Hypothetical situation, concerning morality/philosophy

You work in a lab. Next to your office there is an ape that is extremely intelligent--has the intelligence of say, a five year old child. It can speak in sign-language, paint, express its wants, feelings, etc. The ape is content and has a high quality of life and enjoys good health.

Down the other end of the hall there is a severely mentally retarded person. This man is about as developed as a two-year old child. He has a hard time expressing himself, does little all day and his life has little joy. He also is in poor health.

One day there is a terrible accident and the building catches on fire. You run out of your office and the building is about to collapse in a matter of minutes. Both the retarded man and the ape are trapped in their rooms.

You have time to save either the ape or the man, who do you choose to save, and why?

What a question! I guess I value human life over any other animal, so I would save the man. He would have human family that loves him.

RedBedroom wrote:What a question! I guess I value human life over any other animal, so I would save the man. He would have human family that loves him.

Yeah, some things are a given, even if you can logically rationalize otherwise.

I'd feel bad for the ape but I gotta go with everyone else and say the guy.

Would save the human.

IA that the human life is more valuable, especially when you take into consideration the others (family) attached to it, and more worth saving.

I'd save the human. De-value human life and you de-value all life. The ape's intelligence is irrelevant.

I generally agree that human life comes first, so I'd save the man; plus while the ape may have slightly more common sense, that wouldn't be any guarantee that it would behave rationally in this chaos. And since Apes are *much* stronger than humans, and can kill with their bare hands, I wouldn't want to deal with one in a hectic situation.

Chris wrote:I generally agree that human life comes first, so I'd save the man; plus while the ape may have slightly more common sense, that wouldn't be any guarantee that it would behave rationally in this chaos. And since Apes are *much* stronger than humans, and can kill with their bare hands, I wouldn't want to deal with one in a hectic situation.

To me this is the best (and most truthful) answer so far that I agree with. In the heat of the moment (no pun intended) when you are running into a burning building chances are you are going to try to save the person/animal that is closest to you and that you will have the easiest time "saving" first.

Unless you are specifically looking for someone close to you like your child or someone's baby, it's unlikely that you would pass by a retarded person in poor health who's behind the first door you pass in order to save a healthy person who's two floors up behind a locked door. You'd save the first person you could get to in the interest of time and ease. In the case of man vs. ape, you can't be sure how the ape would respond in a panic and as Chris pointed out they are much stronger than you are. Logically, you would save the man first (whom you could reasonable control better), then if there is time go back and save a trapped animal.

If you're talking about a situation in which you simply had to make a conscious choice between the two, IF the man had a family who was concerned about him, I'd save him first. If he didn't and the ape did, I'd save the ape. That may sound f*cked up, but it is what it is. I don't see the point of going out of my way to save someone who has a poor quality of life and who won't be missed over a highly intellegent animal that has a high quality of life and who will be missed. Humans are only animals too!

Chris wrote:I generally agree that human life comes first, so I'd save the man; plus while the ape may have slightly more common sense, that wouldn't be any guarantee that it would behave rationally in this chaos. And since Apes are *much* stronger than humans, and can kill with their bare hands, I wouldn't want to deal with one in a hectic situation.

ITA with this. The ape stands a better chance of getting out on his own, anyway, as he has superior strength. I also wouldn't want to tangle with a panicking ape. I'd save the man.

I'd save the human first. If the choice were between two humans, I wouldn't chose the person who I thought was more intelligent to save*, so the ape's intelligence really doesn't matter to me. I would regret the loss of such a magnificent animal, but human life is human life.

Also I think that I would be afraid of the Ape in such a chaotic situation.

*If the choice were between people, I would save the person I thought I had a better chance of saving. If the chances were equal, I would save the person I had a closer relationship to. If they were both strangers, I would choose the person I came to first, or the person who had the least chance of getting out on their own.

Makes you wonder how Jane Goodall would handle a situation like this. Of course, I'd save the human.