Would you save a stranger?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't expect anyone else 'should' make a certain decision. I think he 'should' do what makes sense to him, as he is the one who must deal with the internal consequences of making that decision.Emotional connection is certainly a large component of it, however the other half of the story, so-to-say, is that I do not know what this stranger is like. Perhaps it is a lobbyist working for entities against gay rights, or a doctor who acts more like a drug dealer for her addicted patients, or a man who was on his way to see his lover unknown to his wife. Perhaps not. It is impossible for me to know. I don't attribute more value to a human over an animal just because it is a human - it is what's inside and what connections I feel based on that which gives value: and in this situation, when I don't have enough time to determine what the stranger is like, his value, which I must compare with the value of my other option, is entirely ambiguous.

I know what my pet is like, there is no question of how much it means to me. I know that my pet is inherently incapable of being the kind of scumbag that only humans can really be. I know that my pet is effectively incapable of causing any suffering to me or anyone else (and if it does cause me suffering it's usually because I stupidly decided to use my hand instead of a feather toy when playing). There is certainty in my pet and a gamble in this stranger who up to this point means virtually nothing to me, it seems logical to go with what has the lowest risk of being the 'wrong' decision, and in doing so end up retaining what I know I love: what I know has very high value. Otherwise I save this person, he moves on with his life (really regardless of who he is), and I end up paying for it when I'm not greeted by my little friend crawling up my sheets and scratching at my pillow to wake me up ever again.

I should not make it sound fully dependent on being that one is human and one is animal, though, it would be similar if the choice was between someone I knew and someone I didn't know, but admittedly there would be slightly more tension to the situation as I have a soft spot for non-human animals (and their inherent innocence as mentioned) that makes the previous decision a bit easier.

There is no material object that I would pick over the life of a person if the decision was mine and mine alone to make (even if I was behind reflective glass and they wouldn't be aware of my existence), unless perhaps that object is a metal plate keeping five other people from falling into a spiked pit.

One might ask "Then why don't you donate everything when those starving people commercials come on, aren't you choosing money over them?", which was why I specified that I would have to be the only 'vote' that determines the outcome. With broadcast calls for donations there is a layer of abstraction that changes how the situation is perceived. Though it isn't to say that I have never donated.

Though this question was rather easy for me to answer as I carry almost no sentimental value in any of the very few material things I own. I suppose this laptop is the most important object I own, or a fluffy cat doll I used to sleep with when I was little (being perhaps the most sentimental thing), both of which I would personally toss into an incinerator if it could save someone's life. The concept of owning an object worth more than someone's life is entirely foreign to me and leads me to question if it really is true that, in your words, "Many people have at least one material item of value to them that feel is just too important to trade for anything." Which leads me to question if I should worry more for the state of humanity than I already do.