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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a person raised to believe in the message that has been preached for years about God and Jesus, and what they can do, and how merciful they are, I have never been able to understand why people continue to pray to...