[quote]Your statement is a fallacy because you're brazenly implying that every aspect of "human nature" is automatically right. Obviously, that is absurd.[/quote] As is assuming the rational choice is automatically right. Obviously, that is absurd. [quote]I never said anything about it being a logical dilemma or an emotional one. I said it was an ethical dilemma, and therefore must be assessed rationally, not emotionally, to reach the correct decision.[/quote] And while you're busy rationalizing it to fit your prepubescent idea of morality, both have died. There is no ethically correct answer here - it's one life balanced against another life. I have an attachment to my pet, I have no attachment to the stranger, I'm going to save my pet. That's all there is to it. [quote]...Yes, because either something makes sense ( rational ), or it doesn't ( irrational ).[/quote] And it makes sense to save the one that has emotional attachment to you instead of the one that doesn't. Thus, it is rational to save the pet. [quote]You're placing irrational value in your interests and devaluing the interests of others (namely, the stranger and their loved ones who will almost certainly accumulate a greater amount of suffering from their death than you would solely from losing your dog.)[/quote] This means little to me. What matters is I can only save one, so I'll save the one I care about instead of the one that I don't. It's unfortunate that one has to die, but there's not a whole lot I can do about that. [quote]If you think choosing an overall greater amount of suffering instead of a smaller amount is a desirable human attribute, then I have little else to say.[/quote] Their family was never a part of the question. Let's stay in the realms of relevance, shall we?

[quote]As is assuming the rational choice is automatically right. Obviously, that is absurd.[/quote]I don't think even you know what you're talking about at this point. You may as well say "As is assuming the right choice is automatically right." Yes, it is. Please provide a substantial rebuttal instead of typing vapid sentences that crumble under any scrutiny. [quote]And while you're busy rationalizing it to fit your prepubescent idea of morality, both have died.[/quote]That is a highly amusing remark since you have made it painfully obvious that you do not understand ethical philosophy at all. And you're also ignoring the point of thought experiments in the first place. [quote]There is no ethically correct answer here - it's one life balanced against another life.[/quote]Incorrect. The person likely has a large web of people who care deeply about him and will suffer deeply from their death. That person is also capable of contributing far more to society than your dog. Simple utilitarian equation. [quote]And it makes sense to save the one that has emotional attachment to you instead of the one that doesn't. Thus, it is rational to save the pet.[/quote]You're confusing sensible with selfish. It makes sense to save the one that will result in less pain and suffering overall. [quote]Their family was never a part of the question. Let's stay in the realms of relevance, shall we?[/quote]Seriously? You're calling me out because, unlike you, I'm actually considering all the variables? You do realize that if a similar situation were to actually arise, these are variables you would need to consider too? It's a thought experiment. Thinking about it is the whole point.

[quote]You may as well say "As is assuming the right choice is automatically right."[/quote] No, [i]you[/i] assume rational = correct. You are wrong. Rationality conforms to one's beliefs. For instance, you're rationalizing your opinion as being 'correct' because the human might have people that would miss them. [quote]The person likely has a large web of people who care deeply about him and will suffer deeply from their death[/quote] You say this as though it's somehow relevant. The question is, 'would you save your pet, or a complete stranger?' Their family was never a factor. You threw it in yourself so you could [i]rationalize[/i] your belief that the human was more worthy of saving. If you were standing there, watching both drown, you wouldn't be thinking of that person's family, you'd be thinking of the beloved pet that's drowning right in front of you. The human mind does not stop to think about irrelevant details when [i]shit's happening [b]right now[/b][/i] and you need to deal with it. [quote]You're confusing sensible with selfish. It makes sense to save the one that will result in less pain and suffering overall.[/quote] You're confusing an emotional inquiry with a pragmatic one. It doesn't matter which one would be more 'rational' (to you) to save. Odds are you'd head for your pet first if you saw them drowning. That's how the human mind works. That's how it's [i]supposed[/i] to work. [quote]You're calling me out because, unlike you, I'm actually considering all the variables[/quote] Variables that were [i]never relevant and never factored into the initial question[/i]. The question was, 'who would you save?' OP never mentioned their family, or friends, or if they'd benefit society. It's merely your pet's life balanced against a human life. Just you, the pet, and the human. Anything else is a nonfactor. [quote]You do realize that if a similar situation were to actually arise, these are variables you would need to consider too?[/quote] I sure as hell wouldn't be able to stop and consider them when two living beings are drowning right in front of me. If I can only save one, I'll save the one that has more importance to me. It's unfortunate that the other guy dies, but there's nothing I can do about it by that point.

[quote]No, [i]you[/i] assume rational = correct. You are wrong. Rationality conforms to one's beliefs. For instance, you're rationalizing your opinion as being 'correct' because the human might have people that would miss them.[/quote]You're confusing rationality (the degree to which something is rational) with rationalizing (the attempt to make sense of your choices and actions). Rationality = logic. Either something makes sense, [i]consistently[/i], or it doesn't. If you really want to keep arguing against this, you're going to need to provide specific examples of how logic is inferior to illogic. [quote]You say this as though it's somehow relevant. The question is, 'would you save your pet, or a complete stranger?' Their family was never a factor. You threw it in yourself so you could [i]rationalize[/i] your belief that the human was more worthy of saving.[/quote]Again your line of thinking is incomplete. If you save your dog, you are already admitting there are outside parties you are trying to protect -- namely, yourself. 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]If you were standing there, watching both drown, you wouldn't be thinking of that person's family, you'd be thinking of the beloved pet that's drowning right in front of you. The human mind does not stop to think about irrelevant details when [i]shit's happening [b]right now[/b][/i] and you need to deal with it.[/quote]No, [i]your[/i] mind doesn't stop to think about the details. If you read this thread you will see that many people opt to save the stranger, so stop making false assertions to try and strengthen your argument. And, again, that isn't the point. We aren't discussing what the [i]intuitive[/i] choice is, we're discussing the [i]ethical[/i] choice. Thought experiment, not Instinct experiment. Keep this in mind when you reply.

[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.