Can a value be placed on a human life?

[Norris]

Suppose you were confronted with a situation where you were forced to make a single costly decision, save the life of a human being or save the life of something ‘lesser’ (an animal for instance). Either choice, leads to losing the other. Would you be quick to place the person as top priority, no matter the cost in ‘insignificants’? Or would you look at their value as a person, based on things such as how you see them as ‘beneficial’ members of society, to determine whether their level of importance exceeds the other.

Scenario:

A would-be burglar stumbles inside a vet clinic to be only knocked unconscious after greatly underestimating the height of a window. Through this bungled attempt, a fire is started after a water tank spills over onto an overloaded power socket. Hearing this commotion, you walk over to one of the windows and discover this scene. By this time, the fire has taken hold of most of the building. You can hear the howls of dogs and the cries of cats as they sense the danger that is soon to befall them. You can see the assailant lying unconscious on the ground, unable to save him/herself. The choice of who to save dawns on you. You only have enough time to save one. Would you choose the innocent animals, or the human-life that is the burglar? Ignore any legal ramifications that may transpire should you opt for going a certain way. Base you choice on which gives you the least regret.

 

[Alan.]

I think thieves are one of the worst kind of people. I think that it is everyone's duty in life to contribute to society, even if it's just something as small as taking care of someone else's kids. Thieves just leech off of other people and take from society. The animals have done nothing wrong and they are about to die because of this low life. In this scenario I would save the animals.

 

[Despain v.1]

Yes. It certainly can.

I'd save neither, really. Animals are usually smart enough to save themselves in situations with fir and stuff. I'd just unlock their cages, which may take like a second, and get the fuck outta there. They'd follow.

It's simple. The burglar is evil, therefore, he doesn't need to live (or he will survive anyway, but with a terribly scarred face and will vow revenge on you forever).

 

[DESIRE]

Chemically human beings are worth about $2.55, but that is excluding assembly. So if you want to be technical, there is a price for our components but there's pretty much no way you could actually assemble us into what we are. In this case, I honestly probably wouldn't save either unless I could definitely get to the animals. I am NOT diving into a fiery scene to rescue a burglar. I'd only do it for the animals if I knew I'd have enough time to rescue some of them without putting myself in danger. Even then I'm not going to drag them out or anything. Opening their cages should be enough, and if it isn't then let semi-natural selection take place (unless the animal is injured or unable in some way; then I would probably help it if I could).

 

[ryanwh]

Id save my cat over a stranger's life any day of the week. Why should I care about a stranger? Should I care more the more that person resembles me, the closer that person lives to me regionally, and whether or not that person is male/female and if female, attractive? Well I cant, cus its a stranger all the same.

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

It's really quite easy to attribute value to human life... just use the following simple hierarchy:

1. BlackStaticWolf
2. People BlackStaticWolf likes
3. Expendable

:P


Seriously, yes, you can place value on human life. However, I think it's a somewhat personal value-assessment with no right or wrong answers. My family's wellbeing is infinitely more important to me than the life of a stranger.

The life of a child that I don't know is more important than mine... the life of an old man is less important. A member of my family is more important than either of them.

The life of an unjustifiable criminal has no value to me.

There are people who place different weights on different lives, and as far as I'm concerned, they're all valid judgments.

 

[ryanwh]

You're clearly the moral standard, saving someone because it would get you laid.

 

[sandgolem]

I'd save the thief. Unlike you people, apparently, I have morales and ethics.

That thief steals your wallet while you're rescuing him, then breaks into some old lady homes and takes their life savings. Yay you.

I'd go with the animals, unless that person was worth saving

 

[Lene]

Well your example aside...it costs 500 bucks to get an abortion. So, yes values can and are placed on human life.

The abortion argument aside, just look at the fact that the best medicine and treatment is not free and you also have an answer.

 

[Mr.Mo]

That thief steals your wallet while you're rescuing him, then breaks into some old lady homes and takes their life savings. Yay you.

I'd go with the animals, unless that person was worth saving

You can save him and the police would already be ther since it a building on fire. Just give the thief over to the police.

IF you are stupid or weak enough to let him get away, then you are an idiot to begin with.

 

[Wings]

IF you are stupid or weak enough to let him get away, then you are an idiot to begin with.

Like to see you try to pull that off when he has a Glock .45 pointed directly at your head.

 

[Mr.Mo]

wait, if he has a gun, i wouldn't go near him anyways. Not all thiefs carry guns tho.

Edit: the man is knocked out.. Read the story wings

 

[Balore]

I'd save the animals. The robber caused the situation, so he can save himslef.

 

[Norris]

Hmmm… Suppose we take out all our biases that may affect our decision. We look at the two choices as they are. That is a human life and a ‘lesser’ life. Suppose the burglar was replaced with an employee of the clinic, working late into the hours catching up on some lost work. Tripping over some carelessly laid power cords, knocking over the water tank, blah blah blah. Would our choices change then? What if the number of animals were in the hundreds? Thousands? Is one person worth that many ‘lives’? (Ignore the practicalities behind our decisions. Whether it is indeed possible to save 1000 animals is not really relevant)

Also, what if the cost to human lifestyle entered into the picture. The very livelihoods of 10 or so people are threatened by an initiative that led to the destruction of their land. It involved the building of an aqueduct system designed to bring water much closer to a large down with a population of 10,000. No one has to trudge 5 miles over a desert landscape to get to a well anymore. Which side do you consider stands at losing the most? The opportunity to do away with one of the many great burdens of life, or losing one’s way of life? As a side note, this was actually based on a true story in India. Sadly I didn’t watch the show. Just saw a preview of it.

Anyways… so basically, can it be morally right for us to determine significance based on mere numbers alone.

 

[Mega Flare]

in that i would only save the cats and let the dogs and bugler burn to death

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

Hmmm… Suppose we take out all our biases that may affect our decision. We look at the two choices as they are. That is a human life and a ‘lesser’ life. Suppose the burglar was replaced with an employee of the clinic, working late into the hours catching up on some lost work. Tripping over some carelessly laid power cords, knocking over the water tank, blah blah blah. Would our choices change then? What if the number of animals were in the hundreds? Thousands? Is one person worth that many ‘lives’? (Ignore the practicalities behind our decisions. Whether it is indeed possible to save 1000 animals is not really relevant)

The decision is always going to be affected by the situation. In your second situation, most people will choose the human over the animals. Humans tend to be weighed by each other based upon their value to society.

Honestly, unless on of the animals was MINE, I'd help the human in either situation. Burglarly is not a crime then renders one's life worthless, in my opinion.

Also, what if the cost to human lifestyle entered into the picture. The very livelihoods of 10 or so people are threatened by an initiative that led to the destruction of their land. It involved the building of an aqueduct system designed to bring water much closer to a large down with a population of 10,000. No one has to trudge 5 miles over a desert landscape to get to a well anymore. Which side do you consider stands at losing the most? The opportunity to do away with one of the many great burdens of life, or losing one’s way of life? As a side note, this was actually based on a true story in India. Sadly I didn’t watch the show. Just saw a preview of it.

I'm unfamiliar of the law in India, but situations like that in the US are governed by the government's power of eminent domain. This power allows the government to take private land for public use, but they have to compensate the owners fairly.

The situation in India is a perfect example of when the use of eminent domain would be appropriate... a small number of people are harmed by the change (and should be compensated for any property loss), but a MUCH greater number of people derive significant benefit from it.

Anyways… so basically, can it be morally right for us to determine significance based on mere numbers alone.

Yep, it's pretty much where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." From a societal standpoint, such decisions MUST be made based upon numbers alone or society as a whole simply doesn't get what it needs.

 

[Mad Pino Rage]

The validity of this topic is imposed through a hypothetical connotation rather than a logical discussion. The scene provided gives so much information but leaves so little detail giving more room for erroneous thought and biased conclusions. Society is dynamic, and the needs and wants of the individual and whole fluctuate. What may be popular or useful now may be obsolete in the future. If the OP intended to derive response from personal opinion then I apologize for nitpicking. However, I can't be persuaded to think differently from my belief.

I would save the human because I am naturally empathetic to mankind more than other animals. I make this choice based on my love for my fellow human not on my ability to reason and deduct who or what would be more useful to society.

 

[TechBoy2881]

This thread reminds me, oddly enough, of two movies.

Batman Forever

The Riddler has both Robin and Nicole Kidman's character, and he has to choose which to save. Basically, he chooses Nicole Kidman, and if he has enough time, Robin too, hoping Robin is smart enough to save his own pansy hide.

Spider-Man

The Green Goblin has Mary Jane and a cable care full of children, and Spidey can only save one of them. Miraculously, Spidey saves them both, barely.

Those familiar to us are more important to us on a personal level, and we will always try to save them first. But at the same time, its important to try to save both. Wake the burglar up, get him to help you save the animals.

There's always the option of letting all the animals loose, ala Pee Wee Herman in Pee Wee's Big Adventure, saving everything except the snakes, who he grabs, covers himself in, and runs outside.

I love Paul Reubens, even if he is a perv.

Brian

 

[mikejones]

Its strange how you can all choose the animals in this.

i would save the thief without question. I wouldn't even consider saving the animals, they are not worth putting myself in danger for, and tehy are certainly worth no persons life.

 

[Andy6000]

I would probably attempt to get to a phone and call the fire people as quickly as possible (but not break a sweat of course), because I A. hate people that rob me, and B. Hate animals and children (which I'm hoping there's some of in the cages, because that's where they belong). With the phone you have a chance of saving all of them, with the distinct possibility of them all dying and you not having any moral responsibility.