> 1/2 the world treats dogs as family
Do you think that half the world, if given the choice between saving either their dog or a stranger's child in a disaster situation (e.g. a house fire), would choose their dog?
They have had border collies all their lives, who were all astonishingly clever (not just "tricks", but just with intuition etc). These dogs are basically their children.
The "child" part of your hypothetical makes it difficult to know. I think they would save their own dog over an adult, however they are both very compassionate and love kids so I imagine it would be difficult to fight that human impulse to protect a child.
Do you think a dog owner would risk their own life (to varied degrees) to rescue a family dog if their house started burning?
My dog is part of my family. She comes before any stranger.
I'm just at a total loss for words. I had no idea so many people value animal life above human life.
You may value a dogs life as much as a human, some do. But those same people don't go around with extreme care to avoid stepping on an ant, and would kill insects if they where an annoyance or risk to health. So they do stablish a difference between some animals, where ants are in a different tier than dogs, but humans and dogs are together in the same tier.
Personally I don't think it makes any sense. I do value animal lives greatly, and between a dog and a man I might save the dog in a split-second gut decision (and regret it later).
I reckon many people use feelings to guide (or greatly inform) their morality. Which might or might not be that bad to be honest, I don't really have a solid basis for my morality either.
For me it is moral and ethical that I put the safety and well being of my dog above people. That doesn't mean that I don't care about others, and it doesn't mean that I would ignore trying to save them once my dog was safe, but it is what is right for me.
You are responsible for your dog, unlike a stranger. The dog trusts you entirely and would do anything for you.
But I would blow my brains out if I let a little girl burn to death so that I could save my dog.
I use a combination of innocence, vulnerability, consciousness and intelligence.
E.g a baby life is worth more than a 40 year old's.
There's no playbook for these values, you have to decide for yourself.
Why innocence? How does innocence make a life more valuable? It's true that the kid has done nothing wrong, whereas the 40yo has sinned thoroughly, but on the other hand the kid has done nothing good for the world, and the 40yo probably has.
And vulnerability? If a high-speed train/cancer/thug is going to kill a 40yo and a toddler, how does the increased inherent vulnerability of the toddler make any difference?
1/4 the human race wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, 1/4 would actually set the fire, 1/4 would only pour a bucket over your head if it didn't involve walking too far and especially if others were watching.
Granted that wouldn't be the priority that I would consider ideal, but I don't think it's illogical.
In another comment of yours you mentioned choosing a pet or a random child? What about another, supposedly easier question, which would you prefer to save? A human life or $23? $23 might seem arbitrary but I picked it from my personal experience with a charity I volunteer with called ICM. It helps those with ultra poverty in the Philippines and I've had the great blessing (and curse) to undertake a tragic trip to the slums to meet these people. So I know the best I can offer is mine and ICM's word but that really can save a life.
I want you to know I don't bring this up to try and start a fight or be argumentative but this question plagued me when I returned home and to some extent still does. How can I buy a video game (random example), knowing that money I've just spent could have saved a life?
How do I, how do we, live like this? I'm an Australian and statistically, we're only giving less with each passing year, and what we do give? As on 2016 a measly $764. For comparison our minimum weekly wage is about ~$670. The least able of us (that are able at all) would only have to give a little over one of their weeks to match that.
Personally I'm the sort of crazy where I think of this almost every time I make a purchase and for the longest time it was killing me. The TL;DR of how I was able to answer this for myself involves a lot of reading, looking and thinking is basically summed up as follows. For most normal humans (myself included) we need to spend on ourselves to make us functional enough to care for others. We are sadly not infinite source of giving.
However I think society today has forgotten or changed enough that we no longer see this self healing as a means to enable us to help others but as the point of living, hence the ever decreasing percentages of people giving but I still have hope.
I'm sorry at this point I don't know exactly where I'm going with this at this but it's not that people value animal life above human life, it's that they value their own life and quality of life above others and as sucky as that answer is, I hope you find it help answer your questions in a manner that makes more sense.
At what level on the spectrum does the offense creep in when someone tries to relate to the loss of a parent? Is sibling loss relatable? Half-sibling? Cousin? Brother-in-law? Where do we start the grief-gatekeeping?
If I lost 5 children and someone told me they lost a parent so they pat me on the shoulder and say they understand, can I be offended?
I have lost grandparents before, but felt nothing since I didn't know them. If someone told me they'd lost a grandparent close to them, I think it'd be offensive for me to say I could relate.
> I had no idea so many people value animal life above human life.
I think this is the problem. When people say they relate they are not claiming "my dog == your mom", merely that they have felt grief through loss of a relationship/bond. As emotional loss is relative, we don't currently have a way to measure if that loss meets threshold levels that make it acceptable for them to converse with us.
Many people manifestly value inanimate property, as long as it is theirs, over human life outside of close friends and family, so is it really a surprise that that is also true of family pets?
Note that I'm not necessarily trying to argue whether that would be correct in a moral sense.
Why don't people feel that they should sacrifice themselves and carry their grief and their emotional loss, and save the child?
I agree with some others in this thread, those that would save their pet are selfish beyond my wildest imagination. To save themselves the grief of losing a subjective family member they sacrifice human life for what is to outside observers just an animal.
Be as you want to be, but in this I feel justified in judging those people most harshly indeed.
In order to attempt to falsify a hypothesis you don't need to necessarily run a direct experiment on it. In fact, few things are testable like that.
Anyway, I think I have what I need to know as to how he tests his ideas.
Now, ask yourself how many would save their own dog if they weren't being asked or observed (and implicitly judged)?
I consider the link fairly strong evidence for my claim.
Now, if it was between a stranger dog and a stranger child I'd choose the child.