I'll let that one die.

Started by beauty. proletariat December 14th, 2009 11:01 PM
  • 2075 views
  • 43 replies
Female
Sydney, Australia
Seen June 19th, 2011
Posted December 14th, 2010
1,499 posts
17.9 Years

I'll let that one die.

The Question.


Say you were in a position where you had to choose between saving an animal, or saving a human. Both the human and the animal could have very close bonds with their family, and both of them could also have no family and be lonely, or wild. You do not know, and you have to save one of them without knowing. You cant have two options either-- because at the situation, you will not know who is in a family, or who is without a family.

Then, Think about what you would do if one of them was ugly, the other was beautiful.. Does that make an impact on your decision? Does seeing one of them disfigured (ugly) make you save the other one or does it make no difference in your choice? Remember that beauty often reflects lifestyle and thats something you will be able to notice whilst saving the animal / human. I'm referring to beauty as appearance, not just good looking, bad looking.


TL;DR.

  1. If you had to save an animal or a human, what would you save? NOTE: Their social 'life' does not matter as it is random.
  2. Would appearances make an impression in your choice?

I would... I...


I would let the human live, let the animal die.

Most often, animals are left to die with even partial injury, whether its a loved family pet, or a wild animal. Most often, the vet will say It is unethical to let them live as they will go through pain, which is true. Humans are always given treatment if possible. Well, at least in Australia they are.

A Human life is somewhat more important than an animal's life because humans are hardy organisms, they will try to stay alive, and they very likely will have a greater chance of survival compared to the animal even if they are partially damaged.

In saying all of that, I still, think the human should live as there is a greater loss. We are the unofficial 'gods' of our society / environment because we have that thinking capacity-- ~1700 cc (which is the brain capacity), orangutans have a brain capacity of approximately 500 cc (I think they have the highest cranial capacity, after humans.), which means saving their life will not benefit our society overall.

To me, appearance is not important because often the ugliest person will have the most to add. They have much more experiences and ideas, being isolated and such for their 'ugliness.' Someone disfigured / retarted would be the same: look at Stephen Hawking.

Some extra information if you don't understand
The thing is, between two human beings, no matter who the person is (someone that is in charge of the lives of millions of people, or not even in charge of one), it purely depends on a personal response. A figurehead can be replaced over and over again: knock one down, there are bound to be many others ready to take that position.

Saving an animals live or a Human being's life dwells into a personal ethics and morals value. I'm not sure if it works as well here in PC because there is a specific age group, people with very similar ideas (since it is a very... unique forum, especially for some of the older people, who are only kept by the community), but I was headed towards a "saving human life is less important as we can populate.

The appearance aspect was added to allow for variation and discussion. Would you rather save the life of an extinct / endangered animal than the life of a human, to maintain biodiversity, or would you allow the human to live, just because we can -think-.

Feign

Clain

Seen January 24th, 2023
Posted March 12th, 2011
4,293 posts
14.4 Years
I wouldn't save either... What relation would I have to that human or animal? What difference in the long run (aside from extending one's life) would it make? I mean we're all mortal after all...

That's not to say I disregard humanity, just that it in this case, it isn't meaningful.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
There would have to be some pretty astronomical coincidences to get a person to save an animal over a human being, something like the random person closely resembling your most hated enemy and the animal looking just like your favorite pet. Then, maybe, I could see someone saving the animal.

The only other things I can think of that would affect someone is if they were put at risk by saving someone, they were part of some kind of extremist hate group that hated the kind of person whose life was in danger, or they were just a sociopath.
Female
Sydney, Australia
Seen June 19th, 2011
Posted December 14th, 2010
1,499 posts
17.9 Years
I think it'd be more interesting to ask about two humans and then compare traits that would influence the decision. To ask if someone would save an animal over a human is kinda silly, I would guess the vast majority would save the human life regardless.

Now if you were stuck between saving Regina Benjamin or a close family member of yours, which would you choose? That's a far more interesting question to ask.
The first question, yeah, majority would pick a human, but for the second opinion, appearance plays a huge role. What if the person looked like a dictator you have grown to hate? What if it was an endangered animal?

I so did not just get this additional idea now.
The thing is, between two human beings, no matter who the person is (someone that is in charge of the lives of millions of people, or not even in charge of one), it purely depends on a personal response. A figurehead can be replaced over and over again: knock one down, there are bound to be many others ready to take that position.

Saving an animals live or a Human being's life dwells into a personal ethics and morals value. I'm not sure if it works as well here in PC because there is a specific age group, people with very similar ideas (since it is a very... unique forum, especially for some of the older people, who are only kept by the community), but I was headed towards a "saving human life is less important as we can populate.

The appearance aspect was added to allow for variation and discussion. Would you rather save the life of an extinct / endangered animal than the life of a human, to maintain biodiversity, or would you allow the human to live, just because we can -think-.

I'm sticking with my decision, even if it was the last kangaroo in Australia.

Guillermo

i own a rabbit heh

Age 28
Australia
Seen April 11th, 2015
Posted May 18th, 2014
6,794 posts
14.8 Years
People kill animals everyday. Accidentally and purposely. I would never kill an animal off purposely, but if another humans life was at risk it would be a stupid decision to let that human die. A human has a lot more purpose to the world than an animal does. Besides, there's a million questions to be asked when it comes to saving a life. Who is this person? Do I know him/her? Do they have a family? How old are they? What do they do for a living? Are they happy? Depressed? And that's just the human.
credittoDukey
one life, one chance


| | le deux | | so-so-soulful

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19 Years
Such a long description for such an easy question.

A human life is more important than an animal life.

Sorry PETA and people who treat dogs like babies, but its true.

"Think about what you would do if one of them was ugly, the other was beautiful.. Does that make an impact on your decision? Does seeing one of them disfigured (ugly) make you save the other one or does it make no difference in your choice"
Doesn't make a difference at all.

Look, I like animals. We should converse, protect, rights wrongs, all that stuff. But c'mon.

Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty

I lit a wee fire...on a boat!

Age 34
Female
ENGERLAND
Seen October 30th, 2011
Posted October 29th, 2011
1,189 posts
13.7 Years
If I 100% didn't know the person, I would save the animal. It's alright to bleat on about how human life is more important that an animal's life, but I think that too many animals die every day because we're a selfish lot who only think about ourselves. Plus, that human could be a murderer, a rapist, a spouse-beater, an embezzler, a thief...the list goes on. The most an animal can ever be is an animal. -.-

As for the second part of the question, looks would not affect my decision in the slightest.

How's your thirst for adventure, Captain?

.little monster

Age 30
Male
Ohio
Seen June 6th, 2017
Posted March 23rd, 2015
4,291 posts
13.9 Years
I would save the human, because it's a human. It would break some of the basic laws of nature if I saved the animal at the spur of the moment. "Preservation of Species" comes into play.

If I had time to think, I'd save the animal, as humans are very...populace...

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon

Age 30
Non-binary
With the Birds
Seen January 9th, 2015
Posted January 9th, 2015
3,416 posts
14.3 Years
It really depends on whether or not that person was a complete ******* to me in my past. If he or she betrayed me, I'll let them be tiger meat.
Age 29
California
Seen May 29th, 2011
Posted February 4th, 2010
275 posts
14.9 Years
To me, appearance is not important because often the ugliest person will have the most to add. They have much more experiences and ideas, being isolated and such for their 'ugliness.' Someone disfigured / retarted would be the same: look at Stephen Hawking.
This is a weird thing to say: "appearance is not important" followed by "ugly people have more experience and ideas". Not everyone who is ugly is automatically ostracized, and being socially isolated doesn't necessarily guarantee strong mental development. Ugliness certainly doesn't preclude stupidity.

Anyway, as this is a hypothetical situation which would be horrible, brutal and unequivocally traumatizing were it to occur in real life, I am going to give a hypothetical answer that would be considered horrible and brutal in the realm of human reality: I would flip a coin.

A life is a life, at least in the philosophical vacuum in which most of these ethical problems seem to be posed. And no, I'm not a vegetarian or a hardcore animal-rights activist. But in a matter of blindfolded, anonymous murder in which I presumably cannot know anything about my victim(s) anyway, it suddenly seems very futile to weigh things like "importance for the advancement of society".

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to it laughing.

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
I find it horrible how many people answered that they would allow both to die, or to allow the human die "because s/he is ugly." That any human would sentence another human to death for their amusement or... "ease of viewing" is just horrible. I know I'm usually a relativist in terms of morals, but there are a few things that are just universally unacceptable, and killing (yes, that's what you're doing here) because someone is ugly or just for the hell of it is one of those things. That anyone would see another person dying and do nothing... that's just sickening to me.

I was entirely ready to argue against the animal people that human life is more important than animal life for a number of reasons (I won't bother now), but this was just... so much worse than I expected. I mean, yeah, I know about 4chan and the whole internet culture of "don't care" and whatnot, but I never in a million years expected that so many people these days seriously don't care about human life at all.

A while back, there was a story about a rape that occurred in California in broad daylight that people just sat and watched take place. Some took pictures with their cell phones and laughed and such; it wasn't until some old lady a few blocks over heard about it that it was reported to the police. I couldn't understand how such a thing could happen; "surely, this sort of thinking must be localized to the city or something," I thought. Perhaps I was wrong; maybe this mentality is far more common than I expected.


I suppose I should answer the question. Personally, I would save the human life; I don't value animal life very much. The only reason I attribute any value to pets is due to their connection to humans; I could argue this, but I doubt anyone really cares after the responses I've seen. Suffice it to say I would kill a thousand endangered species if it would somehow save a single person's life.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me

.Seth

.explorer.

Male
A capacitor in a power supply board.
Seen February 8th, 2016
Posted December 30th, 2010
1,644 posts
14.9 Years
A very tough question you ask. Let's say both had the same injury. A broken appendage, perhaps? The human could easily heal from, say, a broken leg or arm. An animal, not so much. Animals are incapable of giving others the proper care to heal a broken appendage in a matter of weeks or months. It heals on its own, but who's to say that animal will live through it? And who's to say that animal won't injure it again during the healing process?

My choice in the above situation, the animal.
Although, if you'd like to specify a specific injury or disease, feel free to let me know so I can answer for that situation as well.

Ineffable~

DAT SNARKITUDE

Age 29
Female
Any ol' place really
Seen September 2nd, 2012
Posted December 27th, 2011
2,738 posts
14.8 Years
Better hope other people don't have that view if ever they have to decide your fate like that, or you'll soon be dead.
I'd like to high five you, my good sir.

I know I'm usually a relativist in terms of morals, but there are a few things that are just universally unacceptable, and killing (yes, that's what you're doing here) because someone is ugly or just for the hell of it is one of those things.
I question the consideration of letting something die as actively killing. I agree with the rest of your post, though, save for the bit about endangered species and human importance. :pink_shifty:

I would save the human because they can live longer. Even though I like animals.
What about lobsters, turtles, tortoises, parrots, whales, buzzards, alligators and swans? Lobsters are believed to be "immortal". Would you save a tortoise or lobster over a human? :O

Personally, I don't work well under pressure, so I would probably pick which ever one my brain instinctively decided upon. There's no reason for me to pick one over the other, really.


A very tough question you ask. Let's say both had the same injury. A broken appendage, perhaps? The human could easily heal from, say, a broken leg or arm. An animal, not so much. Animals are incapable of giving others the proper care to heal a broken appendage in a matter of weeks or months. It heals on its own, but who's to say that animal will live through it? And who's to say that animal won't injure it again during the healing process?
That raises a good point. If I had time to think about it, it would change my decision depending on how the human and animal are dying.

#077: Ponyta - The Fire Horse Pokémon
Fire ~ Field eggs
3'03" ~ 66.1lbs ~ 50/50

Its hooves are 10 times harder
than diamonds. It can trample
anything completely flat in moments.

Abilities: Run Away or Flash Fire or Flame Body
Moves: Growl, Flame Wheel, Stomp, Agility
Locations: Pokémon Mansion

Cry

Other names:

jp: ポニータ (Ponyta)
de: Ponita
fr: Ponyta
cn: 小火馬 (Xiǎohuǒmǎ)


Anxiety.

Walking on sunshine.

Birmingham, England.
Seen February 5th, 2011
Posted June 16th, 2010
1,669 posts
15.6 Years
If it was an ugly person, I'd let them die.
Yeah. Me too man. Didn't see your post above mine. Glad someone else agrees with me.

And woah woah woah, hey hey hey, why does it bother you lot so much that someone would say that? Its part of the question, and lets be honest, if the person was drop dead gorgeous then yeah, you would want to save them a hell of a lot more. Don't hate us 'cause we're honest.
-[Inject Me]-
-

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Online now
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years
I think the question's irrelivent. Obviously the author wants to make the two subjects equal, so the obvious and only logical answer is to stop letting them both die by overthinking an answerless question and just save one.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends

Ineffable~

DAT SNARKITUDE

Age 29
Female
Any ol' place really
Seen September 2nd, 2012
Posted December 27th, 2011
2,738 posts
14.8 Years
And woah woah woah, hey hey hey, why does it bother you lot so much that someone would say that? Its part of the question, and lets be honest, if the person was drop dead gorgeous then yeah, you would want to save them a hell of a lot more. Don't hate us 'cause we're honest.
Hey, nice cynic costume. whar didjoo gettitz? =3

We're just being truthful like you. Saying something like that denotes an ugly personality, and if your rebuttal is that everyone believes it, you're the judgmental one. :/

#077: Ponyta - The Fire Horse Pokémon
Fire ~ Field eggs
3'03" ~ 66.1lbs ~ 50/50

Its hooves are 10 times harder
than diamonds. It can trample
anything completely flat in moments.

Abilities: Run Away or Flash Fire or Flame Body
Moves: Growl, Flame Wheel, Stomp, Agility
Locations: Pokémon Mansion

Cry

Other names:

jp: ポニータ (Ponyta)
de: Ponita
fr: Ponyta
cn: 小火馬 (Xiǎohuǒmǎ)


BeachBoy

S P A R K of madness

Age 31
Male
Texas
Seen November 17th, 2016
Posted November 16th, 2016
8,396 posts
15.3 Years
The other day, my English teacher read an article which said how the earth loses a species every 20 minutes -- gone for good. (I believe that article was called the "sixth extinction" or something like that) Talk about running 'em outta town; claim how smart we are all you wish, but if we're dumb enough to keep that rate up, everything's going to fall apart eventually. Oh, and save your counters, critics, we've all heard the insufficient data argument. Just wanted to throw something out there.

Part of me wants to save the animal, but at the same time there is value in human life too. So I wouldn't be able to decide, if anything, would give the burden to someone else. :/
credit to easterly