Are there situations in which you think society should prioritize saving an animal’s life over saving a human’s life, assuming that it’s an either-or situation and that the saving of one must result in the death of the other?
(Assuming, for this thread, that the human and animal are both healthy, with a lot of life ahead yet to be lived.)
What if the animal is an endangered species?
What if the animal is a beloved pet?
Also, this is a strictly 1-vs-1 scenario; it’s not “Would you rather save one human or 10,000 animals,” or “Would you rather save one animal or 10,000 humans.”
I’m sure there are animals who should be saved over other humans, but that will not be considered acceptable by society. Frankly I’d hate to be put in the position of saving some stranger’s life by letting my best friend Blackjack to die. I do know that he wouldn’t hesitate to sacrifice his own life to protect a human being, the odds are against that stranger doing the same.
But at what point would society draw a line and say, “We should save animals rather than humans who meet *this * level of unpleasantness, but for humans who are not so unpleasant, we should save them rather than animals?”
The implications of a dead animal are nowhere near those for a human being: a human being presumably with a family and friends. You may flippantly answer that animals also may have a family and friends, but it’s nowhere near the same scale, is it?
Animals don’t hold wakes, and funerals and their death doesn’t shatter the lives of their animal mates in the same way a human death would. I mean, it sure is sad when a pet dies, but how does that compare to the death of your brother, sister, mum, dad? No comparison.
Some humans deserve to die independently of saving an animal. In those cases, you should save the animal. In all other cases you should save the human.
True, but I am a member of the human species. In general, I owe my fidelity to other humans before any non-human animal.
I’ll make exceptions, of course. I love my cat, but I’ll save a random stranger unknown to me over her; but faced with a random pet dog (I hate dogs) versus one of those ISIS guys who set behead or incinerate people on video, I’ll save the dog.
I could imagine a situation where, say, that particular animal had been injected with the only sample of the antibodies that cured all cancer, and now the lab is on fire, and I can save it OR some pleb research assistant…maybe then. But I’d have to be pretty damn sure it’s the cure.
Man is the measure of all things. Our purpose as a species is the propagation and welfare of our species. The animals wouldn’t give us a second thought in this situation.
Now, I’m sure someone could contrive a ridiculous situation where the preservation of the animal is better. “Your choices are lassie, a bomb-sniffing dog who has saved and can save dozens of lives, and Adolf Eichmann, an unrepentant Nazi, SS member, and war criminal who was responsible for the deaths of thousands and was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt”.
But a single outlandish situation doesn’t change the outcome of the thought experiment.
A violent sociopath has been killing all the elephants in the zoo enclosure with a machete. There’s blood everywhere, and the animals are screaming in terror. One elephant has fought back, severely injuring the killer, but is also severely injured.
A medic is on the scene, has witnessed some of this, and now can choose to save the dying elephant or the dying machete-wielder.
I would not condemn him if he chose to save the elephant.
Let’s see. There’s a runaway train headed straight for a prison compound, specifically a cell occupied by a prisoner on death row. Who will die tonight. No: in an hour. All appeals have been squashed. The governor is Rick Perry of Texas, who says he doesn’t like to second guess juries. The prisoner happens to be guilty, although you don’t know that for certain.
You are at the switch. If you throw it, the train is diverted to a flower pot with an endangered specie of plant. A medicinal plant with anti-viral properties. Scientists think it might cure the common cold. That’s the only one left. (What is it doing there?)
Anyway, I choose the plant. Oh yeah, the OP is about animals. Well behind the flower pot is a unique colony of hybrid hard shelled turtles, critically endangered of course. Maybe they are attracted to the unique plant. One of its members, Yertle, secretes an enzyme that could be a cure for vertigo.
I choose Yertle. And the plant.
ETA: Cross posts with other contrived scenarios.
To use an extreme example, let’s say for some reason that there’s some kind of calamity that would wipe out an entire species- make it totally extinct. And you’re the pilot of the last helicopter out of the area. You have the choice of saving the last breeding pair of that species, or saving two otherwise unremarkable people without children- no special skills, knowledge, abilities, or even looks.
Who would you choose? (and no silly BS about taking the people’s places in noble self-sacrifice. You’re the helicopter pilot- you get out or nobody does.)
I’d choose the animals- it’s unfortunate that the people would die, but there are literally billions of us, and any two won’t be missed or make any difference at all.
There are some strong parallels to wakes and the effect of grieving a lost mate or offspring that is displayed in some animal species. Elephants go much further with what is similar to a death ritual and visiting the grave area later with a sign of respect.