Would you save your Dog or a fellow Human?

It would depend on the human, of course. If it was family or a friend, then I would save the human. If not…well, probably my dog. (And I don’t even have a dog!)

Human.

~I would Squirrel! save my own kind of course.Squirrel!

No-brainer: my boxer kid.

@Dog Is that from Up?

In all honesty, it would depend on the sex of the human. If the human in danger would be a woman I would probably come to her aid. Call me chauvinistic and a sexist but it’s the truth. I happen to think that it’s not chauvinism but chivalry. You know, the whole holding a door open for her, pulling back her chair before she takes a seat. That kind of stuff.
If it where a man I would have no clue how I would act. I would probably save the dog figuring that the man could probably save himself.

@Facade Yes!

The human, unless I knew something really negative about them.

I love my dog, but come on! She IS just a dog. Of course I would save the human.

@Judi WOW

Hands down, my dog. He is the best dog in the world, better than most humans I know.

My dog, great as she is, has no comparison to a human whose family, kids, friends and loved ones depend on that person. If you save the dog, you have just ruined a hundred lives. Your dog will not even thank you.

@F1 ; Wow?

My dog, duh….
The world is already over populated (jk). Now if it was somebody I knew and liked/loved or knew well, then I would lose my dog to save them.

Human.

@BBSDTfamily So when someone leaves you to die to save their chihuahua will you feel the same?

I would save Dog

Pathetic as my overweight corgi would look beating its tiny legs against the water, and as much as I love her (“better than most humans,” as BBSDTfamily said), it makes no human sense to save the dog. I’d feel pretty stupid leaving the water and knowing that, oops, someone just died because I decided to rescue a cute animal.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic I wouldn’t feel guilty at all…. just because I save my own dog doesn’t mean that I am killing the human. Unless I threw them both into the life or death situation and then saved my dog, I am not at fault.

I’d like to say I agree with what @evegrimm – but knowing my instincts, I’d probably save the human. But make a valiant effort to save the dog right after.

@BBSDTfamily: Did you not read the details? In the context of this question, the one you don’t save will die.

@MacBean I did read the details… although the one I don’t save will die, since I did not put them in that situation I don’t see it as me actually killing them. Whoever put them there killed them, and I just didn’t have time to save them both.

@BBSDTfamily – Actually, under these circumstances, you have the power to decide who lives and who dies – so you would be partly responsible for the death of the human.

I would go with the human, unless s/he was akin to Hitler or something. Basically, what @MacBean said

@PnL Not in my opinion. I would feel no responsibility or guilt if I couldn’t save the human. I would save my dog, no question about it. Doesn’t matter who agrees or disagrees- I know how I would react if I had to make a split decision, and I’m just answering honestly!

Note to self. Don’t have any near death experiences around @BBSDTfamily .

@BBSDTfamily – You of course have a right to an opinion. I wasn’t arguing the opinion itself but was clarifying the rules on responsibility. We discussed similar scenarios in various ethics courses, and the idea behind it is that you would be ethically (not legally) responsible for the death of the other person.

@PnL ; Are you sure not legally? At least in a civil case I bet she could be found to have some responsibility. maybe not 100%, but 50% or more. If I were on the wrongful death jury she would.

@Judi – No, I am not sure. But I bet a half decent lawyer could win that case. I just didn’t want to mention the legality of the issue since I am not 100% sure. Maybe I can entice @lefteh to join this discussion.

Hi guys, popping in with some legalspeak at PnL’s request.

In most states, you are not legally obligated to assist someone who is in peril. Many do not, expecting someone else to. This phenomenon is known as Genovese syndrome, or bystander apathy.

However, eight states do require you to assist someone who is in peril, or make the best effort possible to save someone’s life who you see to be in mortal danger. These states are Ohio, Vermont, Florida, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Washington, and Minnesota.

So, from a legal perspective, this could either be argued either way (assuming you are in one of the eight states where you are forbidden to stand idly by as someone dies). On one hand, you are choosing between allowing someone to live or letting them die. On the other hand, there is the additional variable of the death of a pet, which has personal implications. The law, the bench, and the jury would likely be sympathetic to that aspect.

So there is lefteh’s legal perspective…

@lefteh That is a very good, clear explanation. Thank you!

I am not claiming to think that my decision to save my dog would be the ethical or correct decision; I’m just honestly saying that I love my dog like a child and I know I couldn’t leave him behind. I would run back into my house if it were on fire to save him. If I would risk my own life, I know I would “risk” someone else’s. And I would justify it to myself afterwards by saying that it was a crappy situation which I didn’t cause, and I just did the best I could in that bad situation.

—In Israel you are obliged to assist, or you may afterwards find yourself in risk of being prosecuted. Hopefully, society hasn’t reached that stage of apathy yet. Obviously, this is a very hypothetical ferinstance; it is too clinical, and does not suggest a realistic situation.

As I mentioned above, had my (rescue) dog jumped into the river to save a drowning man, but had gotten injured in the head whilst doing so; I’d try my best to save the man, of course, while keeping one eye on the dog – even if it meant losing it. In the Hebrew language, there is no “It”; everything is either male or female, masculine or feminine.

When I wrote “it” for dog just now in English, it became clearer to me why Hebrew, the ancient language of Moses (but without getting too religious here, because I happen to be secular – thousands of years before English) has only a he/she word for dog. The spoken, and of course written word can be very powerful: if you have a dog, and its name is Rover, and you refer to “him” all the time, this might affect how you feel towards “it” – just like you would to another person.

But if its a dog, then it is a thing, an animal with a name. Certainly not some_thing_ you’d save before the life of a fellow human, n’est ce pas?

I am not 100% sure about this, and it wasn’t thought out – I just wrote this while thinking about it in both languages. Make any sense jellies?

as animals have zero rights the choice is clear: save the person

I would rather die than be in a situation like that.

I don’t have a dog, but I’d probably pick my dog if I didn’t have emotional ties to the human.
Unless said human is a child.

According to Mark Twain the eligibility and attractiveness of the females you are rescuing should be considered when deciding the order in which you rescue them.

You get the dog last.

@rangerr I think you make a good point.

For everyone who is somewhat certain they would save their dog would that change if the human were a child (say age 10 or below)?

@RedPowerLady 100% certain here. No one would save someone else’s kid over their own, so it wouldn’t make any difference.

I would likely die trying to save both at once.

@Jack_Haas I hope to hear from others because I have a hard time believing that someone would watch a three year old walk into an oncoming car (for example) and not try and save them. Even if your pet (ehm, not your child) were at risk. And I have a dog I absolutely **LOVE** and fully believe in animal rights. But there is no way I’d watch a three year old human child die if I could do something about it safely.

@RedPowerLady I have already risked my life twice to save someone else’s so I don’t have anything against humans. I’m not one of these people who idealize dogs because someone was mean to them at school, but considering my boxer as a “pet” would require an inhumane level of obliviousness, after 12 years, that is simply unimaginable to me. I like kids, but I don’t see what makes them more valuable than my daughter. You know, even scientists have begun to discover how close to humans dogs are. And it’s not over. A few centuries ago, what you said about dogs was said about women. It’s still the case in some middle eastern countries.

@Jack_Haas I don’t doubt the connection between human and dogs. I don’t even doubt that a dog could be to some like a child. In fact I find it understandable and quite touching. Like I said I really Love my own dog. But I simply can’t see how one would not save a human toddler, period. I don’t know this is so much about sentiment that perhaps it can’t adequately be discussed in verbal terms.

A few centuries ago, what you said about dogs was said about women.
What exactly was that? I don’t think anyone ever called a woman a pet?

@RedPowerLady—Just remembered something: I have a dog, and I’ve had dogs. I really love it, but on the other hand, it is still a pet to me. I have trained it, and I like petting it and taking it for walks, but that’s where it ends. I cannot asy it is like a child to me – I have two kids – the dog isn’t even in the “same emotional league” as them.

I met a couple once, who had been trying for years to get pregnant. They were already getting towards the point where they’d be too old, or unable to: in a conversation, while their dogs were playing at their feet, I innocently and not connecting to this point at all said something to the effect of – well you have your dogs, they must be like children to you by now. I remember the glare from both of them looking at me, and almost in unison, said: they are not children!

@NewZen I think that is exactly where I am coming from. Since I have actually lost a child I understand the sentiments of that couple you are talking about. We got our dog after our loss and she has been an amazing addition to the family. And although it would cause me great grief to lose her it would be nothing close to what I went through when I lost my child.

Sorry if that is too close to home but your comment was really right on.

@RedPowerLady Women were considered property for a long time and were treated as pets until not so long ago. In Saoudi Arabia and similar countries they still are.

@Jack_Haas I think there is a difference between considering a woman as a property and not seeing her as a human being. But I do see your point. Still a dog is always going to be a dog. A family member yes. But not a human.

@RedPowerLady Until recently, the scientific consensus was that dogs had no personality in the human sense. It has recently been established that they do, in fact. And based on my 12 fascinating years of observing and interacting with a very special boxer, I know they still have a lot to discover.

I see meaningful differences between humans and dogs, but only on a utilitarian level (ie dogs aren’t likely to earn a nobel of physics anytime soon). Other than that, I strongly believe we overestimate our complexity and have it confused for complicatedness (is that even a word?). Put the smoke and mirrors, the drama aside, and I don’t see any major difference.

I don’t see the life of my dog as any more or less valuable than the life of a human, so in this situation, it comes down to saving someone I love versus saving someone I don’t. Of course I would save who I love.

@Ivan Exactly how I feel.

I simply don’t get it and I don’t think I ever will, not for lack of trying intellectually anyhow

Some people have stronger than normal attachments to their dog… that is all you need to get it. Some people are very attached, therefore they would naturally try to save the being that they love and feel a strong emotional attachment to. Not everyone considers their dog “just a pet”.

if i could only save one, i’d save my dog.
i don’t want the person to die, but it’s human nature i think, to choose the one you love.
simply being of the same species isn’t enough to make me choose a stranger over an animal i actually have emotional connections to.

I was turned on to this thread from a more recent one and I find it fascinating. It seems though no one wants to come right out and say what’s at the heart of it (or perhaps they did and I simply missed it, appologies):

Whose suffering do I wish to spare?

If I save my dog, I spare my own at the expense of another’s.
If I save the child, I spare another’s at the expense of my own.

But if everyone chooses to spare their own suffering the child always dies. Where as if everyone chooses to spare the others suffering, both live. (with the exceptions of course being, that the child’s parents are present or you are there alone)