The purpose of the research was to identify the relationship that people have with their pets. The investigation was driven by the observation that people identify their pets as part of their family and tend to have a special emotional connection with them. As a result, the research uses the term “psychological-kin” to represent the people’s acceptance to pet(s) as part of their family. As such, the study narrows down to explore the moral decision making of the participants who were required to choose between saving the life of either a psychological-kin or a biological family (Topolski et al. 256). In the research, participants were coerced to choose either to save a human, their pet or someone else’s one from an approaching vehicle.
Hypothesis
The research hypothesis was that when one is presented with a moral decision to save one’s pet or unrelated stranger, there is a high possibility that a relatively a large number of participants will save their animal. The hypothesis was derived from the assertion that the choice to save a pet over a human being depends on the level of relatedness (Topolski et al. 256). As such, the closer the relationship between the participant and the human is, the higher are the chances of been saved over the pet.
Method
Independent and Dependent Variables
The research independent variables were the relationship between persons and the pet. In this case, the decision of whether to save a human or pet depended on how closeness. In a situation where the human is a family member, the participants opted to save them over their pets and vice versa (Topolski et al. 257). The dependent variables in this research were the responses by the participant to save a human or animal life. As such, the study seeks to examine how people respond to saving human or pet life under tough conditions.
Participants
To gather the study information, the researcher selected a sample population from two institutions of advanced learning in the southeastern part of the United States, a social platform composed of pet owners, a social page with no pet interest, and local community groups. The study selected 573 participants from the groups who were to represent the entire population. The sample, 573, was used to analyze the results for the entire research (Topolski et al. 256).
Summary of the Article
Experimental Results
The research results indicated that people would save their pet and not the foreign tourist or stranger, but only a few would save their pet over a closely related family member. Therefore, the decision of whether to save a pet or a human being is linked to the degree of relatedness and the willingness to save a pet depending on whether it belonged to the participant or not. People would, thus, opt to save their own pet over others (Topolski et al. 257-258). That is to say that the degree of kinship between people and the animal (pet) highly affected their choice. Further, the study concluded that moral reasoning among people directs on the decisions they make in life where those who value human life operates under cold rational system while those valuing pets utilize the emotional hot system.
Impacts of the Results on Society
The results from the research portray a weakened social institution which is based on value for human life over any other life in the globe. The study shows that moral judgments are to some extent stronger than the existing social cohesiveness. As such, a human being can save a pet over a stranger despite the outstanding cultural beliefs of respect and value for human life. Therefore, the research implies an eroding culture that needs an urgent revival to educate people on the sanctity of human life.
Reflection
In my view, the research is on point and has critically proven the real society we are living in. It is evident that the moral judgments guide the way we interact and treat one another. From the study, it is clear that the majority of the people are not guided on moral behavior. The research points out the social aspect of value for human life over any other life, yet the results prove otherwise. As such, it is the duty of every one to uphold the social institutions emphasizing the value of human life to streamline the social cohesion.
Work Cited
Topolski, Richard, et al. "Choosing between the emotional dog and the rational pal: A moral dilemma with a tail." Anthrozoös26.2 (2013): 253-263.
