Throwing the baby out with the bathwater ...

[Jayhawker Soule]

(The following is posed with a @SalixIncendium thread in mind.)

You are sailing and, roughly 3 miles from land, you see a child and puppy struggling in the water.

Your primary concern is ...

see poll​

 

[SalixIncendium]

Your primary concern is ...

...not sinking the boat.

I've never sailed before, and I'm assuming I'm alone, because anyone that would have been on board would have thrown me overboard the first mile out.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But in all seriousness, I answered the question in the other thread, and neither choice reflects my view, or at least it's not that black and white.

I would do my best to save both. Given puppies are generally better swimmers than young children, I'd probably go for the baby first, then go to the puppy.

 

[PureX]

(The following is posed with a @SalixIncendium thread in mind.)

You are sailing and, roughly 3 miles from land, you see a child and puppy struggling in the water.

Your primary concern is ...

see poll​

... How the hell did THAT happen?

Then ... someone should help them!

Hmmm ... I'm hungry. Time for a sandwich.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

(The following is posed with a @SalixIncendium thread in mind.)

You are sailing and, roughly 3 miles from land, you see a child and puppy struggling in the water.

Your primary concern is ...

see poll​

Assuming that one and only one can be saved, whichever is closer. I don't see myself swimming or sailing past either to get to the other. But that evades your purpose in asking. If they were equidistant, probably the puppy. In a room containing one of each, I would go to the puppy and away from the child.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... neither choice reflects my view, or at least it's not that black and white.

The thread is not about stated views but about actions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If they were equidistant, probably the puppy.

Thanks for your honesty.

 

[MikeF]

I'd focus on, and work to save baby first, then puppy, if possible.

 

[Koldo]

(The following is posed with a @SalixIncendium thread in mind.)

You are sailing and, roughly 3 miles from land, you see a child and puppy struggling in the water.

Your primary concern is ...

see poll​

The puppy, assuming you are talking about a random child and a random puppy.

 

[Quagmire]

While I generally like puppies better than babies, I would choose the baby because:

--- letting a puppy drown would probably keep me up fewer nights than letting a baby drown.

--- the death of a puppy would probably represent less collateral angst than the death of a baby.

--- as a theist I'm always operating under the assumption that God is watching, and if I had to hazard a guess I would say God would probably want me to save the baby (then again who knows?)

--- people tend to live longer than dogs, so if we want to quantify life in years, saving a baby would represent saving more of it.


Of course while I was processing all of this both would drown, so on to the next delema.

(And now you know why the admins never get anything done here)

 

[Secret Chief]

(The following is posed with a @SalixIncendium thread in mind.)

You are sailing and, roughly 3 miles from land, you see a child and puppy struggling in the water.

Your primary concern is ...

see poll​

What breed?

 

[Quagmire]

What breed?

Why ask? A baby is a baby.

 

[Secret Chief]

Why ask? A baby is a baby.

I don't like Dobermanns, Rottweilers or Pit Bulls.

 

[Quagmire]

I don't like Dobermanns, Rottweilers or Pit Bulls.

Now I know what I getting you for next Christmas.

 

[ChristineM]

If possible figure out the shortest direct between the two. Make that heading, scoop whichever is first out of the water, then scoop out the second.

If they are equidistant I'd go for the baby first then try and retrieve the dog.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The thread is not about stated views but about actions.

Okay, then neither would be my default action. There are not enough options in the poll.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd save the child, whose life is far far far more valuable.
The puppy is merely a snack.
Albeit a cute one.

 

[icehorse]

In life saving training we learned "reach, throw, row, go". The last resort is to jump in the water. So not sinking your boat is the first priority.

If you can save only one and not sink your boat, I think you save the baby. I think most morality is based on the range of emotional states a being can experience, and we assume that a human has a wider range than a dog. We might be wrong about that, but for now that's our assumption.

Personally I think humans tend to vastly underestimate the emotional lives of mammals and birds, and that we treat them badly as a result.

 

[Mock Turtle]

A bit obvious to me (the baby), and seemingly most all those who answered, given that I would probably have a hard time trying to explain to a parent why I did otherwise if the baby died. And as remarked, if the puppy is alive it is probably a more natural swimmer.

 

[InChrist]

(The following is posed with a @SalixIncendium thread in mind.)

You are sailing and, roughly 3 miles from land, you see a child and puppy struggling in the water.

Your primary concern is ...

see poll​

Although I love puppies, my primary concern would be the child.