“Was that decision rational and ethical or emotional and irresponsible?”
Emotions themselves are not automatically ethical or unethical or responsible or irresponsible.
Emotions are sort of pre-conduct alerts or indicators. They are our minds’ reflex evaluation of circumstances in which we find ourselves, in situations we did not anticipate or that we have not had time to consider and reflect upon in advance
Emotions can but not always become unethical or irresponsible when…
1. They pollute the decision-making process an individual uses when evaluating what is the most ethical course in a particular situation.
2. The individual has become accustomed to responding emotionally as their default response to any event, problem, or unusual circumstance…
3. …Or the individual’s initial emotional reaction is contrary to how a reasonable or sane person should react, as with a positive response to something that should illicit sadness or anger.
Individual emotions, then, are better defined as “the reasonable immediate gut response to particular situations”. Anger is the emotion a reasonable person feels when someone initiates unjust or harmful actions. Sadness is the emotion a reasonable person feels at the loss of something valuable. Happiness is the emotion a reasonable person feels when virtuous conduct leads to good outcomes, and so on. By this measure, the woman’s alleged emotion in response the danger her dog faced on the Titanic is quite normal. It is what the legend holds that she did after that, given the circumstances, that poses the ethical problem:
1 Not getting into a lifeboat left more room for others in lifeboats, therefore increasing the likelihood of others’ survival if only marginally. She would not have known this, and it doesn’t seem like this was part of her decision.
2. Staying on the sinking ship did NOT increase the likelihood of the dog’s survival.
3. Comforting an animal during a frightening and confusing situation is a good thing. Still, I doubt there was much comfort rendered during the final moments of asphyxiation. I also doubt that the dog recognized any real danger during the moments she would have been able to comfort the dog.
4. Comforting the dog DID reduce her ability to assist others who wanted to survive the wreck.
5. Staying on the ship to perish removed her from the lives of others who may have been depending on her at home or her destination (if there were such people).
6. Her death was going emotionally harm those who cared about her.
7. Staying with the dog as a source mere comfort while not taking actions to try to save the dog without risking the lives of other passengers, such as trying to find floating debris, strikes me as virtue signalling.
I get where the Ann Isham of Titanic legend was coming from, but I think on the balance her choice was irrational, unethical and allowed emotion take over her decision-making in a situation that requires clear, rational analysis. The story is supposed to sound endearing, but the more I think about it the more sickening it seem. Now I need to know if that sickening feeling is fair and reasonable.
I think it is.
Ethics Alarms 
Hello Michael West … a very solid discussion, indeed. I’m wondering if this myth has arisen along with the rise of pet ownership in the US. And not just ownership – doting. Pets are literally replacing children as family (Boss Baby?), and pet owners spend lavishly in ways we wouldn’t dream of when we brought a puppy home from the pound in the 1960s – in the hundreds of billions. One might argue that pets replacing children is an alternative form of birth reduction, a boon to the planet. Or that taking such good care of pets is excellent stewardship. But to sacrifice your life for an animal, as noble as that sounds, deprives all the others in your life of your love, affection and companionship. We do understand the concept – I would lay down my life for most of my family members …. but to extend that impulse to an animal is contrary to the natural order.
Excellent COTD.
A while back the Animal Planet had a tale about a rat terrier owner as it discussed the breed. He was walking to the end of a dock when his dog (rat terriers are basically more pure versions of Jack Russell terriers, and maybe even crazier) saw a small bull shark (they are man-eaters) and leaped into the water to attack it. The man jumped in to save the dog from the shark, and the owner had bitten as well as the dog. Both ended up in the hospital, the terrier for a very long time.
1. Jumping into the ocean to fight a shark for your dog is almost as irrational as deliberately going down with a ship to keep it company, not quite as crazy, but close. But I once intervened when two loose dogs were in the process of trying to kill my wife’s cat…that was, now that I think of it, irrational.
2.The rest of the story: the dog healed, and when they were walking to the end of the dock, saw another bull shark, and jumped in AGAIN!
Thanks!
Without going into a great deal of exposition, in summary, I think our modern fixation on pets and its attendant hyper-elevation of their status is indicative of deeper psychological woes.
That was a very interesting discussion. Jack, I’m glad you started it, though I have to admit that not only did it bring up a lot of memories about our now-departed dog, it also sparked an interesting conversation with my wife, both about the Titanic and about Bailey.
Michael, your thoughts were great. Congratulations on the COTD. It was well-deserved.