I'll let that one die.

beauty. proletariat

Banned
    • 1,501
    Posts
    19
    Years
    [CSS-DIV=width:500px; border: 1px solid black; background-color: Purple; color: Black; text-align: left; -moz-border-radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px][CSS-DIV=width=500px;height:41px;background-color: White;padding: 5px; -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 0px 0px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 5px; opacity:0.75]

    I'll let that one die.

    [/CSS-DIV][CSS-DIV=width=500px;background-color: White;padding: 5px; opacity: 0.7; padding: 5px]

    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?

    [/CSS-DIV][CSS-DIV=width=500px;padding: 5px; opacity: 0.5; -moz-border-radius: 0px 0px 5px 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 0px 0px 5px 5px; padding:5px; background-color: white; opacity: 0.65;]

    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-.
    Click to expand...
    [/CSS-DIV][/CSS-DIV]​
     
    Last edited:
    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.
     
    Ausaudriel said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    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.
     
    Last edited:
    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.
     
    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.
     
    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.
     
    The animal *if either at all*. Human life is comparatively worthless as we are already too numerous. I'm not an eccentric animal lover, I simply base the worth-per-individual of a species on its population.
     
    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...
     
    Depends.

    And yeah, if the person was very ugly, or retarded, I'd let them die. I know, I know, I'm a shallow. Get over it.
     
    Last edited:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    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 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.
     
    I would save the human because they can live longer. Even though I like animals.
     
    there are not enough animals in this world so maybe id let the animal live and the human die, and because helping animals is concidered a more caring deed than helping a person, in my opinion, because animals can't take care of themselves as well as humans can.
     
    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.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top