in at a beach that's about a fifteen minute walk from my house last year.

What if the person had jumped in to commit suicide but had changed their minds? I then save a person who acted idiotically and may do it again (and is likely to) in the future, as to a being who is incapable of doing harm, loyal and who's main goal is to make others happy as opposed to itself.

I don't believe in morals. I believe in fear of consequence, which is manifested by the law, in which morals give justification for. But they're just made up rules. Even if you do like helping other people, it's because you're getting gratified by the happiness or righteousness that comes from helping them. Humans are fueled by self interest.

This leads to another question...Are humans inherently evil?

EDIT-Thanks for the replies so far everyone! I'm really glad people have an interest in this.

 

What this shows is in reality there are a lot of different viewpoints even if many would think the decision would be obvious. A wider range of character motivation available?

 

Human beings are all blank slates, and their introduction and response to different stimuli throughout their entire life, as well as their genetic predispositions that may or may not be activated (but that have nothing at all to do with good or evil), dictates the type of person they become. This can be found in any Behavioral Neuroscience textbook and is backed up by massive, all encompassing empirical evidence. You can try to being religion into it, or philosophy, but in the end the facts are all right in front of anyone who wants to read them.

Fifth, how can you be so empathetic towards a dog when you are most likely someone who eats meat? That is very hypocritical if you are. If not, then surely you use products made with certain parts of animals, no? Then you're a hypocrite on that count as well.

Nothing wrong with saving the dog, but you'd be a hypocrite if you did it.

 

Ahaha no debating remember! It sounds a lot like you're calling me out due to certain clashing preferences.

Animals are meant to eat animals. Look at the majority of living species. Look at the wild in Africa.

People kill other people in war all the time and throughout all of history, so does that mean we shouldn't save humans anymore either?

I also don't show more empathy towards the dog, I just feel it's more-so my duty to save it for the reasons I explained above

 

Can someone please share their opinion in response to mine? It isn't debating. Don't be afraid to share your opinion. I don't think you'll get banned for sharing an opinion and then clarifying it in a response to someone's query for clarification. At least I hope that isn't the case.

 

You're right! There's so many different ways to interpret the world because there's so many different kinds of people! That's what makes it interesting.

 

I don't know. Most people don't take responsibility for a cow. Many have taken responsibility to protect their pets. That doesn't seem hypocritical.
People are meat too and most people don't eat dog.

 

Damn! I was hoping that I didn't sound like I was debating. I'm sorry if I hurt yours, or my own feelings. Debating is a bad thing to do.

Yes, animals are meant to eat animals. Of course. But that doesn't take anything away from my original point. Animals eat animals, but we don't eat ourselves (an incredibly small percentage eat others in ritual ceremonies), and we don't eat ourselves for a reason. It's because we assign moral worth to ourselves on a higher level. People kill others, so what? Those who kill others are almost always acting immorally. This is really irrelevant.

Please don't let this sound like a debate. Again, I believe that debating is very wrong and very bad and it might hurt feelings. I am just stating a different opinion than yours. And that is fine.

 

Indeed, psycho. People don't take responsibility for the cow because it is not convenient for them. They pick and choose which animals they want to absolutely deprive of all humanity and they justify it by labeling one a "pet" and the other "food." It is entirely hypocritical.

Btw, cool new avatar.

P.S.

Again, mods, I am not debating. I do not like debating because it is bad and hurtful. I am just stating/clarifying an opinion.

 

We're getting there. I'm a little slow and don't have any feeling in my hands so it can take a while. I make a lot of typos I have to correct before I click post.