Guybrush

It's easy to answer.

I'd say chances are the death of a random human is going to cause more pain in the world than the death of a random dog. So you should choose the random dog.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Chula Vista

What if both the dog and the human are each missing a leg?

In that scenario:

The dog could still pay catch - so the gimpy human dies.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

SGR

Guybrush

A more interesting what-if, I think, would be if the the death of the random dog or person would be unnoticed by them and completely painless. Possibly, instead of making a moral judgment merely on behalf of the creature getting randomly killed, one should consider what consequences someone's death, dog or human, may have for others.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Lucem Ferre

Unless it's a minpin because my personal feelings matter more.

__________________

Art Is Dead. Buy My ****.

Trollheart

No matter your regard or disregard for any animal, it's always going to be the human.

The numbers: any human (unless this one is really nearing death) is going to live longer than a dog or cat. The best you'll get, even if the dog/cat is a pup/kitten, is maybe 21 years. Any human should be able to triple that at least. So the numbers win for humans.

Achievements: Any human is capable of making great music, writing great novels, curing diseases etc (not saying they always will, but the possibility is there and so is the potential) - while of course they may also be a serial killer - but overall a human should have more to potentially offer the world than an animal can.

Dependents: A dog or cat may have pups/kittens/mate to provide for, but overall animals don't seem to be as attached to their offspring/mate as we are. They'll find others. A human will - probably - leave a family behind and even if not, there are relations, friends: too many people will be affected by the death of one human, so they win on dependents too.

Gratitude: A dog can lick your face or a cat can purr at you, but there's going to be no real gratitude, whereas if you save someone's life you may make a friend, or at least instill some gratitude in that person. You'll also get that from their family.

Funeral: If an animal dies, generally, unless it's a beloved pet, no funeral. If a human dies, you saddle their dependent with funeral costs.

So overall, even if you love animals, all logic still tells you to save the human.
Even if they are a piece of garbage.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

rubber soul

How about unconditional love? Animals (or dogs anyway) have it all over humans on that score.

__________________

SGR

Woah, let's not get too crazy here. If it's Harvey Weinstein or a dog, I'm gonna save the dog.

Chula Vista

This is where things fall apart for me.
I've had a boatload of pets through the years.
Also have been around tons of people.

The answer may be cut and dry to you but no way it is with me.
Way too many people just flat out suck.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

jwb

dogs and down syndrome kids are the only creatures in this planet that are capable of unconditional love. Even cats know better than to unconditionally love their owners, as **** a choice of pet as they are.

The reason dogs make good pets is because we've broken their will as a species. It's the most slavey attitude I've ever seen in an animal.