No it isnt.

Like I said, as a species we won the right to choose on our terms.  I dont go in for this moral high ground nonsense.  We are the superior species, we get to choose.  And give a life or death situation I doubt 99.9% of the poplation would choose anything over a human life.

If there is a truck holding a 100 sheep and a brain damaged child in the back seat of a car and I had to choose, I'd blow the truck up every time, with not even a hint of regret.

Hang on.  So you would save a couople of dolphins over the life of a mentally handicapped human?

Even the impact argument suffers devastating counter arguments though. Let's say that there is a scenario where you will have to save either a dog which has been part of a family for many years and means a great deal to them, or you can save save a homeless person who has no family, no friends and who will only be a burden to society for as long as he lives. Would the dog really be the ideal lifeform to save in this scenario? Can a dog really be more valuable than a human being? Again, I don't think so. If there is a scenario where a dog is worth more than a human being, we might as well start slaughtering humans in great isolated groups for provision, just like we do with animals.

So, how do we solve this issue? What is it that makes humans objectively more valuable than animals?

We think humans are worth more than the rest of the living beings simply because we are humans. Would you really choose any other kind of living form instead of yours? If dogs, beatles, or dolphins could talk, they would also choose their own species.

It's a basic instinct, protect your own kind. In this case, your own species.

About people choosing their pets before some unknown one, it's the same instinct but the individuals that do this have their thoughts wrong. They choose their pet because they have feelings and memories with/about that pet so they consider it part of they kind, a member of their own family/clan/tribe, whereas with the stranger they don't have those bonds and they are unable (or not willing) to see that the stranger is one of their own kind as both are humans.

And if it was your son?

Yeah, it's true that I wouldn't choose anything over a human either (except in extreme cases where the animal is my cat and the human is a severe criminal beyond recovery, etc.) I just find it interesting that there appears to be no objective arguments supporting those actions. Only our feelings.

I should mention though that if there ever came aliens to Earth with greater empathy, compassion and intelligence than any of us, I might have saved one of those guys instead of a human (given both are strangers to me). I mean, saving the alien would most likely result in a better situation for the human species. It should be possible that those talking dolphins you mentioned would reason the same way about us.

Same. I don't go for emotional arguments.

I don't think I would save the alien.

It's 1 person against 1 alien. The life or death of any of them would mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. The aliens would still be here and do what they do and humans would still be here and do their things as well whoever you choose to save.

In the end, it wouldn't be a rational action but a reflex, and you can't be sure how you will react.

Haven't your ponies taught you anything?