Support NeoGAF

[Lord Error]

People in this thread stating that they would save their pet over another human being are clearly emotional thinkers.

I don't even understand how an emotional thinker could arrive to such a conclusion, as to steer a bus towards a 'foreign tourist'. Man, you're literally destroying the lives of all the people that person has been connected with, his whole family devastated, children he's been raising and feeding now without a father... I'd feel like shit for the rest of my life if I knew I caused that - and for what reason - and that would all be very emotion-driven.

 

[HStallion]

This thread still going strong?



...

Y'all have fun.

I love how so many took what was another facetious post at face value. Listen it wasn't a serious serious breakdown of the value of life, more just poking fun at people trying to put values and weights to whose life is more important and this is from both sides.

 

[Marty Chinn]

It's so silly that this whole sitution seems to have sparked an outcry among some questioning the life of a gorilla vs. a human child. I don't care how or why the kid ended up there or who's at fault. Human life takes priority.

I'm curious, if this gorilla was the last female of her species which would guarantee their extinction, and someone wanting to commit suicide jumped in, would human life still take priority? I can't help to feel that it's not a binary choice where human life always takes priority. With over 7 billion people on this planet, it seems short sighted to say a single human life should always take priority. Instinct tells us to save the person, but logically it doesn't add up in every scenario I would think.

 

[Kurtofan]

I'm curious, if this gorilla was the last female of her species which would guarantee their extinction, and someone wanting to commit suicide jumped in, would human life still take priority? I can't help to feel that it's not a binary choice where human life always takes priority. With over 7 billion people on this planet, it seems short sighted to say a single human life should always take priority. Instinct tells us to save the person, but logically it doesn't add up in every scenario I would think.

the human, no hesitation.

 

[HStallion]

the human, no hesitation.

What happens if we know the kid will be Super Hitler when he grows up and the Gorilla had the cure for cancer in its blood?

 

[Slacker]

I'm curious, if this gorilla was the last female of her species which would guarantee their extinction, and someone wanting to commit suicide jumped in, would human life still take priority? I can't help to feel that it's not a binary choice where human life always takes priority. With over 7 billion people on this planet, it seems short sighted to say a single human life should always take priority. Instinct tells us to save the person, but logically it doesn't add up in every scenario I would think.

Not dramatic enough. Let's say it's the last magic unicorn whose tears cure every disease and a Hitler who is pregnant with ten more Super-Hitlers.

edit: lol dammit HStallion! I promise I didn't see your post before I posted essentially the same damn thing.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

Your assumption is wrong. There is nothing inherently logical about valuing the life of a pet over a member of your fellow species.

Choosing to rescue your pet over a human beings life is prioritizing your emotional state, it's an inherently illogical emotional decision.

How is it determined what is logical and what is not? What makes it more logical to save fellow human than a dog?

I see how many are shaking their heads for people seemingly valuing their dogs life more than strangers. But I'd like to see better explanations for this than just "you aren't wired properly if you don't save human" or something along those lines.

 

[Marty Chinn]

the human, no hesitation.

I don't get why the human, regardless of circumstances, in every scenario, is always the priority. Logically that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[ldcommando]

What happens if we know the kid will be Super Hitler when he grows up and the Gorilla had the cure for cancer in its blood?

still the human. We deal with him when he ascends to power

 

[What did he mean by this?]

That kid might become Hitler 2: Black Hitler.

Statistically speaking, of course.

 

[HStallion]

still the human. We deal with him when he ascends to power

What happens if by killing the Gorilla to save the child, another 1000 human lives are instantly snuffed out?

 

[Shmuppers]

I don't get why the human, regardless of circumstances, in every scenario, is always the priority. Logically that doesn't make sense to me.

We are human beings. Why, logically, wouldn't we hold the survival of our own species over that of another?

 

[numble]

You can kill another human in self-defense, or even to protect another human's life. If Elon Musk posed an imminent threat to a baby, he would be shot dead. But you should think twice if it is your pet.

 

[Azuran]

We are human beings. Why, logically, wouldn't we hold the survival of our own species over that of another?

There's 7 billion of us. One death or a hundred won't cause the downfall of humanity as we know it.

10 people probably just died right now. I am supposed to be crying for them?

 

[HStallion]

We are human beings. Why, logically, wouldn't we hold the survival of our own species over that of another?

Well technically its an interconnected web, not a food "chain". So our survival is actually tied into the mutual success of many many other species. For example if bees die out, we're royally screwed or if perhaps certain pest controlling species died off, we've be overwhelmed by certain common pests. Humanity is "important" but we are hardly the end all and be all of evolution or the top species on this planet, we haven't even been around all that long in the scheme of things.

 

[SillyEskimo]

I don't get why the human, regardless of circumstances, in every scenario, is always the priority. Logically that doesn't make sense to me.

I'm starting to think I would save the gorilla over you.

 

[SecretMoblin]

There's 7 billion of us. One death or a hundred won't cause the downfall of humanity as we know it.

10 people probably just died right now. I am supposed to be crying for them?

What are your feelings about war, disease, famine, and genocide?

 

[DeathyBoy]

There's 7 billion of us. One death or a hundred won't cause the downfall of humanity as we know it.

10 people probably just died right now. I am supposed to be crying for them?

Human empathy doesn't work that way. It works the way it did here, where humans put the life of a child over the life of a gorilla. As they are right to do. And no amount of 'the gorilla didn't want to hurt the child' nonsense will offset that.

 

[Shmuppers]

Well technically its an interconnected web, not a food "chain". So our survival is actually tied into the mutual success of many many other species. For example if bees die out, we're royally screwed or if perhaps certain pest controlling species died off, we've be overwhelmed by certain common pests. Humanity is "important" but we are hardly the end all and be all of evolution or the top species on this planet, we haven't even been around all that long in the scheme of things.

You're right, but where does a gorilla fit into that chain? We don't eat gorillas. Gorillas do not pollinate our plants.

 

[Shmuppers]

There's 7 billion of us. One death or a hundred won't cause the downfall of humanity as we know it.

10 people probably just died right now. I am supposed to be crying for them?

Are you some sort of a machine? If that child had died, would you be the one to say to the parents that "one death won't cause the downfall of humanity as we know it"?

 

[HStallion]

You're right, but where does a gorilla fit into that chain? We don't eat gorillas. Gorillas do not pollinate our plants.

I just think the stance you and others have taken is a bit ignorant and arrogant. We aren't on this planet alone and our survival is intricately intertwined with the species around us. In reality we are far far far more dependent on the animals and plants and other creatures around us than many of them are on us. The world wouldn't miss humanity much if we were to disappear tomorrow unless we left it an irradiated wasteland after our passing.

So the Gorilla doesn't mean much in the scheme of things I suppose, but the general line of thinking of "humanity first no matter what" is not one I support on the whole and in fact that species wide arrogance I feel is what has led us towards many issues we face today on a global scale.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Fucking hell, people here are starting to display borderline sociopathic behavior.

 

[Slacker]

What happens if by killing the Gorilla to save the child, another 1000 human lives are instantly snuffed out?

We kill another 1000 gorillas in retaliation.

 

[HStallion]

We kill another 1000 gorillas in retaliation.

And if a 1000 humans die every time a gorilla is killed?

 

[thetruth1983]

There's 7 billion of us. One death or a hundred won't cause the downfall of humanity as we know it.

10 people probably just died right now. I am supposed to be crying for them?

No, but you should be crying for the gorilla that you didn't even know existed until this week.

 

[numble]

And if a 1000 humans die every time a gorilla is killed?

Well it stops there because you don't have 1000 gorillas to kill.

 

[Astral Dog]

How do we weigh a life's worth? There are far fewer Lowland Gorillas in the world so a male Silverback is more valuable to his species than a 4 year old kid when considering things like genetic diversity and the already scarce nature of the species. Then again the kid could achieve far more in his lifetime than a Gorilla, he could be the next Einstein or the next Obama, and vice versa he could also be the next John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy. So is this Gorilla worth more alive to his species continued presence on this planet than this kid will be valuable to society as he grows up?

Fucked up, yeah lets value a 4 year old kids life and value to society compared to another specied. Revolting.

 

[What did he mean by this?]

This thread needs maybe twice as many stupid hypothetical situations and edgelord posts challenging that humanity is a cancer.

 

[HStallion]

Fucked up, yeah lets value a 4 year old kids life and value to society compared to another specied. Revolting.

Again this post was mostly poking fun at the fact that people can designate goal posts and itemize what the value of a life is. Most of my posts in this thread have been of that nature haha

 

[Marty Chinn]

I'm starting to think I would save the gorilla over you.

Good, so you agree with me that there are situations where the life of a single human being does not always take precedent above all else.

I just think the stance you and others have taken is a bit ignorant and arrogant. We aren't on this planet alone and our survival is intricately intertwined with the species around us. In reality we are far far far more dependent on the animals and plants and other creatures around us than many of them are on us. The world wouldn't miss humanity much if we were to disappear tomorrow unless we left it an irradiated wasteland after our passing.

So the Gorilla doesn't mean much in the scheme of things I suppose, but the general line of thinking of "humanity first no matter what" is not one I support on the whole and in fact that species wide arrogance I feel is what has led us towards many issues we face today on a global scale.

This is what I'm getting at. I'm not saying never kill an animal to save a human being. Hell, I'm not even saying the wrong decision was made in this case. I'm saying it can't be so black and white that it's humanity first no matter what. Logically that doesn't add up. Spock even said so. =)

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

I would value my own dog's life over a random stranger for sure. We are both just animals who have as much right to be here as any other.

Of course in a hypothetical emergency situation, I would do my best to save both.

 

[Astral Dog]

Again this post was mostly poking fun at the fact that people can designate goal posts and itemize what the value of a life is. Most of my posts in this thread have been of that nature haha

Uh, ok sorry

 

[jmdajr]

This is too much.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

I'm curious, if this gorilla was the last female of her species which would guarantee their extinction, and someone wanting to commit suicide jumped in, would human life still take priority? I can't help to feel that it's not a binary choice where human life always takes priority. With over 7 billion people on this planet, it seems short sighted to say a single human life should always take priority. Instinct tells us to save the person, but logically it doesn't add up in every scenario I would think.

Human.

Why on earth is this even a question. If someone's contemplating suicide, they're obviously battling something and are not well. Do you realize that your scenario is suggesting a human life somehow becomes worth less, if said person is ill or going through some hardship?

 

[mikefrails]

If it was my kid I would personally allow it to tear my limbs off if it meant keeping the baby alive. Not everyone is as great or as selfless as myself, though.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Human.

Why on earth is this even a question. If someone's contemplating suicide, they're obviously battling something and are not well. Do you realize that your scenario is suggesting a human life somehow becomes worth less, if said person is ill or going through some hardship?

Because it seems illogical and short sighted to me to cause the extinction of an entire animal species for the life of one human being on a planet of over 7 billion human beings. Does that make sense to you to eradicate an animal species to save a human life? I get the gut instinct reaction to save the human life, but logically it doesn't add up for me.

 

[Shmuppers]

k I'm being trolled

well played gaf

 

[vainglorious]

How is it determined what is logical and what is not? What makes it more logical to save fellow human than a dog?

I see how many are shaking their heads for people seemingly valuing their dogs life more than strangers. But I'd like to see better explanations for this than just "you aren't wired properly if you don't save human" or something along those lines.

If you believe that the life of a pet takes precedence over human life you won't find any better explanations. Arguing any position with logical arguments when an individual is posing questions from a position that is inherently emotional and not rational "I love my pet" or "My pet is like family to me", in the words of Barnie Frank, is like having a conversation with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.

 

[Cipherr]

You worried about kids getting into the exhibits? Most of the time they end up in the closures because of dumb ass parents like this:

Can't find it now, but there was a case where the exhibit had an 6f+ chain link fence and the parent over the top so their kids could see better. Of course the kid fell in and they blamed the zoo.

How do you stop idiots like this? Age restrictions for kids? Intelligence test (for the parents). Electrified fences to keep the humans back? A guard at every pit writing tickets to violators?

Jesus Christ this is infuriating.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

Because it seems illogical and short sighted to me to cause the extinction of an entire animal species for the life of one human being on a planet of over 7 billion human beings. I get the gut instinct reaction to save the human life, but logically it doesn't add up for me.

If you had to choose between having one of your loved ones live vs a whole species of animals, are you really gonna let a person you love (family, friend, significant other, etc) die? We can live without gorillas, but you can't replace a person.

 

[dapperbandit]

If only they had both been murdered

;_;

 

[TM94]

Horrendous news, loved Feel Good Inc

RIP

 

[Marty Chinn]

If you had to choose between having one of your loved ones live vs a whole species of animals, are you really gonna let a person you love (family, friend, significant other, etc) die? We can live without gorillas, but you can't replace a person.

I wouldn't but that wouldn't be a logical decision; that would be an emotional gut decision. I said I get the emotional aspect of the situation, but when you think about it logically, I can't believe that in every possible scenario, the logical choice is to always save the single human life. Otherwise, why do we bother to protect and save endangered animals to begin with? What's the point? Why not just let them die? Why don't we let them be hunted to extinction for our gain? It wouldn't be surprising to me to find cases where people have died for the protection of an endangered animal. To be clear, I'm not saying always save the animal over a human life. I'm saying I don't believe it can always be the human life above all else.

 

[vainglorious]

If you had to choose between having one of your loved ones live vs a whole species of animals, are you really gonna let a person you love (family, friend, significant other, etc) die? We can live without gorillas, but you can't replace a person.

This conversation has become a distortion of the original argument.

This was the original post that derailed the thread into a fantasy morality discussion -

I don't agree with that. If there was a situation where I had to save my dog or a stranger's child I would save my dog every time.

Someone stating that they would choose their dog over an individual human life is a very different scenario from saving one human life versus an entire species. That's much more morally ambiguous. But it's not the conversation the majority of us are having.

 

[JudgeN]

If you believe that the life of a pet takes precedence over human life you won't find any better explanations. Arguing any position with logical arguments when an individual is posing questions from a position that is inherently emotional and not rational "I love my pet" or "My pet is like family to me", in the words of Barnie Frank, is like having a conversation with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.

I'm confused here are you trying to say pets have no emotional value? I can't love my pet? My dog had a tumor and it cost me alot to get it removed, should I just say "fuck it, its a pet no fucks given?"

I really don't understand this lack of value people are putting on pets, when I was younger my dog was instrumental in getting me through some of my darkest days. I can't imagine treating it like a piece of garbage with no meaning. I don't know what I would do if I got put in a situation where I had to choose between a human and my dog but there would certainly be alot of hesitation going on.

 

[OpticalPrime]

just got around to watching the video, my passive observations

the gorilla seemed to be dragging the kid around like a toy
it wasn't outright physically harming the child
it looked like it sat the boy up and checked its butt or something
it looked to be getting aggrevated by the crowd

with how ultra strong these things are, it could break the kids arms / legs / neck without much effort at all, not even meaning to it could of. It is an animal that isn't used to handling fragile human children, it is more used to much stronger ape children ( if it had been a parent up to this point anyway ) so who knows

in the end i dont think the Gorilla would have PURPOSEFULLY hurt the kid. Accidently? Very likely, especially with how it was dragging the kid around.
As some have stated, trying to shoot Tranq's at it would not have done the job instantely and in the time period between getting shot and going down, it could of done serious harm to the kid once aggrevated. If the thing was in full on defense mode, someone jumping into the area at this point would have been a really dumb move. Could of easily gotten killed.

Not sure what other options were available to the Zoo at this point. Tragic event no doubt. Thankfully one that does not occur often

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

I wouldn't but that wouldn't be a logical decision; that would be an emotional gut decision. I said I get the emotional aspect of the situation, but when you think about it logically, I can't believe that in every possible scenario, the logical choice is to always save the single human life. Otherwise, why do we bother to protect and save endangered animals to begin with? What's the point? Why not just let them die? Why don't we let them be hunted to extinction for our gain? It wouldn't be surprising to me to find cases where people have died for the protection of an endangered animal. To be clear, I'm not saying always save the animal over a human life. I'm saying I don't believe it can always be the human life above all else.

We protect endangered animals because maintaining a diverse flora and fauna life is beneficial for us. But that doesn't trump one, single human life. Animals are our resources. Resources that we should strive to treat humanely, but ultimately human life > animal life.

 

[Thornton Reed]

The enclosure they have is actually fairly huge.

I don't think gorillas get upset by the sight of black bars because you know, a zoo isn't a prison, and gorillas don't have the capacity to go "OMG I'M IN PRISON I DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG LET ME OUT I'M INNOCENT!"

I swear the people against zoos are probably just one step away from declaring owning a pet dog/cat as being equivalent to owning a slave.

Worth a read the only thing more upsetting than harambe the gorillas death was the reality of his life

 

[HStallion]

If you believe that the life of a pet takes precedence over human life you won't find any better explanations. Arguing any position with logical arguments when an individual is posing questions from a position that is inherently emotional and not rational "I love my pet" or "My pet is like family to me", in the words of Barnie Frank, is like having a conversation with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.

I can see a variety of times when the saving of an animal over a human wouldn't be the strangest or more controversial outcome. A blind man or woman who relies on a seeing eye dog as their constant companion would need that creature to help them with both the most mundane of activities to those that are vital for getting by in the world. This creature is basically their liaison with the rest of the world and damn near an extension of the person themselves.

I can easily see this person saving their dog over a random persons child, its not just a pet, its that persons way of living their life in a somewhat normal fashion and while saving it might be a very emotional experience for all those involved, its not just done based purely on emotion. A seeing eye dog is takes a huge amount of training from a very young age and a large investment from everyone involved from trainer to owner, its not just a dog that makes them feel good, its their life.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

I also blame the parents. How did they allow the kid to fall into the reserve?