Would you save your cat/dog or a person you don't know?

[Autumnleaf]

If you had to choose between someone you don't know and your pet, one would live and one would die. Which would you choose?

 

[Mystman]

My pet would live.

Anyone who answers differently better not have ever bought anything for their pet instead of donating to the dying children in africa.

 

[one11]

My pet would live.

Anyone who answers differently better not have ever bought anything for their pet instead of donating to the dying children in africa.

How true!

However, these hypothetical are impossible to relate to because it doesn't give an example, such as who is closer? was it an earthquake? am I hurt? where are we? do I have my glasses?

But to just answer the hypothetical with no understanding of how, what, where... I'd save my pets and all in my own household first, then see if I could help.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Pets, probably. I have no idea to be honest.

 

[bibleblevr]

A study was done on this subject, where americain high school students were asked this question, 75% said they would save their dog. personally, I would consider watching someone die when you have the campaciy to save them, murder.

Bty interesting point about the dieing children of africa and dog toys . But it is worth noting that many of those charities do more long term harm than good. for example, I saw a charity that gave shoes to africian children, so that they could walk on the rocky raods more easly. This leads to problems when the shoes wear out and the charity is out of buisness, or the shoe supply has stoped. the africians are now left with no shoes and soft vorible feet that never developed the nessisary calises for their environment.

Another example is purifying water down stream of africian cities that have been heavily poluted. The government of the city should solve the problem by reducing polution, because of the generosity of other countries giving out water purifiers, they can continue their dangerous practices indefinitly.

Another example. Given the farming practices in africa, they can only suport "X" population. right now, if they are starving, they must have "2X" population (for example). if we continue to suport the extra "X" then they will multiply to possibly "3X" or more. The root cause is inadiquite food production and/or over population. We are enlarging the problem by making an artificaily high food supply. What they need is either the natural process of dieing due to starving and thus balancing the food to population ratio, Get them to have less kids, or give them farming expertice and farm equitment.

Hmm, let me think of another...... here we go,lets mention fraud. Many of the people reciving supplys turn around and sell the stuff they got in.

Vacinations, this one sounds a little brulal, but if the people who can't survive their environment and their natural, viral and bacterial adversaries continue to reproduce, then people will die from it forever. If however, they evolve a resistance, then the problem is solved.

Malaria, don't give nets, get those people out, it is a dangerous place to live, why let people build towns in such places? stay away from swamps

The fact is, it is hard to find a charity that does real and lasting good, missionarys are agood investment though

 

[lawtonfogle]

Another person.

My pet would live.

Anyone who answers differently better not have ever bought anything for their pet instead of donating to the dying children in africa.

But the chance of getting someone owing you a life debt is non-existent in that case.


But really, the problem here is simply an issue of how connected we are. Minus the feed the children commercials, we rarely encounter the problems they face, so we push it to the back of our minds where we can just ignore it, because truth be told, there are so many problems in the world most people could barely, if at all, function thinking about them all.

 

[jayem]

I'd definitely try to save our 2 parrots first. For most people, pets are members of their families. So of course, they would feel a duty to save their pets above saving a stranger.

BTW: People even put their pet's welfare equal to their own. Before Katrina hit New Orleans, quite a few residents refused to evacuate because they had to leave their pets behind. Congress has since passed the PETS Act, which requires FEMA to make provision to care for pets during any disaster response. So saving pets is now a federal law.

 

[Scolfield]

A study was done on this subject, where americain high school students were asked this question, 75% said they would save their dog. personally, I would consider watching someone die when you have the campaciy to save them, murder.

Except I wouldn't be watching them, I'ld be saving my dog.

The fact is, it is hard to find a charity that does real and lasting good, missionarys are agood investment though

So giving some african kid with the head the size of a basketball and the midriff that Calista Flockhart would murder people for, a little food and some shoes: not helping. Giving him Jebus: helps.

Gotcha.

BTW: People even put their pet's welfare equal to their own. Before Katrina hit New Orleans, quite a few residents refused to evacuate because they had to leave their pets behind. Congress has since passed the PETS Act, which requires FEMA to make provision to care for pets during any disaster response. So saving pets is now a federal law.

I would have been one of those people.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'd definitely try to save our 2 parrots first. For most people, pets are members of their families. So of course, they would feel a duty to save their pets above saving a stranger.

BTW: People even put their pet's welfare equal to their own. Before Katrina hit New Orleans, quite a few residents refused to evacuate because they had to leave their pets behind. Congress has since passed the PETS Act, which requires FEMA to make provision to care for pets during any disaster response. So saving pets is now a federal law.

I'd try to take my cats with me, but if I couldn't, I would leave them behind. Honestly, I would leave most people behind (assuming they would not want to come, this is not the same a forcing them to stay behind). There are few people I feel connected enough with to die with, and even then, I know that my mind is hoping for a chance of us to live through it.

 

[velveteenlo]

I am so connected to animals that yes, the animals in my life would be saved over a stranger. I'm not a person who views human life as more important or crucial than the lives of other animals, though of course I love the people in my life and am studying to enter a profession dedicated to helping people, not animals. I suppose my choice comes from the fact that I view my animals as dependent on me, and I consider them more vulnerable and infinitely more innocent. That's the hypothetical answer, anyway. I hope I'm never in the position to have to make that choice, because it's a hard one.

A study was done on this subject, where americain high school students were asked this question, 75% said they would save their dog. personally, I would consider watching someone die when you have the campaciy to save them, murder.

I feel the same, that if you can save someone and you don't, you are contributing to their deaths. However, I view letting an animal die to be murder, too. That's why this is a tough choice.

I would have been one of those people.

Me too. At my parents' place we have an emergency plan that involves the animals.

 

[IreneAdler]

I'm really just surprised at everyone's answer. lol.
I'd pick a person any day, even though I ADORE my dog. Just love him to death.

 

[blessedmomof5]

I would save a person, but would defintely think afterwards, if there was a way to save both, so save the human and lose my wonderful dog, but at the same time beat myself up over not being able to save both.

 

[QuakerOats]

I would try and save both the person and my cats, but my cats would ultimately come first. They're a part of my family, and awful-sounding or not, my family comes first.

 

[theseagullwithoneleg]

If you had to choose between someone you don't know and your pet, one would live and one would die. Which would you choose?

the person.

 

[StarFire12]

To be honest...I'd save my dog. I'd feel guilty about letting the human die, but I'd still save my pet.

 

[theseagullwithoneleg]

man in the same situation, if someone was choosing between me and their pet, i'd be extrememly [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off if they chose their dog or cat.

 

[StarFire12]

man in the same situation, if someone was choosing between me and their pet, i'd be extrememly [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off if they chose their dog or cat.

But if you were the dog and your owner picked some stranger over you, imagine how you'd feel!

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

My pet would live.

Anyone who answers differently better not have ever bought anything for their pet instead of donating to the dying children in africa.

Interesting.

If the question was whether you should save your car or a stranger, and you answered stranger, you really shouldn't have either bought a car (if you live in a city where you don't need one) or bought an unnecessarily expensive one.

Not that I'm saying cars and non-human animals are equal. It's just that if we really thought about it, every time we spend money unnecessarily, it's money that could go to save a life. So do we value that TV more than 100 people? Or that chocolate bar more than a child? And it does in many cases take pennies to save a life.

 

[Mystman]

. So do we value that TV more than 100 people? Or that chocolate bar more than a child?

Yes. (which incidently makes all the "oh we love all humans equally!" and "Oh I take the entire Bible literally!" stuff claimed by many affluent Christians so horribly wrong)

Ofcourse, it's an "out of sight, out of mind" thing. If I went into an electronics shop, and next to the tv were 100 african children on the verge of dieing from hunger, and I was informed that I was the only one that could make the choice between buying a tv or saving the kids, I would save the kids. But put the kids back in africa and surround the tv with flashy lights and signs yelling "buy me!1!1!!", and I would buy the tv.

Same goes for the pets/random person issue. If my house is on fire, and for some weird reason a random person that I've never seen before is in my house (not a burglar.. maybe someone fell through a wormhole or something), I'd save the person, and leave the cat to burn (sorry kitty).

It's also a matter of responsibility. If there's some random stranger dieing on the other side of the world, I could feel that the other 6+ billion people could also do something to save him. If I'm alone with a stranger in a burning house, I'm the only one who can help.

 

[kharisym]

I'd save the person. There's two ways of looking at this: The person has more potential for serving society than my pet, therefore the person is a better choice for society. The person also has an understanding of their own mortality, my dog doesn't, so my dog isn't capable of understanding what's happening whereas the person does and hence its more humane to save the person.

The 2nd part leads into an interesting question: An atheist and a Christian are dying, you can save only one. Who do you save? Applying my previous logic, the Christian believes in an afterlife and so would (hypothetically) suffer less while dying than the atheist, so the humane choice is the atheist.