Interesting question

VaporTrail

Dog.

Pumpkin Eater

What kind of dumbass dog can't swim? Wtf does a dog that can't swim deserve to live?

htownbrown

The dog.

If your religious your going to end up in a better place and it was god's will. Thats what I'd tell his family anyway when I walk my dog every morning.

gftChris

@logicisforsquares said:

I would save my pet. I will be that asshole.

Call it misanthropy but my dog has done me more solids and is willing to have my back way more than a random stranger.

I bet your dog has done plenty of solids.

To be honest, if my pet were drowning, I wouldn't even see the guy most likely. I'm going for my dog first, who can probably get himself to safety with my help (maybe a push in the right direction) and then try to get to the other guy.

Clevfan4life

@mld-woody said:

Without religion there are no morals. No idea of right and wrong.

So I'd have to say I'd let both drown.

attaboy, shit all over this cool story from wss.

Clevfan4life

@the-cysko-kid said:
Steve Buscemi the dachshund is family. That little dog would undoubtably take a bullet for me.

As much of a dick as you are sometimes, I will always have a soft spot for you that you named your dachshund steve buscemi. I roll everytime you bring him up. When you're mad at him do you yell out "Steven Vincent Buscemi"? I would lose it completely if I heard someone say that to their little dachshund.

as per the story, reluctantly i'd have to say the pet. Unless it's Walter or Stuart than there's no reluctance whatsoever....i'm probably giving them the finger and trolling them as i'm power backstroking for my pet.

Westside Steve

@clevfan4life said:

attaboy, shit all over this cool story from wss.

Actually shit all over any discussion among grown-ups.

Then again he makes up his own morals which is not right nor wrong.

Which means that his perception of good and evil is no more valid then the Bible. Even though he feels free to scold others.

WSS

jbluhm86

Since we're on the topic of moral and ethical conundrums, I figured i'd throw these out there as well. These are a set of thought-experiments that I first learned about in Psychology class in college, and they have always stuck with me (i'll post the 2nd part after we get enough responses). The first one goes like so:

The Great Train Problem (PART I):

Imagine that you work in a train yard, and your job is to control the railroad lever which guides trains from one track to another. Now, suppose that you notice that there is a runaway train barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, further down the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The runaway train is headed straight for them, and you do not have enough time to signal for help or to somehow stop the train before it reaches the people tied to the track; your only option is to pull the railroad switch lever. If you pull this lever, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you also notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

1) Do nothing: you do not pull the switch, thereby saving the one person on the side track; however, the trains continues on and kills the five people on the main track.

2) Pull the lever: you pull the switch, diverting the train onto the side track where it will kill one person, but save the five people on the main track.

Which is the correct choice?

Westside Steve

WSS

big red one

b6dab99b598a461f544dbf124c40d1bbd40f14e5

Legacy Fan

Why are the 5 people tied up?

Westside Steve

So in case this is not some sort of silly trick question I would probably sacrifice the one person to save the 5.

So what's the punchline?

WSS

The Cysko Kid

@legacy-fan said:
Why are the 5 people tied up?

Snidely whiplash is up to his old tricks again, clearly.

The Cysko Kid

The Cysko Kid

I'd guess you switch the lever and run like hell to try and pull the one person out of the way. Win or lose you've done better to save 5 people than one.

Westside Steve

WSS

The Cysko Kid

If the one person in question is a loved one and the five are other people's loved ones sorry about their luck

One Post

Totally rhetorical in every sense the questions come with no definite answer. It's the catch 22 situation built around feelings of keeping something cherished as opposed to numbers of human life or a pet? That's completely insane and I don't think I just speak for myself when I mention the rudeness and uncaring of most of you and I'm appalled by negative responses.

Let me put this into words you will understand.

Vodka and Xanex.

jbluhm86

@the-cysko-kid said:
If the one person in question is a loved one and the five are other people's loved ones sorry about their luck

Well, the original parameters of the thought experiment state that both the group of five and the single individual are complete strangers to you, and completely innocent of any crime, presumably to eliminate any potential bias.

The results from the original experiment showed that the majority of people questioned believed that it would be morally and ethically acceptable to throw the switch and sacrifice the single individual to save the group of five; "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

But, your statement has piqued my curiosity. Let us suppose, then, that in order to save the five innocent strangers, you would have to divert the train onto the sidetrack, where a single loved one, such as a spouse, child, or family member, would be killed instead. Would you still be morally and ethically obligated to save the many, at the expense of the single loved one?

The Cysko Kid

No. Fuck em. Sorry.