But, okay, Matthew posts fairly regularly on a board when I'm asleep late at night. This board did a poll. Of course, the results aren't at all scientific or even a random sampling of the population or anything like that, but he and I were appalled and, well, appalled at the outcome.
1. Who would you chose to rescue out of a burning house if you could only chose one option:
a. your beloved pet or b. a complete stranger.
2. Who would you chose to rescue out of a burning house if you could only chose one option:
a. a loved one (spouse, sibling, parent, for e.g.) or b. three complete strangers.
More people chose the b. options than the a. ones in both cases. And the ones who chose a. usually said they'd feel guilty about doing so.
One person said they'd throw fluffy into a chipper if it'd stop a complete stranger from getting hurt (I sorta have to wonder with this one if "beloved" isn't a valid adjective in this case).
What's wrong with these people?? I'd so chuck a stranger into a chipper to save Hobkin, much less just go the passive route and choose to save Hobkin over the stranger. And I'd feel no qualms about it. Ditto on the letting the three strangers burn to get Matthew out. Hell, after seeing the result of that poll, I'm thinking that shoving a few extra people back into the blaze might be a good idea.
I mean how can someone look their husband/wife/lover in the eye every day and think that in a pinch, they'd chose three strangers over them? It floors me how many people think that ethics is math. Saving three people is better by virtue of saving more? Faugh. And then the whole humans over animals thing. I hate how the general populace treat and views animals. But, I mean, if you adopt an animal into your household, you're making a commitment. You're promising to love and protect that critter against all that comes. So many people out there think of animals as disposable. Again, I say "faugh."