In the case of South African Graham Ansley, when his yacht ran aground, he swam his 9-year old Jack Russell terrier Rosie to safety before returning to get his wife whose safety line had snagged. (Via Gawker.)
This story reminded me of an old joke calypso song by Lord Kitchener (at least, I think it is a joke) that posed a similar question, except that he compares the merits of saving his spouse to his mother.
So based on the evidence provided by Ansley and Kitchener, the order of rescue seems to go like this:
1. Mother
2. Dog
3. Spouse
In this sample of two, both rescuers Ansley and Kitchener are men. It would be interesting to find anecdotal evidence where the rescuers are women to see if the order changes. And how would a cat compare to a dog? And a mother compare to a father? As we always say in academia, this calls for more research.
“As we always say in academia, this calls for more research.”
I think the Ethics Review Board may have a problem with practical studies, but similar hypothetical questions have been looked at. I think you’ll be somewhat perturbed by these results.
The save-the-dog vs. save-the-person example in that article are for a hypothetical involving a bus (a bit like the classic trolley problems), but it also mentions the “what would you take from a burning building?” theme which is also popular. Terry Pratchett had a character pose this type of problem to other characters in one of his Discworld books (Masquerade). She (the character) phrased it something like “If you discovered a fire in your house, what’s the first thing you’d take out?” One character responded “Ah, this is one of them tricksy questions where what I choose is supposed to tell you something meaningful about my character, isn’t it? Well I’m not falling for it.” Which of course is interpreted to mean this character is cynical and devious and always on the look out for other people trying to trip her up.
Another character simply says “the fire.”
Hard to say. In general I’d help the people first, but it’s possible the people might be ok just floating for a while but the dog would not be, in which case going dog first lets me save everyone, but people first loses the dog. Or some of the people, perhaps the one that would naturally be priority 1, might be so far beyond my ability to save that even trying will lose me the other people involved on top of the dog.
Too many details need to be in front of me to say for sure. But of spouse, mom, and dog… assuming all of those other factors even out, I’d *probably* go spouse, mother, dog. My own kids(which I don’t have yet, but wanting kids too would be kind of important to me in a spouse) would need their other parent more than my mothers kids need her. It’s harsh, and I hate being harsh about this stuff, but sometimes that’s what a situation calls for.
It is worth noting that in this case, the woman in question had been rescuing herself perfectly well until her safety line got snagged, and that unlike the dog, she had a lifejacket on as well. Thus, at the time that he began rescuing the dog, it was not a choice, as only the dog was in need of rescue.
The newspaper article says:
The Jack Russell was wearing a specially tailored dog life-jacket which has its own emergency strobe light attached to it.
But Dalillama, Schmott Guy @ #3 knows better:
Kind of very hypothetical (I’m a woman, have no dog but stepkids), but I would probably try to rescue the dog (or kids) by helping it (them) swim to the shore safely, and this would happen as a team effort of all adults involved. Much safer being together, IMHO.
…and while you were making up your mind they’d probably all drown, Gworoll.
Actually, in situations like that, people don’t think consciously or carefully but respond immediately to whoever or whatever is physically closest or seems most at risk. In the case of Mr. Ansley, the question of which being he saved is less important than the fact that he rescued another being, rather than just saving himself when he was in danger.
They are sailing around the world.
Since I am not a feminist, I don’t believe that women need men to protect them and I do believe a woman on an around the world sailing trip can handle herself quite well.
After a quick check to make sure she was okay and good handle herself, I would rescue the dog, coming back for woman.
What do you think feminist means?
Speaking of joke songs, that particular line of humor goes way, way back. Here’s an example from Gallager’s and Shean’s 1925 act, which takes the skewed priorities even further:
(A sample of the kind of humor that could make you New York’s top-paid entertainers in the mid-twenties. Perhaps humanity is progressing, after all. )
Feminist: a person that believes men need to make sure their dates don’t drink too much because women cannot be trusted to understand their limits with alcohol