The Dog or the Stranger?

[MNDude]

I just read an Dennis Prager column where he says "I began asking students if they would save their dog or a stranger first if both were drowning. The majority always voted against the stranger — because, they explained, they loved their dog and they didn’t love the stranger."

I wasn't sure if I cold believe this statement so I did a search on the Internet and found the question posted several times. Many people do say they would save the stranger, however here are how many people answer the question:

Wow, I really don't understand how somebody could save a stranger vs a member of their own family, even if it is 'just' a pet. Just because my dog is not fluent in english, does not make her any less worthy of my love and attention.

"I mean, who cares if a human has a longer lifespan than a dog? I don't know the human that is drowning, and my dog and I have a pretty close connection. Isn't quality vastly favored over quantity anyway? I would rather have 10 years of awesome love, affection, and attention, than 50 years of somebody I don't know living."

"So, what makes you think that the life of a human is more valuable than that of another? Your ego?"

"And what if when the police and paramedics show up, they inform you that they had been looking for that person, because he had killed 3 children, and you had just saved his life. So now your beloved dog is dead, and you just saved a person that likes to murder children; a drain on society - awesome!"

"I'm sure that's what the person will say to me after I get them out of the water. I care that someone is dying you see, it revolves around the value of life itself. What do I gain from losing a beloved pet? Saving the person serves me in no way serves me other than knowing I helped them, doing the right thing and all. "

"I know my pet. I love my pet. My pet may be a different species than me, but my pet is still part of my tribe. A complete stranger is just that -- a complete stranger.

Now, in principle I value human life above the life of an animal, but it doesn't follow that I value the life of any given human above the life of a particular animal.

Or maybe I'm just a monster. I don't really care. I love my pets. I don't know that dude from Adam. Sorry."

"I know...a dog is not a person technically, but emotionally it is to me. There is no way I could let one of my dogs go."

[cripplecreek]

Yup. I just stepped on my dog’s foot and all he wanted to do was get on my lap and forgive me.

[allmendream]

I lived and grew up “in the wild”. Log cabin, no electricity, hunting and fishing, chopping down trees, etc.

I also have lived in very urban settings.

In both you will find the greatest threat to you and your families survival and well being is other human beings “strangers” - and one of the greatest assets to you and your families survival and well being is a trusted and useful canine.

Now a trusted and useful human trumps the canine in almost any given situation - but how likely is it that a drowning stranger is or will become a trusted and useful asset?

[bvw]

That’s a very real scenario. It is happening all around us, every day. It’s different than the original example or even my later example.

And I, unlike Mr, Prager, am not being paid to discuss this topic. My answers are not deeply researched, as he would with his.

In your example any person could provide the meds to save a life. In Prager’s example ONLY YOU have a chance to rescue the stranger.

In any case my major objection to such hypothetical questions is that they are hypothetical. People make different decisions in real life.

It is a valid objection to saving the strangers life that one is more sure one can rescue the dog safely, yet the attempt of a rescue of a stranger in the water is fraught with far more unknown dangers. The stranger is heavier, stronger than your typical dog.

But in such cases you can often rescue the stranger by not endangering yourself — you can use a branch, a swimming pool cleaning pole, a rope, a blanket rolled up to extend to the stranger.

In my example I ask this ... do you run to the garage for the cell phone, or run to see if there is something with which you can save the stranger?

In any case — in all these cases — to ignore the clear plight of a fellow human in distress who has no one else to provide help or rescue in order that one may not be bothered, is heartless and inhumane.

The questions of what to do in such emergency situations are a matter not of that immediate instance, but rather of one’s whole life. The old school Scout Motto “Be Prepared”!

A person who trains and prepares him or herself to deal with water emergencies or other types of emergencies can be expected to find a way to rescue both human and dog.

[bvw]

The house will be lost unless the fire department can be notified by the cellphone.

[GoldenPup]

I'm curious, any Freepers here that would answer in favor of the dog?

You betcha!!

[Rich21IE]

There is much truth in that.

[cripplecreek]

Mine has adopted a new habit lately. He wakes me up at 4 AM and warns me that there's a rabbit out in the yard and that we need to deal with the situation post haste.

[mad_as_he$$]

Exactly!

[Roos_Girl]

I agree with you, I just don’t know that my scenario is so very differnt from the original question. I think it boils down to the fact that you have resources that you can use to save your dog or save a person. We’re fairly assured that there are people in the world whose lives can be saved with the same amount of money. And just because most of the time they aren’t presented just within reach I don’t know that that makes it different. I guess the best we can do is hope that we can live with the decisions we make. But yes, I hate hypotheticals and this is why. :)

[Dr.Zoidberg]

That's one handsome fellow. And how is he to know that rabbit at 4am isn't a cotton-tailed assassin?

Here's my newest boy..

[OldPossum]

You save the person, not the dog, for the same reason that unborn children should be protected: with rare exceptions, human life has priority over other concerns.

Some would disagree. I know I would. See post 28.

[publana]

Without a doubt, my dog.

[Imnidiot]

Dang, you are right. I was thinking it was a satirical question at first...but reading some of the replies. Scary.

[Rockingham]

So, due to your general dislike of mankind, someone dies and your dog is saved? Does it matter if the someone is a kid, or do kids lose out because, well, nits make lice?

[Shadowstrike]

yeah compassion is a trademark of humanity.

I’d still save my dog, your dog, a strangers dog first.

[Rockingham]

It is much to the credit of dogs that so many of them can and do risk their own lives for the sake of humans. In that, I think that many dogs would act in accord with my position.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Person first.

I love animals, even the ones that aren't swimming in gravy beside a mound of mashed potatoes but a person is a person. Their life has priority.