Cute kittens versus dirty homeless people.

[CrystalShadow]

Well, as much as I love kittens, I also know cats breed too fast, and in Australia particularly, really mess with the local wildlife.

So, saving kittens is innately not an obviously good thing to do anyway.
But... Kittens. ^_^

Ahem. Anyway, it is kind of sad that people react that way...
Still, I've heard worse things, and seen just how much contempt some have for anyone that is down on their luck.
(The stories from America always seem to be especially shocking... Something about the mentality of 'Your fate is in your own hands, so if you're in a bad place it's your fault and I have no sympathy whatsoever' is unbelievably grating)

But yeah, a little messed up in some ways.

 

[Seanfall]

So would I somehow be seen as being 'less moral' if I chose the Kittens? Is it wrong for me to go 'Oh no innocent animals!' The question as posed is too vague for me to make a choice. For all I know it was the Homeless guy's fault. See that's the main issue for me. The Homeless man...might be at fault. While the Kittens, as animals are therefore innocent, they are in more danger when you think about it. Unable to reason as we are they panic. Not that a human wouldn't panic in say....a burning building.

Also why 10 kittens specifically?

But again...the situation is too vague. It depends on who I'm in a position to save. I'm not going to run Past the Kittens to get to the man. I'm not going to run past the man to get to the Kittens.

It's just...I'd honestly...feel more guilty for leaving the Kittens. I'm sorry that's...just how I feel.

Maybe it's cause I work in retail...spend enough time doing that and anyone would start to question the value of human Life.

 

[L. Declis]

Looking at it from a legal perspective as well, helping a homeless man is far more dangerous than helping ten kittens.
If he is injured by your help, or even if you try and fail to save him, you face potential legal charges or perhaps being sued.
He may be mentally unstable, high on drugs, or some other reason he is homeless. Going near him may be dangerous.
Finally, I am going to assume he has the mental capacity to sort himself out of danger, or he put himself in the danger in the first place. I also know that many of the homeless commit crimes by pretending to be peril to put whoever helps off guard or isolate them.

It's simply much safer to help the kittens; they don't have a knife and I don't have any reason to fear them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Save the human. Until the situation comes up, in which I can't be sure I'd not be one of the person that'd walk past a homeless person in danger, even if there weren't kittens.

 

[Gunner 51]

With what little information the OP has given me, I'd probably save the kittens first - then come back for the human. Plus I don't exactly know the particular circumstance or danger I'd be placing myself in when it comes to rescuing the kittens or the human.

But I should point out that I hold the life of a cute animal in a higher regard than people.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

In most cases people would save the homeless guy, at least that's what I believe and what I'd do. I do generally place human life above animals, although I think animals deserve a lot more respect than many certain members of the human race. I think the situation could change rather drastically knowing the background of the person in peril.

What would be a more interesting scenario is saving ONE cat or dog, that is YOURS, or a homeless person.

 

[Overusedname]

What would be a more interesting scenario is saving ONE cat or dog, that is YOURS, or a homeless person.

That and a whirlpool was the original version of this 2 year trend of 'who would you save' escapist forum posts.

If we can all be real for a sec: There's a conflict. A good pet owner is directly responsible for the care and safety of that pet, and to keep up appearances people in these topics pretend that emotional and ethical connection does not exist, and they favor the stranger with no hesitation. I've been surrounded with pet owners my whole life. They'd hesitate, and it wouldn't be easy, and it's horrible that people try to genuinely guilt people into the 'right answer' on either side. It's a different situation than random animals, we all know it, but we deny it. These topics tend to get real gross real fast because of the mentality of both sides.

It's also a situation that basically can't happen in real life, so that's why I just come to these topics to make jokes. You may as well literally ask the real question: 'Would you sacrifice any animal every time to save a person you didn't even know in an impossible scenario you'll never face?' Because all of them boil down to that one question.

Would I? I'd save them both with my robust biceps, lightning fast reflexes and my telekinesis, because that's as realistic as this moral quandary is.

I'd always spend money on my kid's operation over the family dog's operation if I couldn't afford both. Debate that one because that can actually happen.

 

[Niflhel]

Most people would probably pick the homeless, but I'm willing to bet the majority of those people would be more quick to notice and help a kitten on the street.
"A kitten! Aww, I bet it ran away from its owner. I should help it!"
"Homeless guy? Where? Oh, right next to my feets. Probably on drugs."

 

[Teoes]

I'd rescue the man, cry over the kittens and then:
1) If whirlpool involved, make paper boat and send it into the vortex;
2) If fire involved, toast marshmallows.

Nooooo, before the "ism" SJW-pocalyse, it was the animal rights lunatics that caused the slagging match threads on here. So many sociopaths saying they'd save a dog over a person...

Sigh great days....

What's this? A thread involving kittens and homeless people? Tiiiiiiiime to bring up the dirty SJWs! Can't be having a discussion without them.

 

[Rednog]

The thing I find most fascinating so far is that people who say humans usually have a short post that essentially boils down to a human life is more valuable than an animal's life. But the people who chose the kittens have to go through some pretty fantastic mental gymnastics to try and validate their point; the the extent where they above and beyond the basic question.
It's one of those horrible realizations that I hope people come to when reading people's responses. You could be in a situation and like how some people are justifying letting the man die because oh he might be a drug addict, he might be mentally ill, he could be responsible for the fire. These same people and others like them could choose not to help you in a situation because of your race, gender, ethnicity, looks, etc.

 

[the December King]

It always breaks my heart, these sort of questions, as I really don't know what I would do in the heat of the moment (so to speak). Realistically, I might not even know that there were kittens/a homeless man in the building, what with fire and smoke and all. And I am not really trained as a fire fighter, so I might not be the best hero on-hand(similarly, the idea of me jumping into a whirlpool to save anyone, pet or otherwise, is ridiculous, as I can barely swim).

That and a whirlpool was the original version of this 2 year trend of 'who would you save' escapist forum posts.

If we can all be real for a sec: There's a conflict. A good pet owner is directly responsible for the care and safety of that pet, and to keep up appearances people in these topics pretend that emotional and ethical connection does not exist, and they favor the stranger with no hesitation. I've been surrounded with pet owners my whole life. They'd hesitate, and it wouldn't be easy, and it's horrible that people try to genuinely guilt people into the 'right answer' on either side. It's a different situation than random animals, we all know it, but we deny it. These topics tend to get real gross real fast because of the mentality of both sides.

It's also a situation that basically can't happen in real life, so that's why I just come to these topics to make jokes. You may as well literally ask the real question: 'Would you sacrifice any animal every time to save a person you didn't even know in an impossible scenario you'll never face?' Because all of them boil down to that one question.

Would I? I'd save them both with my robust biceps, lightning fast reflexes and my telekinesis, because that's as realistic as this moral quandary is.

I'd always spend money on my kid's operation over the family dog's operation if I couldn't afford both. Debate that one because that can actually happen.

Good analysis of the situation, I say. And your follow up question is too hard to ponder, because I can totally see something like that coming for me, and will deal with that when I have to, and not before. And in the spirit of this point of view...

I'd save the homeless man, but he had better be fucking physically crippled or otherwise really in trouble, and not just standing around loafing in the burning building, or drunk, or something. Or else I'll kill him myself!

...

That was all a joke, just to be clear.

(I'd save no one from the fire I started.)

 

[the December King]

The thing I find most fascinating so far is that people who say humans usually have a short post that essentially boils down to a human life is more valuable than an animal's life. But the people who chose the kittens have to go through some pretty fantastic mental gymnastics to try and validate their point; the the extent where they above and beyond the basic question.

That's because some can see that other people will attack them for the perceived trading of a human life for a 'lesser' one. They don't need to justify it to themselves, they just need to show the mob why chose what they chose. Who, in typical fashion, mostly won't listen anyways.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

Honestly, I'm more inclined to save the kittens than the homeless person. I have a hard time trusting random people, and I at least know upfront that kittens are assholes!

 

[JoJo]

I'm fortunate in this regard, I'm not particularly emotionally attached to animals so I wouldn't have any problem saving the human in this case. Sure kitten are cute but so are pigs and lambs and that doesn't stop me tucking into a slice of them at the end of the day

 

[lacktheknack]

I knew a smelly homeless guy named Steve. I like the smelly homeless guy named Steve. The smelly homeless guy named Steve was nice to me when I was a kid.

The idea that people would leave him to die in a fire in exchange for kittens makes me a grumpy bear.

 

[Lilani]

The thing I find most fascinating so far is that people who say humans usually have a short post that essentially boils down to a human life is more valuable than an animal's life. But the people who chose the kittens have to go through some pretty fantastic mental gymnastics to try and validate their point; the the extent where they above and beyond the basic question.

That's because some can see that other people will attack them for the perceived trading of a human life for a 'lesser' one. They don't need to justify it to themselves, they just need to show the mob why chose what they chose. Who, in typical fashion, mostly won't listen anyways.

Probably because people expect decent behavior from other people, and someone who professes to do indecent things to others isn't seen as a good person. Given there are actual legal implications for failing to save another person if doing so is reasonably feasible and safe for you, the only encouragement someone might have to not save a person is to be an asshole and watch someone else die.

In short, when you say "fuck you" to the world, don't be surprised if people turn around and say "fuck you too."

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Eh. Anthropocentrism has never struck me as a very compelling or cogent world view. I'm not sure the people who champion it in these threads realize just how crazy they sound. According to humans, humans are the most important species on the planet. Brilliant stuff.

Without attaching any extra conditions, like the man is secretly a serial killer or cures cancer, I'd PROBABLY save the man. Although if he's really that dirty and homeless he might not be that keen on being saved. The man is more likely to have an immediate understanding of his plight, is likely under greater psychological duress, and depending on his age will likely enjoy a longer lifespan than the kittens in question.

If it was MY kitten though? He gun' die.

 

[sageoftruth]

There's quite a bit of variety to dirty homeless men. Some I would save over kittens, and others I'd wouldn't save, even if kittens were rocks instead.

 

[the December King]

The thing I find most fascinating so far is that people who say humans usually have a short post that essentially boils down to a human life is more valuable than an animal's life. But the people who chose the kittens have to go through some pretty fantastic mental gymnastics to try and validate their point; the the extent where they above and beyond the basic question.

That's because some can see that other people will attack them for the perceived trading of a human life for a 'lesser' one. They don't need to justify it to themselves, they just need to show the mob why chose what they chose. Who, in typical fashion, mostly won't listen anyways.

Probably because people expect decent behavior from other people, and someone who professes to do indecent things to others isn't seen as a good person. Given there are actual legal implications for failing to save another person if doing so is reasonably feasible and safe for you, the only encouragement someone might have to not save a person is to be an asshole and watch someone else die.

In short, when you say "fuck you" to the world, don't be surprised if people turn around and say "fuck you too."

Fair enough, Lilani, although none of these are reasonably feasible or safe- these are not realistic scenarios. Also, the encouragement to be an 'asshole', as you put it, might be a little more nuanced than that, but you seem angry, so I guess I'll try to explain how I see it: because maybe, in their lives, other people have already heaped on a big fat dose of 'fuck you' to them already, or perhaps their pets were loyal and trusting, and meant something to them in a way that gets triggered when you see a similar animal in peril... is this so hard a concept to grasp, that some people have found more friendship in animals, and that they would do their best to save them?

Apparently so. After all, I said I'd save the goddamn hobo. I don't hate hobos. I love kittens. I know it's 'right'. I was hoping more people would at least try to understand the other points of view.

 

[Pinkamena]

Those are some really unlikely scenarios, man. What are ten kittens doing in the road?