Both drowning and you can save 1. Dog or stranger?
- Thread starter Lethal1ty17
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: bigmike
I'm surprised the ultimate situational ethics question hasn't come up:
If you had a child and a spouse that were trapped in a burning building and you can only save one, which one would you save?
Have I mentioned I despise situational ethics?
You can find a new wife!!
I'm surprised the ultimate situational ethics question hasn't come up:
If you had a child and a spouse that were trapped in a burning building and you can only save one, which one would you save?
Have I mentioned I despise situational ethics?
You can find a new wife!!
this is where i would view the younger person as the more important one, they have had no chance yet to live life and have done nothing wrong
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
Many dogs save lives every year you dont always read about it in the newspapers but they do their job My doberman would protect myself and my whole family in any situation and believe me he is good at it...What do you mean by as you put it: If I were trapped in a house for 3-4 days without food, I'd be considering my dog as a good source as well. I'd say that we're on the same level in that scenario. A good Source??
In Pablo's example, a hungry dog will eat their master, but so would a hungry human eat their beast. This has been done many times in regards to horses, mules, and other work animals.
My fat reserve is probably higher than a dog's, but you get the idea.
Many dogs save lives every year you dont always read about it in the newspapers but they do their job My doberman would protect myself and my whole family in any situation and believe me he is good at it...What do you mean by as you put it: If I were trapped in a house for 3-4 days without food, I'd be considering my dog as a good source as well. I'd say that we're on the same level in that scenario. A good Source??
In Pablo's example, a hungry dog will eat their master, but so would a hungry human eat their beast. This has been done many times in regards to horses, mules, and other work animals.
My fat reserve is probably higher than a dog's, but you get the idea.
Originally Posted By: dave123
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You apparently don't understand dogs very well.
Perhaps the best description of canine mental abilities I have heard is that they are roughly comparable to a two year old child.
As anyone who has lived with a dog knows, they learn, they have emotions, and they are social animals.
If you keep a dog as part of the family, the dog will consider itself an equal member.
The dog will enjoy weekend trips with you, and will resent being boarded.
The dog will expect to eat what you eat (well, if you let him, and I always did let him have the inevitable leftovers).
A dog is an enjoyable and undemanding friend.
And yes, a Pyreness will die protecting his flock, and his family is his flock.
I almost teared up after reading this "NOT"
The dog is still going to the bottom of the lake over a human.
The emotion of losing your dog and you missing your dog is why you pick take this view. Take emotin out of your dission and you will make the right one saving the six year old girl with a loving family is the right one.
Bingo. This is why the world is screwed up morally. I can't believe that this question is being debated. It all comes down to a human life is a human life. I am sorry, but I love my dog but if it came down to saving my dog or a human being the choice would be a no brainer. Sure, I would miss my dog but I have just saved someones son or daughter, wife or husband. Put the shoe on the other foot, If someone you loved was drowning would you not want a stranger to save them instead of a pet.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You apparently don't understand dogs very well.
Perhaps the best description of canine mental abilities I have heard is that they are roughly comparable to a two year old child.
As anyone who has lived with a dog knows, they learn, they have emotions, and they are social animals.
If you keep a dog as part of the family, the dog will consider itself an equal member.
The dog will enjoy weekend trips with you, and will resent being boarded.
The dog will expect to eat what you eat (well, if you let him, and I always did let him have the inevitable leftovers).
A dog is an enjoyable and undemanding friend.
And yes, a Pyreness will die protecting his flock, and his family is his flock.
I almost teared up after reading this "NOT"
The dog is still going to the bottom of the lake over a human.
The emotion of losing your dog and you missing your dog is why you pick take this view. Take emotin out of your dission and you will make the right one saving the six year old girl with a loving family is the right one.
Bingo. This is why the world is screwed up morally. I can't believe that this question is being debated. It all comes down to a human life is a human life. I am sorry, but I love my dog but if it came down to saving my dog or a human being the choice would be a no brainer. Sure, I would miss my dog but I have just saved someones son or daughter, wife or husband. Put the shoe on the other foot, If someone you loved was drowning would you not want a stranger to save them instead of a pet.
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
Put the shoe on the other foot, If someone you loved was drowning would you not want a stranger to save them instead of a pet.
Interested to hear responses to this from the people who said they'd save their dogs over a stranger.
Put the shoe on the other foot, If someone you loved was drowning would you not want a stranger to save them instead of a pet.
Interested to hear responses to this from the people who said they'd save their dogs over a stranger.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
Put the shoe on the other foot, If someone you loved was drowning would you not want a stranger to save them instead of a pet.
Interested to hear responses to this from the people who said they'd save their dogs over a stranger.
I said I would save my dog. But of coarse if it was my family I would want them to save them.
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
Put the shoe on the other foot, If someone you loved was drowning would you not want a stranger to save them instead of a pet.
Interested to hear responses to this from the people who said they'd save their dogs over a stranger.
I said I would save my dog. But of coarse if it was my family I would want them to save them.
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME... It's easy for folks like mcrn to think like this when you've got this looped in your
head...
We have a pretty good lifestyle in North America, but with more people thinking only of themselves it will only get worse, not better.
head...
We have a pretty good lifestyle in North America, but with more people thinking only of themselves it will only get worse, not better.
Not speaking about anyone in particular, so let me veer away from this topic for a moment.
I think it's the same mentality as those who see the sign that says left lane ends, 2 miles and drive at full throttle, passing cars stopped or going very slow in the right lane, and then expecting someone lets them in when there is no more left lane.
They are special and don't have to wait like those who looked ahead and got into the lane well in advance.
The remaining lanes have a fixed maximum capacity for traffic, and that capacity is reduced if cars in the right lane have to slow in order to allow "the anointed" into the right lane at the very end.
Some folks simply can't see the big picture, for what ever reason, and it's all about them.
I think for each of us, there are areas of blindness where we individually engage in such behavior. So I'm not claiming any sort of moral superiority over anyone else here. Maybe a greater awareness, but that then requires more personal responsibility, so it's not necessarily a "good" thing for me. It simply sets the bar higher, and I'm just as likely to fail as to succeed.
I think it's the same mentality as those who see the sign that says left lane ends, 2 miles and drive at full throttle, passing cars stopped or going very slow in the right lane, and then expecting someone lets them in when there is no more left lane.
They are special and don't have to wait like those who looked ahead and got into the lane well in advance.
The remaining lanes have a fixed maximum capacity for traffic, and that capacity is reduced if cars in the right lane have to slow in order to allow "the anointed" into the right lane at the very end.
Some folks simply can't see the big picture, for what ever reason, and it's all about them.
I think for each of us, there are areas of blindness where we individually engage in such behavior. So I'm not claiming any sort of moral superiority over anyone else here. Maybe a greater awareness, but that then requires more personal responsibility, so it's not necessarily a "good" thing for me. It simply sets the bar higher, and I'm just as likely to fail as to succeed.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME... It's easy for folks like mcrn to think like this when you've got this looped in your
head...
We have a pretty good lifestyle in North America, but with more people thinking only of themselves it will only get worse, not better.
Still shocking when you consider that it seems to have led people to discard the most basic and ancient moral precept.
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME... It's easy for folks like mcrn to think like this when you've got this looped in your
head...
We have a pretty good lifestyle in North America, but with more people thinking only of themselves it will only get worse, not better.
Still shocking when you consider that it seems to have led people to discard the most basic and ancient moral precept.
Situational ethics is nonsense.
You cannot judge someone by his/her "what if" ethics because he/she may not act the same when in the situation (may be more heroic or more cowardly), and IMO either way you choose, you have to live with the consequences and it is the situation's causer to blame, not the chooser of the lesser evil.
You cannot judge someone by his/her "what if" ethics because he/she may not act the same when in the situation (may be more heroic or more cowardly), and IMO either way you choose, you have to live with the consequences and it is the situation's causer to blame, not the chooser of the lesser evil.
Isn't the value of situational ethics in this case, to show if you think that, your feeling of discomfort in losing a pet is more important than the life of a stranger?
Obviously this particular "situation" is very very rare. But don't questions like this appear on aptitude tests, for people trying to get into the military or onto a police force? To try to weed out the sociopaths who are going to be trouble once they have some authority?
Obviously this particular "situation" is very very rare. But don't questions like this appear on aptitude tests, for people trying to get into the military or onto a police force? To try to weed out the sociopaths who are going to be trouble once they have some authority?
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
But don't questions like this appear on aptitude tests, for people trying to get into the military or onto a police force? To try to weed out the sociopaths who are going to be trouble once they have some authority?
The only people they will not weed out are the liers.
But don't questions like this appear on aptitude tests, for people trying to get into the military or onto a police force? To try to weed out the sociopaths who are going to be trouble once they have some authority?
The only people they will not weed out are the liers.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME... It's easy for folks like mcrn to think like this when you've got this looped in your
head...
We have a pretty good lifestyle in North America, but with more people thinking only of themselves it will only get worse, not better.
I do not agree with making this assumption of me over a few statements about one situation. As a whole in regards to this country I agree with you.
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME... It's easy for folks like mcrn to think like this when you've got this looped in your
head...
We have a pretty good lifestyle in North America, but with more people thinking only of themselves it will only get worse, not better.
I do not agree with making this assumption of me over a few statements about one situation. As a whole in regards to this country I agree with you.
Originally Posted By: mcrn
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME... It's easy for folks like mcrn to think like this when you've got this looped in your
head...
We have a pretty good lifestyle in North America, but with more people thinking only of themselves it will only get worse, not better.
I do not agree with making this assumption of me over a few statements about one situation. As a whole in regards to this country I agree with you.
I do apologize for the making that assumption about you, my post does seem like a personal attack. I'll be more careful about it in the future.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME... It's easy for folks like mcrn to think like this when you've got this looped in your
head...
We have a pretty good lifestyle in North America, but with more people thinking only of themselves it will only get worse, not better.
I do not agree with making this assumption of me over a few statements about one situation. As a whole in regards to this country I agree with you.
I do apologize for the making that assumption about you, my post does seem like a personal attack. I'll be more careful about it in the future.
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
Put the shoe on the other foot, If someone you loved was drowning would you not want a stranger to save them instead of a pet.
I would never expect someone else to sacrifice what they love for something I love.
I'd save my dog. No question. He is far more valuable to me than a random animal of which there are six billion others. I'd also save my dog over myself.
Put the shoe on the other foot, If someone you loved was drowning would you not want a stranger to save them instead of a pet.
I would never expect someone else to sacrifice what they love for something I love.
I'd save my dog. No question. He is far more valuable to me than a random animal of which there are six billion others. I'd also save my dog over myself.
- Status
Similar threads
