Cute kittens versus dirty homeless people.

[lechat]

This is something that has bothered me for years now so i figured i'd just lose the last remaining portion of my faith in humanity once and for all and ask the question.

So years ago i was watching a tv show (possibly the man show) and a question was posed to a bunch of women "would you rather save 10 cute kittens or one smelly homeless guy?" The answer was if i remember correctly a resounding:

Now i would like to think that apart from a few extremist environmentalists that would rather wipe the human race off the face of the planet the majority of people would value the average human life higher than a dog or a cat or a cockroach but where do you draw the limit?

If i was driving 100kmph down a highway and 10 cute kittens ran in front of me i would probably risk my own life to swerve out of the way but if there was a burning building and i could only save the kittens or the homeless guy i would have to save the human. however change the dirty homeless man to an axe murderer and the 10 kittens to 20 puppies and things would most likely be different.

The question really isn't about kittens and humans it's more in the value of a single human life and the way we place different values on the lives of different people, If in the original interview the question had been save a child or 10 kittens the answer would have without doubt been the child so somewhere in the middle lies the point where a human life is no longer worth saving.

It doesn't have to be kitties and homeless guys but where fellow escapists does that line lie for you?

 

[Colour Scientist]

I imagine the vast majority of people, when actually faced with a real scenario, would attempt to save the homeless person first.

I've been wrong before though.

 

[Armadox]

Save the homeless guy, demand a life debt for it, and add him to the collective. Eat the kittens.. All is well..

 

[Queen Michael]

Aw, and I was hoping for a fight thread.

 

[Bizzaro Stormy]

I suppose that would depend on whether they were both in peril or whether it was a battle to the death between the kittens and homeless man. Then again I guess it would be the homeless guy in both cases. Kittens are great, but man eating kittens could be a problem...

Captcha Gregory Peck. Wait he's the homeless guy?

 

[Lilani]

Given a choice, I'd definitely save a human before animals. As much as I love cats, I could never live with forfeiting a human's life for some animals.

 

[tippy2k2]

Let me guess...the thing that's about to kill these ten kittens and/or the homeless guy is a whirlpool of some kind? I'm onto you lechat!!!

Maybe it's because I'm a cold and calculating son of a ***** but there is zero question that I would save the person over animals. Doesn't matter if it's 10, 100, or 1000 kittens of the cutest variety, I'm saving the person. To go back to the whirlpool, as much as it would suck, I would allow my dog to go before I would allow a person to go.

Unless somehow I knew with 100% certainty that the person I was saving was like...Hitler or something, I value the human life above all others (although like your example of swerving for a cat in the road; I'm willing to risk my own life if that would save an animal...I mean....within reason of course). Sorry Lassie, I know it's unfair to you that I choose a person over you because you're a dog but life's unfair.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Have to value human life over kitten life. I still wouldn't enjoy having such a decision put into my hands though.

Certain circumstances could influence my decision, but I'm still going to be heavily weighted towards saving the person in most situations.

 

[tilmoph]

Damn, those little kittens are going to haunt my dreams for fucking years, their little "save us" kitten cries are gonna have me crying. I'm never gonna get the image of their little furrie forms burning, all the pain their little, uncomprehending baby selves are gonna be feeling, out of my head. But I have to save the human. Morality and all that. Plus, I don't know how I'd carry out 10 kittens, since a-fucking-pparently I can't go back and save both.

Can I just give the homeless person a hand in saving themself, then save kittens? Like, homeless or not, they're still a human. Humans are usually fairly clever. can I just clear an obstacle and let the human pull themself out, or better yet, help me save those poor kittens? Or coordinate with other humans to save the kittens without having the sacrifice the homeless? Come one, there has to be someway to save those kittens!

 

[Tiger King]

This reminds me of a tell tale scenario, and we all know that means there is no right answer.

Scenario one would play out like this....
Save the homeless man, homeless man shouts at you for not saving the kittens.

Scenario two would be saving the kittens and getting shouted at for not saving the homeless man.

The last scenario would be to do nothing. Both the homeless man and kittens survive/die and you get shouted at for doing nothing.

In all seriousness though, I would try to save both with my priority being the homeless man.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Depends on whether or not a whirlpool is involved...

Seriously though, I'd go with the kittens every time. It doesn't even have to be a homeless person, I'd save 10 kittens over pretty much any stranger, even a child. I just don't like people all that much.

 

[Padwolf]

Sorry to say it, but I'd go with the kittens. It's not that I don't value human life or whatnot, I mean, of COURSE I'm going to try and save both. It's just that I value animal life on the same bar. Probably because I grew up around them and see them as part of the family rather than family + animals. Reason being is that those kittens have no idea what's going on other than their mother is not there, they know they are in danger. They can't save themselves at all. A homeless person would be more likely able to help me save the kittens and get us all out of there. I'd try and save both, of course I would. But hey... it's not a real scenario, and how likely is it that I'm going to be in that scenario? Oh who cares, there's no real right answer here anyway.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

To be honest, there are roughly 7,000,000,000 humans on this planet, and that's about 6,000,000,000 too many for my liking. If the guy is homeless, then at best he would be living in an area with a tough economy and no jobs, and at worst he could mentally ill and/or a drug addict.
Assuming this person is simply living in a tough area, then it seems like they could do with fewer humans.

I would probably still save the homeless guy if faced with it in reality, but in theory I would say the kittens would probably be less of a burden upon this world.

 

[Timeless Lavender]

I love animals but a human life is very important, so of course I should save the homeless man since humans have more of an impact on the betterment of the world than kittens (I prefer puppies tho).

 

[The Bucket]

I think most people would save a person over animals no question, but sub consciously most of us are more saddened by violence and cruelty against cute animals than against random faceless people we dont know. We largely get more of a rush of sadness at the idea of a little kitten getting shot than some dude

 

[Bat Vader]

Seeing as how I have extreme Social Anxiety I would save the kittens so I wouldn't have anxiety when being praised by the homeless guy.

 

[Fox12]

The homeless guy takes it. He's got survival instincts, and a lot of homeless men are ex-military. Result? 10 dead kittens and 1 well fed homeless man.

Oh this isn't a fight? Well then, the answer is simple. The homeless man. Why is this even up for debate?

(seriously, kittens are evil little shitburgers).

 

[Risingblade]

What makes you think I'd save anyone...

 

[Godhead]

I would probably save the whirlpool.