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

1. 57

   ekstrom002posted 12 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?

   replyreport
   1. 83

      IzzyMposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
   2. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I might leave the choice up to the homeless man.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Me too

         replyreport
      2. 57

         ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Interesting angel, way to think outside of the box!

         replyreport
   3. 63

      prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin 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

         replyreport
   4. 70

      Karen Nposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Very true Karen, thanks for the input

         replyreport
   5. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin 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

         replyreport
   6. 52

      oldog57posted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         klarawieckposted 12 years agoin 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?"

         replyreport
         1. 52

            oldog57posted 12 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
            1. 0

               klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
      2. 57

         ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Great input oldog thank you

         replyreport
2. 91

   Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years ago

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

   replyreport
3. 60

   Disturbiaposted 12 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.

   replyreport
4. 70

   Cagsilposted 12 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.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, your question did ask why?
         
         You asked people to JUSTIFY their choice.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      HarperDavisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
   3. 82

      Lucky Catsposted 12 years agoin 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

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
5. 61

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Disturbiaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
6. 57

   ekstrom002posted 12 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.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Lucky Catsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 57

         ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
7. 57

   ekstrom002posted 12 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Disturbiaposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         A puppy pitta with salad

         replyreport
8. 61

   Eric Newlandposted 12 years ago

   Definitely the man. He's more important.
   
   Plus if you save the puppy PETA will just come along and euthanize it anyway.

   replyreport
9. 82

   Lucky Catsposted 12 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

   replyreport
   1. 62

      janesixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 57

         ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin 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

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
10. 84

    Melissa A Smithposted 12 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.

    replyreport
11. 72

    ThoughtSandwichesposted 12 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.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Melissa A Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
       1. 72

          ThoughtSandwichesposted 12 years agoin 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

          replyreport
12. 57

    ekstrom002posted 12 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.

    replyreport
13. 82

    Lucky Catsposted 12 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.

    replyreport
14. 82

    Lucky Catsposted 12 years ago

    wasting......

    replyreport
15. 82

    Lucky Catsposted 12 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!

    replyreport
    1. 57

       ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       according to who*

       replyreport
16. 60

    Disturbiaposted 12 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.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Melissa A Smithposted 12 years agoin 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.

       replyreport
    2. 57

       ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin 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.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

          replyreport
17. 57

    ekstrom002posted 12 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.

    replyreport
18. 82

    Lucky Catsposted 12 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...

    replyreport
19. 82

    Lucky Catsposted 12 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...

    replyreport
20. 72

    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 12 years ago

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

    replyreport
21. 63

    prettydarkhorseposted 12 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.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       janesixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
22. 82

    kaiyan717posted 12 years ago

    Save the homeless guy, a dog is a dog.

    replyreport
23. 82

    kaiyan717posted 12 years ago

    Great question by the way, lol.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       thanks kalyan717, thanks for your input

       replyreport
       1. 82

          kaiyan717posted 12 years agoin 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?

          replyreport
          1. 57

             ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin 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

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Disturbiaposted 12 years agoin 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.

                replyreport
24. 57

    ekstrom002posted 12 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.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       ekstrom002posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       To Cagsil*

       replyreport
       1. 82

          Lucky Catsposted 12 years agoin 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.

          replyreport
    2. 70

       Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

          replyreport
25. 0

    klarawieckposted 12 years ago

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

    replyreport
26. 61

    Eric Newlandposted 12 years ago

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

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Disturbiaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       

       replyreport
27. 60

    taw2012posted 12 years ago

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

    replyreport
28. 57

    ekstrom002posted 12 years ago

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

    replyreport
29. 91

    Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years ago

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

    replyreport
30. 78

    Michael Tooleposted 12 years ago

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

    replyreport
31. 57

    ekstrom002posted 12 years ago

    Thanks michael, appreciate your input

    replyreport
32. 60

    taw2012posted 12 years ago

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

    replyreport
33. 69

    jennzieposted 12 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.

    replyreport