[quote]You're confusing rationality (the degree to which something is rational) with rationalizing (the attempt to make sense of your choices and actions).[/quote]
You've been doing the latter this whole time, though. Trying to make sense of your decision on the basis of how much worth one has over another.
[quote]If you save your dog, you are already admitting there are outside parties you are trying to protect -- namely, yourself[/quote]
...No, I'm not an outside party. I'm one of the three individuals factored into the question. Me, the pet, and the person. Anything other than those three is irrelevant.
[quote]Notice how the question is not "Who would you feel better saving" or "Who do your instincts tell you to save"? It can be answered in two ways, either by what choice is in your self-interest or what choice is ethical. I'm discussing the latter, but you seem determined to change over to the former.[/quote]
The question was not 'who do you think it would be more ethical to save' either. If it's a choice between my pet and some guy I've never met, I'll always save my pet, because it's human nature to place loved ones before strangers.
[quote]No, your mind doesn't stop to think about the details[/quote]
If I did stop and consider every detail, they'd both die.
[quote]If you read this thread you will see that many people opt to save the stranger[/quote]
And yet more seem to want to save their pet. That is, they'd take the human response.
[quote]so stop making false assertions to try and strengthen your argument.[/quote]
It's not a false assertion, though, it's basic psychology. Loved ones are ranked higher than strangers. The human mind operates on instinct in high-stress situations, such as when you're seeing things drown in front of you, so you'd likely choose your pet over a stranger because you hold an emotional connection to your pet. That's just how it is.
[quote]And, again, that isn't the point. We aren't discussing what the intuitive choice is, we're discussing the ethical choice.[/quote]
Neither, actually. OP merely asked who we'd save, not why we think one is more ethical to save. Most would choose their pet over a stranger because that's just how the human mind works. Case in point, most of the posters in this thread.
English
-
Edited by Frasier Crane: 8/6/2014 3:29:30 AM[quote]The question was not 'who do you think it would be more ethical to save' either.[/quote]Pretty much the only part of your post that needs addressing. I've already acknowledged that wasn't the original question. [i]I'm[/i] asking the question myself. And [i]you[/i] interjected yourself into the conversation and tried to trail off on different tangents. None of which interest me. Either stay on the same page as me, the [i]ethical[/i] dilemma, or this discussion has run its course.