Either/Or? I’d just take some of each; that seems fair.
I’d save Phelps - because it seems the right thing to do. Right as in the opposite direction of wrong things such as picketing funerals, etc.
The world might well be a nicer place without Phred, but I’m not going to become a monster to bring that about.
Anyway, is this gold just floating there? How?
I don’t believe that all human life is intrinsically special and worth saving. Giving people in general the benefit of the doubt is a healthy practice for a civilized world, but the specific human in this case does not respect that concept: he’s dedicated his life to increasing the misery of others, including his own family. I could watch him drown without a shred of guilt, and that’s even without starting on any justifications such as expenditure of lifeboat resources, the principle of the greatest good, or the chest of gold.
I’d save Phelps. Not because I think the world’s a better place with him in it, but because I couldn’t live with myself if I let another human being die. It would haunt me for the rest of my life. It’s a purely selfish act, but there it is.
I would rescue Phelps because it would allow me to feel even more of a sense of moral superiority to him than I normally do. I could then sit in the lifeboat and stare at him. Smugly.
Maybe… offer to save him if he promises to stop all the public gay-hating. Give him a choice.
Oh, and, of course I would have my waterproof camcorder to document what he says.
This. Public polls are usually my default option.
Suppose he goes on record telling you he’d rather die that give up his sincerely held religious beliefs.
The camera goes to the bottom – so does he.
Did you just agree with a statement to the effect that you’re trying to evaluate individuals for your own purposes? Something about that makes me kinda itch.
Unlike many of you, I don’t feel any obligation to treat all people as if their lives have value. Yes, there’s a default value if I know nothing about the person, but for people I know of, there’s a certain level of respect that has to be earned.
I have lost literally hundreds of friends to AIDS, and Phelps’ minions taunted us at many of their funerals. I’d be shitting on my friends’ memories if I saved his life.
I want the Magic Floating Chest of Gold.
He is one of the exceptions whom I have a moral obligation not to save. The sharks can have him…there is sharks, right?..If not, can it wait til we reach shark-infested waters? 
This is how I’d have it go down.
Me: “OK, Mr Phelps. It seems we have a dilemma here. I’ve been gay since I was born and also an atheist too. I currently hold the fate of the rest of your life in my hands and I also have the delicious option to get a lot of gold. If you’re saved by a gay atheist, it will be all over the news which will give you the chance to denounce everything you’ve said. You will also have to spend the rest of your life and insist the same upon your family to make reparations for all of the funerals you’ve picketed, all of the problems you’ve created, and all of the frustration you’ve generate. You have 5 seconds to decide while Tallulah Bankhead and I start pulling this magically floating gold chest into our lifeboat.”
fred we could eat him if we need to cant eat gold 
and even if he did not kill or ect his ranting lies help contribute to hate and those who hate have committed crimes
Exactly, I’m glad he showed himself to be a villain before he achieved elected office(Whilst he was still a respected human rights lawyer, he came close to getting the Dem. nomination for governor). Having someone with his bigotry influencing Democrat homosexual-rights policy would have been an utter disaster.
This is a tough question: not because I’m choosing between “save a human life” and “have a bunch of gold,” but because I’m choosing between “have a bunch of gold” and “have an ability to deeply undermine Fred Phelps’s ugly message.”
Depends how much gold.
why isn’t half of both a Poll option?
Hijack: I am 73 years old and to the best of my knowledge I have never seen the word “supercenturian” before today. And now I’ve seen it twice in 15 minutes in two widely different contexts. Amazing!