CreateDebate


Debate Info

40
37
Former Latter
Debate Score:77
Arguments:112
Total Votes:77
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Former (36)
 
 Latter (34)

Debate Creator

Harvard(660) pic



Value: Would you Save 3 Tiger Cubs or 1 Human Baby?

Note: There are approximately 4,000 tigers and 7,000,000,000 humans.

var value = quantity

If we quantify value, tigers would objectively be, by virtue of math, more valuable than humans. Therefore, if one chooses the human baby in lieu of the three tiger cubs, their choice would be a result of irrational[1], internal partiality toward human species. 
---
[1] In this context, 'irrational' is used given the choice of the one human baby, despite the forementioned value assignment.

Former

Side Score: 40
VS.

Latter

Side Score: 37
2 points

Unless the baby was my own or family or the baby of somebody I knew, such as a friend or even an acquaintance, i would opt to save three cubs over one infant.

As a biologist I am fully aware that we h. Sapiens are merely one species out of thousands on this planet. And as such are no more valuable than any other. And in view of the drastic population differences between tigers and humans, as you mentioned, I think my choice here makes logical sense. Although it is surely going to be criticized by many here.

Side: Former
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Oh thanks a lot Slappy. People I know who you do not know are of less value to you than three tiger cubs. I would kill 3000 tiger cubs for 1 baby, even if that baby were you when I was a younger man and you were still in your mother's womb. You or any person is worth more than all the tigers in the world. Evolution is twisting your brain into something evil.

Side: Latter
Amarel(5139) Disputed
2 points

What if you know the baby is the antichrist. ?

Side: Former
Amarel(5139) Clarified
1 point

And as such are no more valuable than any other

No more valuable to whom?

Side: Former
2 points

How in the world do people think this is an intelligent question? If you don't know a person is worth more than all the tiger cubs in the world, I have to wonder how many devils are controlling your mind.

Side: Former
1 point

As you see there are many possibilities out there, both lives are important, but in this case I think that I would choose to save a 3 tiger cubs than having to save one baby. According to www.createdebate.com there are 4000 tigers left and when thinking of this tigers are almost extinct and it is more valuable to save 3 Tiger Cubs than saving one human baby.

Side: Former
1 point

It would be incredibly arrogant for us to think that a human's life is automatically superior to any other race simply because they are human. At the stage that both the cubs and the baby are at, neither of them are important enough to impact much in the grand scheme of things so why would anyone favour the baby over the cub?

Although I would find it morally difficult to not save the baby, you must take morality out of the question and do what makes sense. If you do not save the cubs it is even more likely that tigers as a species will reach extinction quicker, with such a small population of 4,000. If one baby ceases to exist, as they do regularly regardless of this ultimatum, there is no way that that child will contribute massively to the extinction of the human race, as there are 7,000,000,000 more of us to keep the species going.

I would also like to point out to the people whose point is that humans are capable of better things and have better qualities and skills, that tigers have impressive abilities also. Humans can rationalize. Humans are an efficient race in many ways.

Tigers can leap 23 feet. Tigers can take down animals 4 times their size. Can humans do that without any aid?

It's unfair for us, the race in question, to decide what abilities and skills should be valued the most.

Now, for what I would actually do in the situation. It all depends on what I know. Without knowing any of the facts, I would instinctively save the baby, as I'm sure a tiger would save the cubs. However, if it was an ultimatum where I knew everything about the situation, I would understand that the cubs are the ones who need saving. An unfortunate quality humans have is selfishness, and even knowing what I knew I may even save the baby.

In short:

It would be morally challenging to not save the baby.

It would be stupid to not save the cubs, as you would be taking part in killing a whole species.

P.S. This was written at 2.30am so I get there will be mistakes and things I haven't covered so point them out, but don't be rude. Cheers

Side: Former

No contest. It wouldn't be a pleasant choice, but the human baby's life would be worth all the tiger cubs in the world.

Side: Latter
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Once in a while I see you say something like this which shows intelligence. Why do you always look so stupid when you comment in my discussions?

Side: Former
1 point

What a pheasant plucker you are.....................................

Side: Latter
1 point

It is nearly insanity that this is even a debate. A human life, no matter how deplorable, ALWAYS trumps that of an animal. The fact that it is a baby, considered the most pure and innocent of our kind, you would think the choice is clear. It is scary that anyone living in society would ever value an animal's life over a human. Save the baby.

Side: Latter
Cartman(18192) Clarified
1 point

Can you explain why a human life is more valuable than an animal life? That would help your argument.

Side: Former
instig8or(3308) Disputed
1 point

Can you explain why a 50 dollar bill is more valuable than a 20 dollar bill? Both are dollar bills. Herpaderp.

Side: Former
stevewode(7) Clarified
1 point

If you include religion, God gave man dominion over animals. If you don't want to include that, you could say "Survival of the fittest." Without human rules, animals would be wiped out. Many animal species have gone extinct where humans have not. Humans are superior. A tiger cub will do nothing to further life on this planet. The human might. It isn't a difficult argument in my mind.

Side: Former
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Humans are animals, so why would one animals life trump another?

Side: Former
luckin(176) Clarified
1 point

what is it about a human that makes them an animal? Last time I checked, humans were the only ones that were sapient.

Side: Former
Amarel(5139) Clarified
1 point

Human life properly trumps animal life in the context of human value, which is the only valuation we can give.

Side: Former
1 point

That's the plain simple and obvious truth. If the unnamed person is not worth three tiger cubs, neither are you and you can be disposed of whenever somebody in power decides you are unwanted. That's the thinking of evolution and atheism...it's the indoctrination flooding young minds today making them think they are something special if they devalue human life. It's an evil force with an agenda, and that agenda is to purge and reduce the global population so those who think they rule the world will have it for themselves when you are thrown to the tigers.

Side: Latter
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

If you believes God created animals you should be on the side of protecting animals, since God created them. If, however, you believe that we came from an evolutionary process you would be not inclined to save the humans because that helps the species out. You don't know what you are talking about.

Side: Former
1 point

Philosophically I agree with saving the tiger cubs, but as a father with two infants of my own I know my instinct and action would be to save the human baby. Right or wrong that's what I'd do.

Side: Latter

all animals are privileged in the fact that they have humans looking out for them. considering that tigers could feasibly be a part of a terraforming project down the line, humans raised to be intelligent are more valuable to all species on earth, because humans are the only feasible way that I see, that any animal will survive the next mass extinction event. -boom-

Side: Latter
Harvard(660) Disputed
2 points

Your entire argument is premised on the idea that this baby will be essential in saving the human race and some other nonhuman animals from mass extinction....

I suppose one of those tigers may grow up and save an engineer who is nearly finished with solution for climate change....

Notwithstanding, you are falsely equating privilege with protection; and further falsely suggesting that this (protection) is currently practiced.

Privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

If I am not mistaken, it is a lawful right to kill nonhuman animals for human pleasure (sport, clothes, food) and not the inverse. If I am not mistaken, humans are advantaged as you suggested when you implied that the one baby would be saved over the three cubs. If I am not mistaken, humans have lawful immunity in terms of cannibalism, viz., being hunted or raised to be slaughtered and sold on the food market for human consumption, and home destruction.

Side: Former

Okay sure, but I'd bet there would be someone who wants to build an ark and take all the animals off of earth (Or a sizable founding population of them) when the sun eats earth. that's of course given the fact that humans also have the capability to escape the nova. it is therefore the privilege of the animals that they have an apex species like the humans. the dinosaurs didn't have that. and reasonably any other planet that doesn't have an apex species, and an apex species doesn't know about it, doesn't have that privilege. that lucky immunity from extinction. and the tigers have their privilege in the sense that they live longer in captivity, and have humans feeding them for simply being tigers.

-

It's kinda like, if the last tree of an unknown species falls in the amazon and no one is around to observe it, did the tree really go extinct? a human knowing about it may have prevented the species's extinction. but even then, what does it really matter?

Side: Latter
luckin(176) Clarified
1 point

all animals are privileged in the fact that they have humans looking out for them.

What does this have to do with anything?

humans raised to be intelligent are more valuable to all species on earth

Humans aren't just raised to be more intelligent, they ARE more intelligent by nature

humans are the only feasible way that I see, that any animal will survive the next mass extinction event

So animals aren't capable of surviving on their own even though they've been doing it for millennia?

Side: Former
SatintLater(283) Clarified
1 point

how is a tiger going to save itself when the sun novas. that's my point. they can't build boats, or spaceships or drugs to fight off a super flu that could wipe out tigers. if an endangered species gets the sniffles, or highly contagious ear infection the humans jump all over that. therefore, three members of the species is basically worthless in the overall survival of the species beyond the destruction of earth, and even if they do go extinct, what difference does it make to humankind? and really the biosphere in general.

-

One person however can make a massive difference. in both the lives of humans, and effectively the lives of animal kind. that does not mean that he will. but we're weighing total potential against total potential. in one, they live for 20 years in captivity, 10 if not,(Boosted by humans BTW!) maybe have more offspring, and effectively keep the total tiger population the same or grow it slightly. the same could be said for the human, except he has writing, and that means that even something small. a story he tells to a colleague about how he was saved at the cost of the lives of three baby tigers, could inspire someone else to do something big. so you can either take the stance that both are equally worthless. or you can realize that since humans take on a (Frankly idiotic) role as guardians to animals, the animals cannot and will not look out for themselves beyond the death of earth.

-

and if we find a way to outmode animal and plant life, producing everything we need chemically, then their value as related to us is now minimal (And basically nil). it is therefore my reasoning that animals are worthless to us once their purpose has been served.

Side: Former
1 point

This argument is based on an unrealistic and contrived theory of value. I don't know why var value should equal quantity, but this debate appears to utilize the marginal utility theory of value while discounting the actual "utility" part. While it's true that the more you have of something, the less valuable the next acquired unit of that thing becomes, we must consider the utility of said unit in the first place.

Consider what utility an individual unit holds in and of itself before considering how that utility is devalued with abundance. This is going to vary from person to person. Given that we are all humans and not tigers, it is not unreasonable or irrational for a given person to find more utility with one human baby than with any or all tigers in the world. For example, I have no use for tigers whatsoever. So I won't have more or less use for them depending on the quantity. The valuation therefore is based mostly on emotion, including the attempt to quantify and make objective ones subjective preference.

Side: Latter
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

............................................................................................................................................

Side: Former
Harvard(660) Disputed
1 point

Tigers are responsible for maintaining ecosystems through predation. If they were eliminated or overly reduced, it would cause an ecosystemic imbalance, which will directly impact humans.

Humans are doing the exact inverse as we have drastically, if not wholly, reduced (or, perhaps, eluded) our natural predators; consequently, our numbers have increased to an unsustainable rate, and in so doing, we are diminishing earth's resources to such a degree that we are looking elsewhere for more, and we are directly contributing to earth's detriment by virtue of climate change and pollution.

I have no use for tigers whatsoever. So I won't have more or less use for them depending on the quantity.

I believe it is your understandable anthropocentric ideology which fallaciously misassigns utility to a species for which you erroneously find no use.

---

Retorts notwithstanding, the debate is premised on quantifying value, not realism. It is presumptuous to say that someone would find any more utility of a baby that is not theirs than they would of three tiger cubs.

Side: Former
Atrag(5551) Disputed
2 points

Youre asking people to debate whether 3 tiger lives or a human life is more valuable. You say tiger because the ecosystem is more worth saving than human life. Still the question remains why is the tiger or the ecosystem more valuable than human life.

Side: Latter
Amarel(5139) Disputed
1 point

1. The ecosystem is always in flux. An ecosystem imbalance is its natural state. Just as there is no actual economic equilibrium, there is no such thing as an ecosystem in balance. Any perceived balance is simply an inability to see all variables.

2. There is nothing that we do "to earth's detriment". The earth will be fine. If we mess up the environment, life adapts and goes on. If we mess it up enough, life adapts and goes on without us. We don't mess up things for the earth, but rather for ourselves.

3. Animals go extinct all the time. They always have and always will. Tigers can go extinct and things will ultimately be ok. Other predators will fill the void. While our environment is most likely greatly benefited by the existence of tigers, we can live without them. It's simply not preferable.

4. If I were a tiger, my worldview would be tigerpocentric. Nonetheless, I don't actually find 0 utility in tigers. That extreme position was meant to make a point.

5. How is it presumptuous to say that a human would value a human over 3 non-humans? What if the choice was between a baby and 3 baby critically endangered stag beetles? Will this change the logic of your argument?

Side: Latter
1 point

How in the world do people think this is an intelligent question? If you don't know a person is worth more than all the tiger cubs in the world, I have to wonder how many devils are controlling your mind.

Side: Latter
Amarel(5139) Clarified
1 point

The question is philosophical. Why is a human baby worth more than a tiger cub?

Side: Former
Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

If you can't figure it out, you've probably been smoking too much dope.....................

Side: Former
1 point

Democrats love animals and want to save them all. Animal life is more important to them then human life. Margret Sanger is a hero to Democrats. Just to bad that all Democrats were not aborted and sold for profit.

Side: Latter
1 point

Human life > animal life. Very simple.

I come from a more theologically based background, so to expound, human life is made in the image/likeness of God. It is clear that human life is on a higher value scale in God's creation than any other creature He created.

Side: Latter
1 point

I suppose you could take this exact same formula the question uses and ask this question: would you save 3 ants or 1 puppy?

Side: Latter