jump to last post 1-33 of 33 discussions (83 posts)

Who do you save from death: either a homeless man or a puppy?

  1. ekstrom002 profile image59
    ekstrom002posted 5 years ago

    Before you a puppy and a homeless man are dying from a poison they both unknowingly consumed. You have an antidote, but only enough to save one of them. Who do you save? How do you justify your choice?

    1. IzzyM profile image87
      IzzyMposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I would save the old dosser.

      Some here would no doubt save the puppy, but whether or not they will admit to it is another story.

      1. ekstrom002 profile image59
        ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You would be surprised how many people will choose the puppy! Human life is devalued these days. Thanks for the input

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I might leave the choice up to the homeless man.

      1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
        Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Me too

      2. ekstrom002 profile image59
        ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting angel, way to think outside of the box!

    3. prettydarkhorse profile image65
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I will try to save both. I will divide the antidote into two and apply what I know about first aid while calling 911 . I will decide whether I will drive the puppy to the nearest vet or just wait for the 911 call whichever is the fastest way.

      1. ekstrom002 profile image59
        ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A lot of people want to save both, and I understand where you are coming from. In this circumstance there is absolutely no way to save both, though. It's one or the other

    4. Karen N profile image60
      Karen Nposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      To me all life is important, but you just can't value the life of an animal over that of a human. So I would of course save the man.

      1. ekstrom002 profile image59
        ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Very true Karen, thanks for the input

    5. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A loaded question.

      Perhaps, if we rely on evolution for the answer, we most likely would save one of our own species.

      And, if it were known to the authorities we saved the puppy and not the man, there could very well be legal and criminal repercussions.

      1. ekstrom002 profile image59
        ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Good response a troubled man, that's very true. Mankind, as a species, sometimes can be each others worst enemy. It is as if we are devolving

    6. profile image60
      oldog57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This question is really rhetorical, in that few people really value the life of a puppy over the live of a person. I think you'r just fishing for reactions, so here's mine: WE (humans) are masters of the earth. All the natural resources of the planet, including all the other animals, are here only to serve, clothe, feed, or entertain us, in any way we as humans deem necessary, proper, and appropriate. Case closed, the puppy dies.

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Have you not seen the following movies - The Birds, Jaws, Anaconda, Moby Dick, Orca, Them!, King Kong, and Cujo? You still want to call yourself "master of the earth?"

        1. profile image60
          oldog57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely. If a thug gets the better of me, and steals my wallet dos that make hime my master? it only makes him a thug. Wild animals ARE "mastered" by humans every day. But no, I would not feel terribly superior to a great white while I was treading water in his deep blue sea, but there is no doubt which species is superior.

        2. Eric Newland profile image61
          Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I would be feeling pretty humbled if those movies were non-fictional.

          1. profile image0
            klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I hear Hitchcock was the pioneer of Reality TV. Shame he didn't meet the Kardashians! Imagine the possibilities!

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
              Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hitchcock wouldn't put up with the Kardasians...

      2. ekstrom002 profile image59
        ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Great input oldog thank you

  2. Daughter Of Maat profile image97
    Daughter Of Maatposted 5 years ago

    I'm not sure how many honest answers you'll get with this question.

  3. Disturbia profile image61
    Disturbiaposted 5 years ago

    Obviously I would want to save both.  I'd give the antidote to the puppy and call 911 for the guy.  The puppy can't save himself and the poison would probably kill the smaller puppy more quickly it would a fully grown adult male.

  4. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    I guess someone would ask a question like this.

    Why do people constantly pit animals vs humans? I'll tell you why because animals appear to closer to humans in consciousness than anything else in existence.

    People love to examine other people's moral compass. It is intriguing to constantly see people test other people. The irony is that the person who started asking questions like this, is likely to have no clue about their own moral compass to begin.

    Having said that, I liked Distrubia's answer. For me to agree completely with her answer, I would need more information than what is presently known. But, her answer is the most rational based on the information already known.

    1. ekstrom002 profile image59
      ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The question wasn't to ask why the question was created.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, your question did ask why?

        You asked people to JUSTIFY their choice.

    2. HarperDavis profile image72
      HarperDavisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As an eagle, I totally understand why your feathers are ruffled. Rock on eagle, rock on.

    3. Lucky Cats profile image78
      Lucky Catsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Cagsil, in the past I have disagreed w/you vehemently but...and I am very happy and pleased to say this...I concur COMPLETELY.  Your answer and that of Disturbia are the intelligent and reasonable ones...it's funny; I just wrote my answer (below) and then scrolledl up to see others' replies and immediately saw yours.  Thank you for the logical and sane reasoning as well as pointing out the nature of questions such as this one.  Kathy

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes Lucky Cats, we have disagreed in the past. Nice see you though. Been a while. smile

  5. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    Give the antidote to the puppy. Feed the puppy to the homeless man.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are one twisted puppy yourself ( lol ) but very creative answer.

      1. Disturbia profile image61
        Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I like that answer, but I'd rather give the antidote to the man and feed him to the puppy.

  6. ekstrom002 profile image59
    ekstrom002posted 5 years ago

    It is not possible to save both, it's one or the other. Everyone wants to, obviously. But that is not the question a hand.

    1. Lucky Cats profile image78
      Lucky Catsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      which makes this a question meant to cause derisive and hateful comments; not honest, thoughtful and heartfelt discourse.  Really unnecessasry.

      1. ekstrom002 profile image59
        ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No not at all, actually. It's a higher education question. It would appear as if you are not up to par with it. It's meant to make people think. That might be frustrating for some.

  7. ekstrom002 profile image59
    ekstrom002posted 5 years ago

    Exactly, justify why they feel which one is more deserving of life.

    1. Disturbia profile image61
      Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Puppies are more loyal then men.  That's my justification.  Besides, some day I just might have to eat that puppy myself.

      1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
        Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A puppy pitta with salad

  8. Eric Newland profile image61
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    Definitely the man. He's more important.

    Plus if you save the puppy PETA will just come along and euthanize it anyway.

  9. Lucky Cats profile image78
    Lucky Catsposted 5 years ago

    I think this is an unnecessary and harmful question which stirs questions about human nature offering an "either - or" solution rather than endless, and probable, possibilities.  Who knows what would happen until the actual moment?  And, it really isn't necessary to pit humans against animals; animals against humans in today's world...we need unity, not divisive thoughts.  This is all relative and hypothetical and only serves to feed negativity. Sorry

    1. janesix profile image61
      janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, lets pretend the world is only filled with flowers and rainbows, where moral dilemas dont exist.

      1. ekstrom002 profile image59
        ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Janesix, my point exactly. You couldn't be more right, some people can't deal with pressing issues and get frustrated by it. It's kind of sad

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's not sad. What is sad is the fact that people love to question other human individual moral perceptions. It's a fruitless question.

          Perceptions are based on knowledge(including experience) and Wisdom(discerned truth). If anyone has their perception skewed by faulty knowledge or logic, then true rationale and truth will not exist. Since the person doesn't know their perception is skewed, then their own ego will then get in the way, preventing them from learning anything new.

          They will have and hold the belief which they have feel true and since ego is in control, one will have trouble realizing that they are actually deceiving themselves.

          This question is ridiculous in and of itself because there's a difference between "morality" on a societal stance than there's with a person's individual conscience. The Human Conscience is what you should live by and not what you think is morally acceptable.

          When you're going to discuss morality of any kind, then you are discussing nothing more than a human made concept which is about one's own actions and how they are perceived.

          1. ekstrom002 profile image59
            ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            if you can't handle the question, leave the form. Your contributions are not worth anything, if you are questioning the nature of asking the question itself. You are avoiding the answer to the actual question. If you do not have one, then good bye.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It's a public forum and I am a Member of HubPages. If you don't like, too bad.
              I'm not questioning the question itself. I am simply stating why the question was asked in the first place. I could dig deeper into it if you would like? However, since you seem to think that my knowledge(including experience) has no value in your conversation, then I guess you being reluctant to engage, means you're discussing something which you know nothing about.

              So, in essence, you asked this question so you could learn more about yourself?

              I answered your question, yet it seems to have escaped your perception. Hmmm.....yet another tell revealed.

  10. Melissa A Smith profile image92
    Melissa A Smithposted 5 years ago

    The responses to this are...rather strange. I'll lay it to you right now, the puppy doesn't "deserve" to live more than the homeless man, and viceversa. Humans however do have a social contract to help each other, the same way a pack of wolves or ant colony would help each other over a human. It's perfectly natural. What if the 'homeless man' was your daughter or best friend, how would you feel if someone saved the puppy before them or jeopardized them by trying to save both? Nothing against the puppy at all, but that's just how it is. How would these people feel if the animal was 'less cute' like a rat or a food cow? Then they'd have no issue at all. Does cute = deserving to live? Not for me. This is something I have an problem with. No wonder people get more upset when a 'beautiful' person dies. Some dogs contribute to our society however, but it's to be assumed this puppy hasn't. I'm also confused why the man has to be 'homeless' as if this is a reason he doesn't deserve to live.

  11. ThoughtSandwiches profile image86
    ThoughtSandwichesposted 5 years ago

    Hmmm...too bad you didn't make the question easier, "Would you save  a millionaire or a puppy?"  I would vote puppy.  As for the actual question posed...I would vote puppy.  I just like puppies.

    1. Melissa A Smith profile image92
      Melissa A Smithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you wouldn't save me if I had a million dollars? No wonder I love people so much.

      1. ThoughtSandwiches profile image86
        ThoughtSandwichesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        hi Melissa...I would need to stand by my statement.  If for no other reason  that a puppy wouldn't attempt to confront me with such a moral dilemma.  If it helps...I believe I did also say I would pick the puppy over the homeless guy...so...no anti-elitism here...more just pro-puppy.  That said, I will follow you on Hubpages as your profile is an interesting one. 

        Thanks,

        Thomas

  12. ekstrom002 profile image59
    ekstrom002posted 5 years ago

    For people like Lucky Cats, who feel that they need to be aggressive and that this question was meant to cause harm, it's not. A professor of psychology prompted me with this question. I think someone with a PHD has all the qualifications to show that this is not a question to cause fights. It is meant to see how many people devalue human life. Questioning human nature may be uncomfortable to some people, but if you cant deal with it don't post on the form. No one wants to hear why the question is so risque. You are waisting others time with your pointless comments.

  13. Lucky Cats profile image78
    Lucky Catsposted 5 years ago

    Assumption:  how some people devalue life.  You're looking for particular responses based on this assumption.  Your question is biased..."it is meant to see how many people devalue human life."  It isn't uncomfortable...it's provocative .  Easily dealt with..I see your point, though.. If one doesn't necessarily agree with you, then you'll "disinvite" their contribution.  Excellent.  ..I rest my case. case closed..I would offer you the same advice; if you can't take an alternative view/opinion; don't place yourself in the midst of others who will, definitely, offer opposing views .   t's human nature.  PS...holding a PHD holds no water if you're using that as evidence of validity.

  14. Lucky Cats profile image78
    Lucky Catsposted 5 years ago

    wasting......

  15. Lucky Cats profile image78
    Lucky Catsposted 5 years ago

    Oh, for heaven's sake..."educational?"  Really?  According to whom and to what purpose?  How many time sin the past have we read/heard the question:  "if a child were drowning and a puppy was drowning, also...which.....?"  tired.  Again, with the personal attacks rather than discussion...tired!

    1. ekstrom002 profile image59
      ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      according to who*

  16. Disturbia profile image61
    Disturbiaposted 5 years ago

    I don't get the point of the man being homeless.  The choice is between the man or the puppy.  Is the puppy also homeless or does it belong to Bill Gates?  Are we supposed to feel more sympathetic towards a homeless poisoned man over an average working poisoned man? 

    What if the choice were between a poor man and a rich one?  Would we be more inclined to help the rich man in hopes of a reward?  What if the poor man is working 3 jobs to support a family of 6 or 7 kids?  There is no end to where this could go, but really, it's just the same old "would you save your mother or your wife" question.

    1. Melissa A Smith profile image92
      Melissa A Smithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Right, I think that making the man homeless is borderline offensive. Or is that the point? I guess you're less of a human if you aren't successful or beautiful.

    2. ekstrom002 profile image59
      ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, the homeless man aspect of the question is to make people look down upon him. When viewing the two, in a way, one might see a cute puppy more appealing than a homeless man. Someone might then devalue human life in their decision. If the puppy was compared to a more affluent person, the answers probably wouldn't vary as much.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't look down on homeless people... While I am an animal lover, people always come first.

  17. ekstrom002 profile image59
    ekstrom002posted 5 years ago

    What you are saying, Lucky Cats, makes no sense. The question is meant to be provocative. And, having a PHD does give validity, You are free to agree or disagree with the question at hand. That is what the form is for. But, when you question the form itself, and attack the creator, you are not contributing. You are making a fool of yourself and trying to clam that someone with a PHD in psychology is not qualified to ask a psychological question. Your argument is oxymoronic.

  18. Lucky Cats profile image78
    Lucky Catsposted 5 years ago

    Ok...I give...I'm ;not going to get into this with you.  You have your take, I have mine and others have theirs....I give...not going to be pulled into this forever...I have a life to live...

  19. Lucky Cats profile image78
    Lucky Catsposted 5 years ago

    Good question, Melissa...and a pertinent one..there are so many variables and conditional suggestions in this question that it is not absolute and not at all representative the  devaluation of human life or any response which may be entered here... it's relative...

  20. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image82
    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago

    Before I answer, I want to know if the homeless man is an atheist.

  21. prettydarkhorse profile image65
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    I stand by my answer, the question is not scientific -  It is a subjective question based on a person's values - things they value, ethics and furthermore morality bordering on philosophical.

    1. janesix profile image61
      janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Its designed to be that way. Its not supposed to be scientific.

  22. kaiyan717 profile image81
    kaiyan717posted 5 years ago

    Save the homeless guy, a dog is a dog.

  23. kaiyan717 profile image81
    kaiyan717posted 5 years ago

    Great question by the way, lol.

    1. ekstrom002 profile image59
      ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      thanks kalyan717, thanks for your input

      1. kaiyan717 profile image81
        kaiyan717posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I always wondered why people get more upset from animal death in movies (Bambi, Old Yeller) than we do from human deaths.  Desensitized?

        1. ekstrom002 profile image59
          ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Great point! It's just the way society is now-a-days. It's kind of sad how desensitized we have become. I suppose animals appear as more innocent

          1. Disturbia profile image61
            Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes I think you have a point.  People can take care of themselves, they can speak for themselves.  If this man is homeless and starving in the streets and has eaten something poison, well it can be argued that it's his own fault because he has responsibility for himself and he has let himself come to this end.  However, a puppy just doesn't have that much of a choice about what happens to it.  So, I think the puppy, and animals in general, evoke protective instincts within us, just as children, who also don't have much of a say about what happens to them, do.   As for society now-a-days, well if you know anything about the past, we are probably less "desensitized" to human suffering than at any other time in history.

  24. ekstrom002 profile image59
    ekstrom002posted 5 years ago

    The purpose of the form was not to get into the psyche of the person asking the question. Your dodging the question by doing so. The only one trying to escape is, well, you. Answer the initial question and I will have a conversation with you. Otherwise, I will be ignoring any further comments by you as they are a waist of my time to read. By the way the statement: "I'm not questioning the question itself. I am simply stating why the question was asked in the first place. " contradicts itself.

    1. ekstrom002 profile image59
      ekstrom002posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      To Cagsil*

      1. Lucky Cats profile image78
        Lucky Catsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ok, here's my 'mia culpa.'  First of all, ekstrom002, I apologize for offending and being offensive in my first reply to your question.  I have many immediate and several delayed responses to it.  First of all, it is an oft used type of question; we've seen it in many forms previously (as is indicated by other responses).  You will receive so many types of replies...some emotional, some reactionary, some meant to be offensive, some based entirely on logic, some based entirely (or as much as can be...ditto logic) on emotion.  some will give it considered thought; weighing as many aspects as possible before committing 'pen to paper.'  There will be biased answers, fearful, antagonistic, forceful, and challenging responses.  Some will answer with attitude; never meaning to give you their actual feeling or diagnosis of the 'meat' of the question.  Because we are such complicated beings; we will resort to, rely on,  and, perhaps, intentionally use deceptive antics to skew the outcome.  All this DOES speak to human nature but, I have doubts that this forum is truly going to produce a ''scientific" study of humans' disregard for our own (or not).  We are capable of so many variations of behavior when faced w/such a question in such an arena.  That is the beauty (and detrimmental quality) of our basic selves.  Because this has been asked in so many forms before, there is a gut reaction and a "been there, seen that...done that" potential for attitudinal responses.  The objectivity pretty much is muted...not entirely, of course....(nothing is absolute) but...potentially.  Also, there is the tacit assumption that there is something negative about some replies as they prove a (?) point about humans' lack of caring for other humans (should they answer in a particular fashion.)  Anyway...here's my apology along w/an attempt to explain my earlier comments.  No offences intended.

    2. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And, like I have already stated. I answered your question, as irrelevant as it may be, it's answered.

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Duh! Save the puppy...they're good to eat.

  25. profile image0
    klarawieckposted 5 years ago

    Depends on how good looking the homeless man is. Got enough ugly in the world as it is! big_smile

  26. Eric Newland profile image61
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    Wait, is the antidote delicious? They might both have to die.

    1. Disturbia profile image61
      Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol

  27. taw2012 profile image62
    taw2012posted 5 years ago

    I would save the homeless man, because i don't like puppies.

  28. ekstrom002 profile image59
    ekstrom002posted 5 years ago

    I'd like to thank everyone for their comments on my form, it was a great turn out

  29. Daughter Of Maat profile image97
    Daughter Of Maatposted 5 years ago

    I'd save the puppy. But I'm a misanthrope anyway.

  30. Michael Toole profile image49
    Michael Tooleposted 5 years ago

    That's a hard one, okay it's not definatly the puppy, they are so cute, Great question! smile

  31. ekstrom002 profile image59
    ekstrom002posted 5 years ago

    Thanks michael, appreciate your input

  32. taw2012 profile image62
    taw2012posted 5 years ago

    Hey people, I have a doubt. Is antidote for human and animals same?

  33. jennzie profile image84
    jennzieposted 5 years ago

    Well, if the antidote was only enough for one I would probably give it to the person and take the poor puppy straight to the vet! I wouldn't leave the poor little guy to suffer, but I admit that a lot of the time I feel like I like animals much more than people.

 
working