raz Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Bloody hell talk about slapping the OP around when she'd already been through a bad enough experience. Jimmay did you speak to the animal control officer at your council? And how's your mum - she must have been pretty shaken up as well Edited March 21, 2011 by raz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin-Genie Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Because animal life regardless if you agree or not is not equal to human life. Is that your personal opinion or a philosophical absolute? If it is the latter, I would love to hear the logic that leads to this conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightgrace6 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Because animal life regardless if you agree or not is not equal to human life. (well not in Law, but it sure as hell is to me!!!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Rules Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Because animal life regardless if you agree or not is not equal to human life. Is that your personal opinion or a philosophical absolute? If it is the latter, I would love to hear the logic that leads to this conclusion. No matter how passionate we all are about our animals, human life should always take precedence over animal life, always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Because animal life regardless if you agree or not is not equal to human life. Is that your personal opinion or a philosophical absolute? If it is the latter, I would love to hear the logic that leads to this conclusion. No matter how passionate we all are about our animals, human life should always take precedence over animal life, always. naw, I can think of a few people I would leave to their fate and rescue the animal first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Rules Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Because animal life regardless if you agree or not is not equal to human life. Is that your personal opinion or a philosophical absolute? If it is the latter, I would love to hear the logic that leads to this conclusion. No matter how passionate we all are about our animals, human life should always take precedence over animal life, always. naw, I can think of a few people I would leave to their fate and rescue the animal first. Unfortunately I could too! But if it came to the crunch, I would leave my dogs to help a human in strife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 OP - Well done on the level headed approach to protecting yourself and your immediate family before others. The OP said that the situation unfolded very quickly.....with a lot of noise from the attacked small dog, closely followed by the cries of the baby. It was also said that the commotion brought people (without dogs) running to help. So immediate help for the elderly man, the baby & the small dog was at hand. So I couldn't see that J & mother's making any decision about who to save was all that significant for the safety of those 3. Jimmay & mother & their dogs could've been beamed up by Scottie, and the situation would've remained the same. Other people arrived quickly. The situation would've been different if there were no nearby people rushing to help. Then it would come down to making some rapid decision about what to do based on your own value system & problem-solving. As far as I'm concerned, an elderly man & a baby & their little dog....vulnerable, in great trouble...are not 'random strangers' to me. Their great distress makes them 'family' to me. As others have said, it's sheer speculation what we'd actually do in the same situation. We can all be armchair heroes. But I'd try to figure some way to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin-Genie Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Because animal life regardless if you agree or not is not equal to human life. Is that your personal opinion or a philosophical absolute? If it is the latter, I would love to hear the logic that leads to this conclusion. No matter how passionate we all are about our animals, human life should always take precedence over animal life, always. And that again is a personal opinion not backed by logic. I disagree. So far I have not come across any convincing reason why a human life is more valuable from a philosophical perspective. And I don't believe in the religious dogma that humans are superior because they have souls and animals don't. If I am in a risky situation, my first priority always will be what I value most. So my family (including animals) and then everyone else. And that is my opinion which I would not force on others or declare as an absolute. But I do think most poeple would do the same. The difference is only that I put a higher value on my dogs and consider them truly part of my family than perhaps those who disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) If I am in a risky situation, my first priority always will be what I value most. So my family (including animals) and then everyone else. And that is my opinion which I would not force on others or declare as an absolute. But I do think most poeple would do the same. I'm what's left over when you subtract your 'most people'. Representatives from 'everyone else' join my notion of the human family....when they're in great distress & need. A personal opinion, too, based on my particular code of ethics. Edited March 22, 2011 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightgrace6 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I would put my dogs life before human life but in doing so I would face jail time for "failing to give assistance" and then my dog wouldnt have me any way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin-Genie Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 If I am in a risky situation, my first priority always will be what I value most. So my family (including animals) and then everyone else. And that is my opinion which I would not force on others or declare as an absolute. But I do think most poeple would do the same. I'm what's left over when you subtract your 'most people'. Representatives from 'everyone else' join my notion of the human family....when they're in great distress & need. A personal opinion, too, based on my particular code of ethics. I would not question that. You have your code of ethics, I have mine. We don't need to push our values on others, but accept that people can have different values. Your priority, if I understand it correctly, would be 'human family - other humans - dogs'. For me it would be 'human family and dogs - other humans'. What I found unacceptable in some of the other posts is declaring individual beliefs/codes of ethic as absolutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin-Genie Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I would put my dogs life before human life but in doing so I would face jail time for "failing to give assistance" and then my dog wouldnt have me any way.... It is not a criminal offence to avoid getting into a situation that puts you at risk, particularly when you did not cause the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) If I am in a risky situation, my first priority always will be what I value most. So my family (including animals) and then everyone else. And that is my opinion which I would not force on others or declare as an absolute. But I do think most poeple would do the same. I'm what's left over when you subtract your 'most people'. Representatives from 'everyone else' join my notion of the human family....when they're in great distress & need. A personal opinion, too, based on my particular code of ethics. I would not question that. You have your code of ethics, I have mine. We don't need to push our values on others, but accept that people can have different values. Your priority, if I understand it correctly, would be 'human family - other humans - dogs'. For me it would be 'human family and dogs - other humans'. What I found unacceptable in some of the other posts is declaring individual beliefs/codes of ethic as absolutes. My code of ethics is that we're all human 'family'. And that's specially so when vulnerable humans are in great distress....like the old man & the baby. Their little dog was important to them, so care gets extended to it, alongside them. Dogs have won a place alongside the human family. Any ethical dilemma was solved for J & mum & dogs....because other people, without dogs which could have escalated the situation, came immediately to provide that care. Ethics don't exist in a vacuum, they have to be applied to whatever is going on. Which is why I included problem solving, on the spot. It's a case of...Given one's ethical code...what CAN be done in this situation to help as much as possible. Edited March 22, 2011 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I would put my dogs life before human life but in doing so I would face jail time for "failing to give assistance" and then my dog wouldnt have me any way.... It is not a criminal offence to avoid getting into a situation that puts you at risk, particularly when you did not cause the situation. I agree, OG. Interestingly, France has a 'Good Samaritan' law which requires citizens to render assistance, when there's no danger to themselves. But, even then, people aren't required to place themselves at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussielover Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 can anyone really tell what they would do ie. save their dogs or a random stranger? I think not. You have to be in the situation to know how you would react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodoggies2001 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 can anyone really tell what they would do ie. save their dogs or a random stranger?I think not. You have to be in the situation to know how you would react. You're right, but I wonder how many if it came to a situation where saving themselves or their dogs was the only option, just which one they would take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog_Horse_Girl Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 And are some of us forgetting that humans are also animals? So people who think that "human life" is above "animal life" are a bit mixed up. Humans may have the ability to articulate certain things that they believe other animals cannot, but then again, perhaps it's WE who don't understand THEM rather than the other way around. Dolphins, most certainly have sophisticated social systems and systems of communication over distance. They can understand English well enough to perform certain actions on command of a human. Dogs are very similar, as are horses. And many of the ape family can use sign language as a way to communicate with humans. And apes use tools. So they have control over their environment and can exploit it in a similar way to humans. :D They just don't feel the need to go building rocket ships or the Taj Mahal - yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOE Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Because animal life regardless if you agree or not is not equal to human life. Is that your personal opinion or a philosophical absolute? If it is the latter, I would love to hear the logic that leads to this conclusion. No matter how passionate we all are about our animals, human life should always take precedence over animal life, always. sheesh I wouldnt like to be an animal belonging to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Megz- Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 can anyone really tell what they would do ie. save their dogs or a random stranger?I think not. You have to be in the situation to know how you would react. I can - I would save my dog first, as I said above there is NO point in adding to a problem with an extra person and an extra dog. Secure yourself and your animals before deciding if your assistance is needed. Might sound heartless or like an issue to some people but think of the alternative. Originally one dog being attacked by two dogs and 2 "humans" in the midst. If the OP had run in all guns blazing you then have 5 dogs and 4 humans in the middle of a potentially volatile situation. This is without factoring in the 10 other people ahead of the elder gentleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Rules Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Because animal life regardless if you agree or not is not equal to human life. Is that your personal opinion or a philosophical absolute? If it is the latter, I would love to hear the logic that leads to this conclusion. No matter how passionate we all are about our animals, human life should always take precedence over animal life, always. sheesh I wouldnt like to be an animal belonging to you Human life is always more important than animal life. That's just the way it is. I would prefer that they both be regarded equally but that will never happen. People are always telling me when they die they would be happy to come back as one of my pets though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now