Bullshyt. The entire point is "It's Your Animal" & you're changing the question: "Your Neighbors Pet or a Neighbor?" I don't have a bond with my neighbors dog so the point your making is irrelevant to the question. Your utterly neautral stance is not the question asked, this IS NOT a neutral question, it's an emotional one. This is not a pet you aren't familiar with, people are making up shyt.
I agree @CharlieManson made valid points & I agree with the logic for the most part. But I just disagree with you totally.
If it was YOUR mom or a stranger MOM, same shyt, we gonna pick the one who we got a bond with.
I study psychology & instead of just answering the initial question you added shyt to it that isn't relevant at all to make your point.
Again: "Your pet" vs "A stranger" leave all the additives out & just answer the fukking question.
No the point I'm making with the dog comparison is not irrelevant. The reason is to dissuade this idea of a fabricated pecking order. Essentially, every human has a relatively common sense of obligation to humanity when the dog in question has nothing to do with them. So this bond is literally the only reason you'd pick your own dog. Now this is the part where you're thinking "no shyt fam" but this is the reason I posed it like this.
Let me break the mom scenario down first. The reason this is a false equivalency (and I should have explained this better earlier) is because the checklist breaks down differently. Firstly they're both human so there's differential there whatsoever. Now upon valuing the two you realize that you know nothing about this other person. You can't logically save an unknown over someone you actually know because upon assessing their value you literally have more to go to with with the other person. Their relative humanity is the base and moves out from there. Your bond is literally the difference maker here.
The reason that same logic doesn't work with the dog is because it doesn't pass that very first qualifier. So now your bond isn't a difference maker between two things with equal footing. It's the entire judgment call! It circumvents everything else that would otherwise render these two beings unequal. And that's why it's entirely narcissistic, borderline deranged thinking. The pecking order is your dog, strange humans, and then that dog's siblings adopted by another family and that is throughly wack thinking. See charlie would save the dog's cousins over humanity too it seems which is why his thought process isn't that hypocritical. I on the other hand can continuously run this checklist against every human I've interacted with because the final decision is both an emotional and logical one. That is why you can save your family members and why it's entirely different to saving your dog.
The additives are not random stipulations. Their nuanced tests for the entire though process. Yeah the point is "your animal" and my retort is why is YOUR fukking animal so special? If the answer is simply "that's my dog fam" then I'm perfectly justified in qualifying that as pure narcissism.
It's more sociopathic to save a human I think
This is the finality of that thinking as posted by Charlie.
