Poll: The Value of a Human Life

[Erttheking]

I find it rather unlikely that you would know if the person was a murderer, and besides, how do you know that the DOG didn't kill anyone?

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

A cliff?

What kind of scenario is that?

You need something more realistic, like a drowning, involving whirlpools and a number of very specific individuals.

I lol'd.

OT: This discussion is silly, but the person. I love my cat, but I recognise a human life has more potential worth than a cat's.

 

[krazykidd]

A few years ago I got into a small argument with a Spanish teacher in the middle of class. The disagreement stemmed from the statement "I love my dog, but if I was put in the position of having to save him or a person, I would save the person." (The scenerio being a human and an animal both somehow hanging from a cliff) I felt this was a perfectly reasonable statement. The teacher disagreed. She rebutted with "What if that person was a pedophile or a murderer?" Now I thought that was kind of an extreme response, but fair enough. Challenging me to an extreme I stated that I felt no right to end another human life because that would make me no better than a murderer. The teacher moved on with the class after that to talk about nachos or some shit leaving me to feel that I had won a hollow victory. So Escapists, who do you think was right in this?

TL;DR:
Am I wrong to think that a human life is something I don't have a right to end? Or was my teacher right in thinking that letting someone die is justifiable?

What you should have said is : " what if your dog had previously murdered babies ".

OT: Human life > animal life . But people are selfish so if it's "their dog " they will want to save their dog over a stranger . Now because people are inconsistant fucks the animal / person makes a difference . Is it a dog, cat, wolf , dolphine , chicken etc.. Makes a difference . The cuter the animal the more people will be inclined to save the animal . Also man , woman , teen , child , baby , will also change the answer people give . I'd bet my arm , if the question was dog or baby , your teacher would have said save the baby . Hell i bet if it was a woman , she'd save the woman .

All that being said , hypothetical situations are pointless , and people say a whole but of stupid shit "hypothetically " but when a real situation like this happens , the do something completly different.

 

[karloss01]

Not really the case... If people lose a pet they grieve for about 6 months to a year in most cases. However if people lose a friend or family member they end up grieving for the rest of their life! In most cases over 20 years!

Whichever way you put it saving the human is going to cause the LEAST emotional stress for all involved.

again, it depends on the person. I still grieve for a dog I lost back in 1995, got an album with every dead relative and pet that i've known (sort of a persoanl memorial to them for me) so if you said to me "sorry, i picked the stranger over your dog." I will file a case against you just like if I picked my dog over a stranger i would get sued too.

either way value of life of various species varies from person to person. there is no way to gauge emotional stress of someone.

 

[King of Wei]

I'll save whichever I can get to first, whichever is closest and easiest to rescue. I don't value human life more than any other animal.

 

[Soundwave]

I think basing the decision on the approximate continued life span of the two entities in question is reasonable. In most cases it'd be the human, but if it's an old guy with maybe two years to live you can figure he had a good run and let it end there.

TLDR: Humans>Puppies>The Elderly>Dogs

 

[Ryank1908]

I would save my dog. Would I feel good about it? No, probably not, because someone has just died and I could have feasibly done something to prevent that, but if a companion (animal or human) of mine that I've known for so long and spent so much time with was in trouble, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I let something I love die.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

A cliff?

What kind of scenario is that?

You need something more realistic, like a drowning, involving whirlpools and a number of very specific individuals.

Haha yeah, I vaguely remember that thread from a few months ago and if I recall nothing good cam out of it because increasinly more and more arbitrary restrictions and scenarios were being placed.

But what if the man was the President? What if the man was Hitler? What if Hitler was the President? What if the man was a psychotic sex offender and would almost certainly stab/rape you if you rescued him?
What if it was your dog? What if it was your man? What if the man was a selfless animal lover and was telling you to save the dog? What if the dog was an intelligent talking dog, a la Brian Griffin?
What if the man and the dog were both mannequins blaced there by a bored psychologist who wanted to see what people would do? What if the man and the dog were metaphors for the sanctity of human life and our duty to care for other species, with the cliff symbolising apathy?
What if the man was you from the future? What if you didn't like his beard?

What if?
What if?
What if?

See, this is why I really don't like moral dilemma questions like that. They start off with an implausibly specific scenario, and then as the debate goes on people add more and more modifications to the premise to try and convince everyone that their decision is the right one.

In fact, there is no 'right answer', it all comes down to the personal ethics of each individual. We can say "Oh, I'd save the human every time", and give reasons for it, but if you were ever in the situation you might choose differently for some reason.

And because everyone's answer is the right one for them, no consensus is ever reached, and we just end up with an increasingly heated debate that never goes anywhere, which is exactly what happened in the infamous Drowning in a Whirlpool thread.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Right...so a complete stranger and my dog are both hanging off a cliff, and I have to save one of them, but not the other. Because naturally you'd save both if you could no matter who the person was. (Well, maybe if they murdered your parents or something you'd leave them there).

My dog is a pomeranian and if he's holding on by just his claws, I'm definitely saving him, that's a champion effort. With that sort of willpower the other person can pull themselves the f*** up by their fingers if they have to. It's useless arguing that they could be a rapist or murderer unless you know that for a fact, and even then, leave the judgment to the courts. Maybe they'll be eternally grateful and find a new lease on life. Pity for them I love my dog more.

Although I like to think I have no emotions, pets are srs bsns. And come to think of it, there are about 4 close friends and several family members I might choose over my adorable dog in that scenario.

ACUTALLY. I REVISE MY ANSWER. I have the excellent fortune of having a small dog. I would use an arm for each. If I'm saving a person from a cliff they don't expect to be freeloading.

Animals can be replaced. People cannot!

...and how is that the case? You're about as likely to get the exact same dog again as you are to get the exact same human.

 

[immortalfrieza]

It would be hard to find a human being I'd be willing to sacrifice one of my cats in order to save, or even some random cat on the street. Why? It's because most people, quite frankly, suck while you have to push most animals pretty far in order for them to be dicks.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Is there wirlpools under this cliff? At any rate, the humans

 

[Kevlar Eater]

If it was my beloved dog or some random stranger. Most definitely the dog, because the stranger would probably forget what happened the next day. At least the dog would show some kind of appreciation, whereas the human would be like "I could have saved myself, you prick".

 

[WanderingFool]

There is no right or wrong answer to a "What would you do" scenario.

This. Those scenarios are more a test of you character and beliefs. You believe that human life is ore important than a dog's (or probably any animal's) life. Personally, my choice would depend on the information I have, If I new of what the murder had done, than maybe I would let him fall. But that said, these situations are almoast always built with a secret third option [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption] that lets me be completely victorius. And if not, avenge both the person and dog by finding the guy that did that too them and beating his head into paste with a sledgehammer.

 

[katsabas]

I don't play by the rules of the question. I find a way to save both of them. That 'you can only save one' crap gets on my nerves.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

I see this thread going well.
If anyone is asking for me, tell them I am preparing a thread about sentient cliffs killing everything, even sentient whirlpools.
And everyone will be a dog.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

In life, I value two things above all else, good conversation, and tasty food, people are good for both, dogs aren't even that tasty.

I'm voting for saving the human.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

People are always more important than animals. Always.

Humans are the most important animal in the world.

ACCORDING TO HUMANS.

Am I wrong to think that a human life is something I don't have a right to end? Or was my teacher right in thinking that letting someone die is justifiable?

Technically you don't have any "rights" at all. Whether or not you kill a man or kill a hundred men is ultimately irrelevant, really, save for whatever moral value we choose to attach to your actions as humans. Unless you are a religious man, or you believe in karma, the world attaches no value whatsoever to your moral beliefs. They won't save you from a miserable life, or a violent end. They won't ward off sickness or hunger. They only have value if the people around you choose to assign value to them. And even then, their value is ephemeral at best.

If you believe that saving the person is the best thing to do, then by all means save the person. Your brain, believing you to have chosen the ethically superior path, will reward you with dopamine. If you believe saving the animal is the best thing to do...well, you see where I am going with this.

Now this might sound like some serious meta-ethical moral relativism, and I guess in a way it is, but that doesn't mean I endorse moral relativism in life. It's just not practical. But this isn't life, is it? It's a stupid hypothetical. So you can apply whatever hypothetical morality you want to it and be right no matter what you choose.

Also, we did the "human vs animal, who would you save" thing a month or two back. It didn't end well. There are people on this board that keep several high horses in their stable specifically for threads like this.

 

[Korolev]

Absolutely save the person, unless they're someone horrible like a slave trafficker or a serial killer. A human life has so much more potential than an animal's life.

 

[repeating integers]

There is no inherent value to any life, considering the size of the universe and how small the Earth is by comparison. I'd say just decide on a subjective, case-by-case basis.

 

[CommanderL]

If it's my dog I save it over anyone its saved my life before but if it was a strangers dog' I would save the person Things I care about before strangers