Would you rather save an animal or a human who is a pedophile/rapist/murderer/serial killer/terrorist/etc?

[Anonymous]

Usually I find it quite silly when someone says they would rather save an animal than a human, but in the case of the type of people mentioned in the title, I do actually kind of understand it given this context/scenario.

If you're wondering "what kind of animal"... any animal, really. Any animal that isn't a human being. Cat, dog, flea, mosquito, lizard, frog, shark, snake, bed bug, cockroach, tick, snail, slug, worm, monkey, dolphin, centipede, tarantula, hippo, polar bear, wasp, etc, whatever.

Usually given most contexts i'd save the human, but for those type of people... I don't know... I just don't know if I can have any sympathy for them...

An animal

A human who is a pedophile/rapist/murderer/serial killer/terrorist/etc

[Kaneki05]

Ah but your forgetting a important part, an animal who is a rapist, killer etc because animals do that all the time.
If you are trying to save a dolphin well dolphins are known as the assholes of the sea for a reason, they don't mind rape nor brutally attacking other sea creatures for no reason.

You could save a polar bear but then it could just also eat you. And it has no worries about slaughtering seals.
Then you've got wolves, ya know they like to breed young right? And there is a few more examples of animals committing pedophilia but to them why would they care?

The only thing that makes us humans not want that is the society we've built but without it well murder would be normal along with the rest.
So theoretically it's the same thing.

It's save the human who's been told by other humans what they do is wrong because society. Or save the animal who hasn't been told because there is no such society for them.
But both equally do the same acts.
Humans are the weird imposing our society views onto others not the animals, if we didn't this question would mean the same thing. Therefore no difference.

Personally I would just save whatever I liked more because there is no factual answer it's just all subjectivity.
Cat vs such human, cat going to live. Dolphin vs such Human probably human.
And because is also personal bias I would admit that if the human is also a girl I am more likely to save her.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

It depends on the probability I'd estimate of the human criminal committing the same crimes in the future.

If a serial killer just murdered two people right in front of me and dangling off a cliff, I don't think I'll bother to save them even if no animal is in danger to rescue instead. To save them might just result in more people becoming victims of this serial killer.

Meanwhile, my pet cats take priority over complete strangers. I have a stronger responsibility as their caretaker than to some random stranger.

I'm not a utilitarian because I don't believe we should assign equal value to all living creatures. A mother should not place a stranger on equal value with her child as she has greater responsibility to her own child than a stranger. Each individual subjectively varies in terms of their responsibilities to others and so I don't think, as individuals, we should be weighting all lives equally. We should prioritize lives over which we personally have the greatest responsibility.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

So if, for some odd reason, I have to choose between my pet cat or a starving child in Africa, I'm choosing my cat. It's not because my cat is more valuable. It's because I am responsible for my cat's well-being; I am not responsible for this stranger of a child.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

That said, if the mother of this starving child has to choose between her child or my cat, she should choose her child as she has responsibility for her child's well-being. I will choose my cat because I am responsible for my cat's well-being.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I think all pet owners actually do this to some extent if we take on the most expansive utilitarian views like those of Peter Singer. With all the resources I've spent on my pet cats (originally strays with serious health issues) on feeding them, sheltering them (destroyed a lot of our furniture), vet bills, getting them nice toys to play with and cat tower, etc, those same resources could have likely been spent to save some starving children in Africa.

So in a way I am prioritizing my cats over human lives at the broadest utilitarian level, but I don't think this is unethical because I took responsibility over these cats and not the lives of every single human being on the planet. I don't have unlimited resources or the energy to be responsible for every single living creature on earth. I have to prioritize.

That said, if there was a case where a random stray cat and a random human being were dangling off a cliff, I'd, with a heavy conscience, lean towards saving the human being first if I don't think I can save both since I do place higher value on human lives than animals. Yet my responsibilities shift those values and priorities subjectively for me.

[DaisyM23]

i normally don't understand people who pick animals over humans but in this case it's an easy decision to save the animal lol

[Agape93]

So an animal, or something akin to bacterium?

Animals, all day long.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Humans are animals.

I'd rather save a non human animal than any human tbh, unless I know that human, and/or they make a positive difference in my life, or unless its a parasitic or infected animal.

If given the choice between saving a human I don't know, and a lion, I'm saving the lion, because they're an endagered species.

I tend to avoid crazy people, so saving one is unlikely.

[strateguy632]

the question is impossible because everyone IS innocent until proven. and can appeal even after proven... so all human innocent must save. all. until the injection day of death penalty.

[PeachyPie93]

I would choose an animal regardless. I don't like people much.

[DagonbroughtMehere]

Animals specifically fully domesticated (IE Dogs, Cats, Birds some Horse breeds, basically any Animal generally allowed into the Family and completely dependent on Humans.) are not only Innocent but it is an act of Treachery to abandon them.

[Roxilicious]

In my opinion, I would rather save that animal than have to save a monster.

[Jamie05rhs]

I would absolutely 100% save the animal before I would even consider saving the "animal."

[tfan1]

Always a human and in this case, you wouldn’t know what they have done in their past. Literally you are saving a human being’s life.

[Anonymous]

Animal. But usually I agree, people who choose animals over people are ridiculous

[Asker]

TL;DR The vast majority of people deserve a second chance, even if they're assholes. A dolphin or a monkey will always just simply be a dolphin or a monkey. But pedophiles and the like are just too truly disgusting...

Same here, pretty much. If the person is an average person at least, it's completely ludicrous to save an animal over the person. Even the "most intelligent" animals are still basically mentally disabled compared to human beings. Technically dolphins, monkeys, and dogs are supposed to be the "smartest" animals, but they've got nothing on human beings. Not even close.

Or EVEN if the person is below average... like let's say they're an asshole, but not a truly evil heartless psychopath or anything. No one really likes an asshole, but the asshole still has the power to change. And remember they probably also have acquaintances, friends, and family who will miss them if they're gone.

Rapists, pedophiles, murderers and those types of people are truly irredeemable in my opinion, but I still believe the VAST majority of people deserve a second chance, even if they're assholes and not likable people.

An asshole can change and become a good person. A dolphin... will always be just a dolphin. Nothing more, nothing less. Ditto for any other "intelligent" animal, like dogs or monkeys.

[DarkLegacy]

Yes i agree with you that it is silly to save an animal over a human, it goes against nature. We are there to further our own species.

[Kykiono1]

All murderers, pedophilles etc are different. It really depends on the person.

But really no, unless its a pet I really care about.

[Apple1996]

Definitely the animal

[Yannae]

The person. Their walk of atonement hasn't ended yet.

[OddBeMe]

It’s an interesting ethics q. But how would I know? What percent am I sure he’s guilty? Obviously the rapist/killer is a man.

[WhyohWhy69]

The bunny in my backyard is a terrorist? Well that just gave me less faith in life.

[Staximus]

I'd rather save the animal being an animal over a human being an animal.

[AngryCarl]

If it's a dog or cat I'm saving the animal. If it's a rat I'd let them both die.

[Anonymous]

Animals, too many people around let alone scum like that

I'll eliminate them and enjoy it too

[laly520]

would save the animal

[exitseven]

I pick the animal. a dog or a cat would be nice.

[butterly248]

Save the animals ❤️

[Asker]

Yeah, agreed... at least animals aren't actively endangering society like those evil humans I mentioned.

At most an animal will eat another animal in the wild because of the food chain. But that's where it ends. Now a pedophile or child molestor is truly dangerous to society as a whole.

Unless of course you do something stupid, like wander into a river full of alligators... but that'd be your fault. That situation could've been avoided.

[Drumlin2001]

Neither