I'll let that one die.

[Ineffable~]

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.

 

[Anxiety.]

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.

 

[Dawn]

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.

 

[Ineffable~]

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. :/

 

[BeachBoy]

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. :/

 

[twocows]

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.

So you would let someone die based on their appearance? And you wonder why I'm bothered by this? This is a person we're talking about here; someone who experiences joy and sorrow, someone who has friends and family and loves and is loved in return... and your decision to let them live or die hinges on what they look like? I don't understand how anyone could fail to see how this is abhorrent.

If you really don't get it, I won't even bother; I suppose it's like trying to describe color to the colorblind.

 

[Spearow]

but if we're dumb enough to keep that rate up

Well, if you are going to place the responsibility of preserving our global ecosystem upon the shoulders of humans alone, one would assume you have already allowed that we have enough intelligence to be trusted with that task in the first place.

 

[Cherrim]

It's probably the fact that I've never had a pet more, ah, "advanced" than a fish but I don't value an animal's life over a human's and I really have no connection with animals whatsoever. I'm all for treating animals humanely and against animal abuse, but I've just never understood how some people can see animals to be on par with or above humans. It's just a differing opinion (and I'm pretty sure my view on the matter likely can't be changed). Animals can be great but I don't see how saving one's life could be on par with saving a human's life.

As for appearances... what would that have to do with anything? It'd be far more interesting to ask about traits, and even then, it's still no question at all about saving the human life over the animal's. I think you mentioned the animal being endangered/nearly extinct in this section of the question so I assume we'll know if that's the case. Even then, I'm pretty sure my answer stays the same but that's really the only thing that would make me stop and think for a moment before making my decision.

 

[txteclipse]

If it was one of my pets and a person I didn't know, I would consider saving my pet over the other person. Otherwise, I'd save the person.

 

[♣Gawain♣]

I would assume that we can only save ONE. So it seems I have no choice but to save the human. It's simply because if that human is a relative of yours and if you let him/her die, then your conscience will haunt you forever.


Unless that person is a pain in the ass in your entire life...

 

[Idiot!]

Can't I leave both of them to die and save myself?

There are far too many humans in the world. Save the animal.

 

[Anxiety.]

So you would let someone die based on their appearance? And you wonder why I'm bothered by this? This is a person we're talking about here; someone who experiences joy and sorrow, someone who has friends and family and loves and is loved in return... and your decision to let them live or die hinges on what they look like? I don't understand how anyone could fail to see how this is abhorrent.

If you really don't get it, I won't even bother; I suppose it's like trying to describe color to the colorblind.

Did you not read my first post?
"I'm shallow, get over it"

And yeah, what I said before, I know for a fact that some, not all, people are lying a little here. I'm not saying that you're like me and will let them die because they're ugly, but apperance does change things very slightly for most people. Most people would want to save someone more, even if they were going to save them anyway, if they were very pretty.

 

[poopnoodle]

And yeah, what I said before, I know for a fact that some, not all, people are lying a little here. I'm not saying that you're like me and will let them die because they're ugly, but apperance does change things very slightly for most people. Most people would want to save someone more, even if they were going to save them anyway, if they were very pretty.

I think you are putting on a cynical/superficial front in efforts to seek attention.

Like Spearow, I would flip a coin. I base one's "worth" (for lack of better word) on consciousness and will to live, and for all I know I could be choosing between the life of an elephant and the life of a human in a vegetative state; or between the life of a fish and the life of a happy, healthy human.

 

[Anxiety.]

I think you are putting on a cynical/superficial front in efforts to seek attention.

Nah. Not interested in attention, just interesting in getting in an argument while I'm still angry.

I don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about what was said, it's someones opinion, its not like 1) I'll ever be in that situation, and 2) I'm forcing you to see it my way. I was only explaining my point, any attention after that is awesome, but as I said, not doing for attention. I have better ways of getting attention than annoying people like you lot with my own opinion.

 

[Bay]

Eh, it's just Anxiety's opinion so we should just leave it like that. More concerns about it should be in private (though it's just me).

As for me, it'll depend on a lot of factors. How much I know the person and animal, their injuries and if they'll be able to be saved, how well they treated me, etc. I may not be a huge animal activist to be honest, but I believe both beings deserve thoughts on how should deserve to live if you're under that situation.

I don't really like the appearance question because traits and appearance don't go together, like others have said. I know someone mentioned about higher power. That may be true, but I would judge the leaders on how good they are and their personality. So yeah, I would actually base on traits than on appearance.

 

[twocows]

Nah. Not interested in attention, just interesting in getting in an argument while I'm still angry.

I don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about what was said, it's someones opinion, its not like 1) I'll ever be in that situation, and 2) I'm forcing you to see it my way. I was only explaining my point, any attention after that is awesome, but as I said, not doing for attention. I have better ways of getting attention than annoying people like you lot with my own opinion.

It's just a bit disappointing to see so many people say "well, I'd let a person die based on their appearances." That's all.

 

[Åzurε]

...its not like I'll ever be in that situation...

You really think it won't happen? Interesting, to say the very least.

Such things would depend on the situation in which I'm placed (as many other people have said while comparing differences), but as a general rule, human>animal, regardless of looks.

When I first saw the topic, my thoughts immediately went to whether or not to let a thread die. Yes, there have been those. ><

 

[Red✪Star]

I would try to think of a way to save both them.

Meanwhile, they both die and I just walk away like it never happened.


So, yeah.

 

[*hylian*sakura*]

In a heartbeat, no matter what they look like or who they are, I would save a human life over an animal life. It's an obvious choice to me, and I don't see how I could go on living if I made a different decision. Humans are more important than animals, no matter how you look at it. We feel and think. Animals survive on instincts. It's just so different, I don't understand why anybody would consider saving a creature over a fellow human being. I like animals, don't get me wrong, but when it comes down to it, their lives are insignificant in comparison.

Secondly, appearance would not affect my decision. I don't judge superficially. A person is a person no matter what. Clothes or hairstyles or skin don't determine what's on the inside. Even if someone is drop dead gorgeous, they can be a jerk, and even if someone is more homely, they can be truly sweet individuals. Even if that person I was saving WAS a jerk, they don't deserve death. I would never condemn someone to that fate based on superficial standards.

Anyway, the main point is, no matter what they looked like or what kind of a person they had decided to be, I'd save the person.

 

[Anxiety.]

You really think it won't happen?

You really think I'll be put in the situation of just me, on my own, and I have to save either the Animal or Person, and I'll have no connection to the Animal or Person, and they'll both be in the exact same state? Stupid, to say the least.