Who would you save?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jay74
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
oh, i see. it was a ‘somehow’ given.

unfortunately, your ‘given’ is what makes your statement ludicrous. there’s no way we can know that. it’s like saying ‘if dogs became people when they died, THEN what would you do???’ your ‘if’ doesn’t make any sense.
 
Well, it is just a thought experiment. But I’ll go even further. Suppose you don’t know if the stranger is in a state of grace or not. If he is not, his death is tragic (though it might have been anyway). If he is, perhaps his death is very fortunate, for he might later have died under mortal sin. If one case is as likely as the other and the chances of a person falling out of or into a state of grace is at least even (I don’t know if they are as likely, but it seems plausible. I’ll say this: in this instance the person presumably knows he is in danger of death, and so might be calling out to God) then it seems best to save the dog.

Michael
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## I prefer cats to dogs too.

If the stranger were human, and wanted to die, it might be unethical to insist the stranger had to live.

One could always die instead of the stranger. ##
Click to expand...

I would save the stranger. If the stranger was trying to commit suicide, though, in today’s world you just might get sued.
 
40.png
Lance:
Anyone who doesn’t like cats just aint cookin’ them right.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Funny and twisted. I automatically like you, but I won’t show this post to my husband the cat lover.
 
40.png
hermit:
I don’t agree that human life is more valuable than a dog. Any dog owner knows this.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I can’t agree with you on this. I have a beagle that we got from the pound and had to work really hard with because it was obvious tht he had been abused. He would scream in terror whenever we lifted our hands just to scratch our heads. Later a couple who had found a dirty, filthy cocker spanial on the side of the road gave the dog to us. It was the same day that they found her. It took us several washings to change her gray, matted coat back into its original brown. She was covered with ticks and burs and smelled of urine. We looked for the owner but could only conclude that our new pet was abandoned. So I love dogs and have a soft spot for the ones that no one wants. All that aside, I would still save the human. Humans, not dogs, are made in God’s image.
 
michaellewis posted:
If
Click to expand...
one case is as likely as the other and the chances of a person falling out of or into a state of grace is at least even (I don’t know if they are as likely, but it seems plausible. I’ll say this: in this instance the person presumably knows he is in danger of death, and so might be calling out to God) then it seems best to save the dog.

you appear to be neglecting the possibility of eternal damnation. if the person is REMOTELY in danger of being eternally damned (which, i think it’s safe to say, almost everyone is), then it’s best to save the person - the dog is in no such danger. for the dog, you either get dog heaven (if you go for such a thing) or oblivion. for the person, you might (even if it’s a billion to one against) have eternal punishment. logic, to me, favors the human.
 
*Jeff wrote:

you appear to be neglecting the possibility of eternal damnation. if the person is REMOTELY in danger of being eternally damned (which, i think it’s safe to say, almost everyone is), then it’s best to save the person - the dog is in no such danger. for the dog, you either get dog heaven (if you go for such a thing) or oblivion. for the person, you might (even if it’s a billion to one against) have eternal punishment. logic, to me, favors the human.

Not necessarily, consider these possibilities:

If a person is in a state of grace now (n) they will eventually go to heaven if they die now. Suppose they do not die now; what is the likelihood they will be in a state of grace if they die later (l)? Let us suppose it is 50%.

If a person is not in a state of grace (G) now, they are better off not dying now, unless they will not be in a state of grace when they die later either. Let us suppose that the probability that they will still be damned (D) later is 50%.

Suppose the odds are also 50/50 that the stranger is in a state of grace or under sin now. Given these odds:

*---------------------Save--------------Don’t Save *
DnGl 25%-------Heaven-----------Hell
DnDl 25%-------Hell----------------Hell
GnDl 25%-------Hell----------------Heaven
GnGl 25%-------Heaven-----------Heaven

So it’s a wash. I realize that these numbers are arbitrary; for instance, perhaps it is the case that the longer one lives, the more likely one is to be in a state of grace, (is there reason to suppose that this is the case?) or the reverse. On the other hand, if the stranger in question is a young (baptized) child, you would almost certainly be doing him or her a disservice by rescue; if I understand Catholic theology correctly. (I realize, of course, that the Church does in fact advocate saving all innocent human life, though in cases like this it is hard for me to see how such concern can honestly be said to arise out of love for the persons in question.)

Michael
*
 
you make an interesting case.

however, your reasoning also seems to leave a very important factor out of the equation: the grace of God.

in other words - to say that it’s better for young children to die, so that they’re not tempted to fall into sin and be damned - or to say that it’s better to give the dog as long a life as possible, because this is ‘all he’s got’, is to deny the basic goodness and grace of God. it’s saying that we’d better play it safe and stand outside of the confessional, offing every person who comes out, so they go directly to heaven - instead of trusting them (and the dog) to the grace of God - trusting that God will give them the best destination.

i see how what i just said can be misconstrued, and i’m almost tempted to allow it, just for the sake of conversation. in fact, i think i will. go ahead. 🙂
 
Jeff wrote:
*it’s saying that we’d better play it safe and stand outside of the confessional, offing every person who comes out, so they go directly to heaven - instead of trusting them (and the dog) to the grace of God - trusting that God will give them the best destination.

*i see how what i just said can be misconstrued, and i’m almost tempted to allow it, just for the sake of conversation. in fact, i think i will. go ahead. **

(I guess I’ve gotten us off topic a bit, though this does seem related to the initial question. If you folk disagree, I’ll start a new thread.)

How else can one construe “best destination”? We are talking about the best destination for the person who goes there, right? Is it in anyone’s interest to end up in hell rather than heaven? I understand that obedience to God is supposed to come before love of others for Catholics (and most Christians), but you folks don’t tend to emphasize the implications of this doctrine, in my experience. They are pretty striking in this case. The only reason for a truly loving parent who believes in Catholic doctrine not to kill her baptized and unaccountable children seems to be either fear of God’s power, or loving God more than her children. If the welfare of one’s children really were one’s first priority, why take even the smallest chance that they might end up in hell? Heck, suppose a parent has good reason to suppose her children will be raised in such a way to make it likely they will go to hell; (Say, her ex-husband is a God-hating atheist who has full custody and the power to keep it.) why shouldn’t she kill her children if she loves them more than herself or God? Is it really in the character of the Catholic God to send such a mother to Hell for loving her children too much? (Is that what you were looking for Jeff? 😉 )

Michael
 
Sorry folks, I guess I have to be the bad guy here.

Since I do not have a Dog, but a cat that is my pride and joy and means a lot to me, I would save my cat before saving a complete stranger.

That is just me though. You wanted a honost answer…
 
I don’t know if this was stated already, but, it would be kinda dumb to jump in after one’s pet because survival instincts (not panic or shock) kicks in and they would do everything to save themselves.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Sorry, it’s just a dog. Eaten regularly in some countries. We just happen to think dogs are cute.
Click to expand...
“Just” a dog? I think you need to read CCC # 2416:

Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

Not to mention St. Isaac the Syrian or St. Seraphim of Sarov.
 
human life is human life. jesus said don’t judge…so…ummm…don’t
 
I don’t have a dog, and I can’t swim.Even if I could swim, I have handicapping conditions that would make me more of a liability than a help to anybody drowning.

I have to admit that if my cat were the one in danger of drowning, I might possibily jump in after her & hope for the best for both of us…But that is only because I know I can lift her 12 pounds.(Even soaking wet).

What I don’t understand is: Why is nobody calling 911???
That is the trouble with this question. I hear it all the time. It is based on a false premise, that there is always a no win choice, & that there is never a 3rd alternative.
God bless.
 
40.png
Zooey:
I don’t have a dog, and I can’t swim.Even if I could swim, I have handicapping conditions that would make me more of a liability than a help to anybody drowning.

I have to admit that if my cat were the one in danger of drowning, I might possibily jump in after her & hope for the best for both of us…But that is only because I know I can lift her 12 pounds.(Even soaking wet).

What I don’t understand is: Why is nobody calling 911???
That is the trouble with this question. I hear it all the time. It is based on a false premise, that there is always a no win choice, & that there is never a 3rd alternative.
God bless.
Click to expand...
A lot of people dodge it this way. They say things like “what are the odds of that”, “why not save both”, “what about ____”. No need to over analyze. It’s a very simple question trying to illustrate how people value human life. Only about 1/3 generally vote to save the person. 1/3 the dog, and 1/3 don’t know or argue with the question. It’s refreshing that the stats are better among those with religious values–most tend to get it right, almost 95% here for example.

If I ever ask it again, I’ll have to take this very simple question and change it to “if you’re dog and a stranger were drowning, who would you pull out of the water first?” Although, I’m sure some people will find a way to dodge it more.

P.S. If my wife or kids are ever drowning, please pull them out of the water before you dial 9/11, or yell for someone else to dial 9/11 while you are fishing thing out. I’d hate for them to drown while someone is evaluating the 3rd alternative.
 
40.png
Jay74:
A lot of people dodge it this way. They say things like “what are the odds of that”, “why not save both”, “what about ____”. No need to over analyze. It’s a very simple question trying to illustrate how people value human life. Only about 1/3 generally vote to save the person. 1/3 the dog, and 1/3 don’t know or argue with the question. It’s refreshing that the stats are those with religious values–most tend to get it right, almost 95% here for example.

If I ever ask it again, I’ll have to take this very simple question and change it to “if you’re dog and a stranger were drowning, who would you pull out of the water first?” Although, I’m sure some people will find a way to dodge it more.

P.S. If my wife or kids are ever drowning, please pull them out of the water before you dial 9/11, or yell for someone else to dial 9/11 while you are fishing thing out. I’d hate for them to drown while someone is evaluating the 3rd alternative.
Click to expand...
Please forgive the typos and grammatical errors. It was 7 am and there was no :coffee:

Blessings
 
40.png
Sola:
What if the drowning stranger were Ted Bundy or the Green River Killer?

My point is not that some people do not deserve to live, but that you are making a judgement without evidence, which really doesn’t work for this situation.
Click to expand...
You also don’t know the flip side- as with the right to life- when in doubt, err on the side of life. Would you stop supporting RTL if you thought that the children would grow up and become evil serial criminals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top