Dogs as important as children!

[Robbie]

You've put that well & i agree.
(I'd save a person first & then try to save the dog.)

[Ricky Spanish]

This thread is hilarious..

Can we pin it, please?

[Harrowby Hall]

In which case I disagree.

Supposing in your scenario there is no person around to save either human or dog. The people left behind will grieve, they will face trauma, but they do not rely on the lost person for their survival - even children will have someone else step in. They do not need that other person - humans can survive horrendous loss.

The reason why saving the human is the right thing to do is because of our complex emotions and social structures; there is more devastation to others caused by the death of a person than the death of a dog. In choosing to save the dog first I would be inflicting harm on others, and that is why it is wrong.

I am not a lawyer and would welcome clarification from someone better informed than I, but I seem to recall reading that deliberately refraining from assisting a person who then dies as a result of that lack of assistance could result in being charged with manslaughter. Deliberately choosing to save a dog rather than a person may well fall into that category.

[Bubbles]

Imagine your husband/partner/chlld/parent was on a ship that sank. You rush down to the docks only to find somebody stepping off the rescue boat with their dog that they had saved in preference to your husband/partner/chlld/parent. Think how you would feel.

That's why you save the person.

Yes, I agree.

I might not feel I wanted to let the dog drown, but I wouldn't consider saving the dog, especially if the human was a child.

I feel it would be a duty to save the child or another person first.

That's the thing, I think I would prioritise the person and then try and come back to the dog after.

Deep down I think some is peer pressure to do " the right thing" and also on some level I don't feel my dog is an equal to a human being.

I love him ( the dog) , because he is part of my personal family but in a life and death situation he doesn't come first.

The only time I might not, is if I completely loathed someone at that precise moment in time. Say if Ian Brady had murdered and tortured one of my children. In that instant I might well save the dog.

On the whole though I think it would be wrong to choose the dog over a human being.

The human being would have to have done something pretty awful for me to choose my dog.

[Robbie]

Harrowby:-
"I am not a lawyer and would welcome clarification from someone better informed than I, but I seem to recall reading that deliberately refraining from assisting a person who then dies as a result of that lack of assistance could result in being charged with manslaughter."

Not in this country Harrowby.

(I don't know about choosing to save a dog over a human.) 

Rose I too would save a human being first & then try to save the dog, think most would do that.

[Harrowby Hall]

Not in this country Harrowby.

Really, Robinson?

Look in Wikipedia at "Duty to Rescue". Remember that England is a Common Law country.

[Robbie]

Thanks HH. I had read it before but seems people are generally not prosecuted. I know they do it in the USA.

From wiki -A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

It might be difficult anyway to prove that someone was deliberately negligent.
(My personal view is that morally we should all do what we can to rescue someone.)

[Harrowby Hall]

I think that in a situation where both were capable of rescue, anyone who chose to rescue a dog in preference to a person would not escape without sanction ...

[Rhiannon]

I think proof is the issue. It would be very hard to prove that in a panicked situation someone deliberately ignored the person in favour of the dog. Something like filming the incident on a smartphone instead of attempting a rescue seems far more clear cut.

[Bubbles]

Really, Robinson?

Look in Wikipedia at "Duty to Rescue". Remember that England is a Common Law country.

I don't think it's really straightforward.

People might not rescue because they are putting their own lives in danger.

I suppose you could have a situation where the human was perceived as being more " of a risk" to rescue whereas a dog might be easier.

For example a burning building where you only had to open a door to rescue the dog but had to enter the room to rescue a person. One situation might be seen to be more life threatening.
Self preservation might kick in. 

To someone outside looking in on the situations, it might appear you put the dog first.

There are areas of grey, situations and human failings.

What one sees as equivalent, another might not.