LogFAQs > #912837474

darkknight109 posted...

But this isn't real life and you do know, as you did when you answered the question.

Then why does any of this matter? The reason people probably answered the way they did is because you figure out what you would do based on if this was a real life problem. That's why I use how I would react in real life. Or should I pretend I'm a superhero?

darkknight109 posted...

None of what you just postulated was given in the question - you either successfully save the dog or successfully save the child. That's all.

Except he could only put so much in the question. It's not like he could put all the things on the question. And in real life, which is why I chose the answer I chose, you don't know what could happen. You're not a fortune teller. You can only guess what might or might not happen.

darkknight109 posted...

Do I really have to answer the question "is selfishness a bad thing"?

Yeah. Mainly because it's not always bad. Helping others is good. But, for example, should I really be so selfless that I put others who need help before my own needs. If I could only carry one kid out, should I carry the random baby before my own. Or my own. The selfish part of me would want carry my own baby out. Is that bad? Or should I be selfless and let my baby burn but carry out someone's else's baby?

darkknight109 posted...

Because he's elevating his own pet - an animal - to a level above someone else's child.

Yeah, if the choice was "your kid vs. someone else's kid", I'm not going to fault someone for choosing their own kid. But his statement was basically "I'd save my dog instead of someone else's child, but if it was my child I'd save them before the dog."

We all accept that people are more important than dogs; we can prove that by asking "If you had to choose between saving your child or saving the family dog", an overwhelming majority of people would pick their child. Doesn't mean the dog isn't important or isn't loved, but the child comes first, which is exactly what winter was alluding to with the post I quoted. However, if the child is someone else's, you deciding that now your dog is more important is pure selfishness - you've basically said "between this thing that's super-important to someone else, and this thing that's of lesser importance to me... well, I don't care that much about other people, so I'll save the thing that's of lesser importance to me."

Because people care about what's close to them. I never said humans were more important than dogs. I think things through logically. It's usually more than just that. But it usually makes more sense in most cases to protect my human family first.

darkknight109 posted...

Your dog isn't your family, bro. You're not relatives, no matter how many times you call it your fur-baby.

My dog is family to me. Sure, not by blood, but does that matter. Pets are still part of your family. You're talking about how people should be selfless and how other's world must be sad we you can't understand how someone could love their pet and call them part of the family.
---

Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.