CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Value: Would you Save 3 Tiger Cubs or 1 Human Baby?
Note: There are approximately 4,000tigers and 7,000,000,000humans.
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.
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.
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.
I won't be here when the Anti-Christ is revealed. If anybody knows who it is, they will help set him on the throne to rule the world. If you are alive when the Anti-Christ is revealed, you will serve him, you will worship him, you will obey him.
Surely the antichrist must be born before he is revealed. Would you kill little baby antichrist? Or do you wish for the arrival of baby antichrist so that the prophesies may be fulfilled?
I won't be here when the Anti Christ is revealed. He won't be revealed as a baby.
Are you retarded? My wishes do not affect the prophecies of the Bible, nor do yours. You wish it isn't true, but it's true and the way you are going you will be serving the Anti-Christ if you live long enough, and if you don't live long enough you will be serving your time forever in Hell.
I didn't think he would be revealed as a baby and that's my point. No one knew Stalin would be so bad when he was a baby. So the question is; if you knew a little baby would grow up to be revealed as the anti-Christ (after you're dead of course), would you kill the little one to stop him?
Your point is nonsense based on ignorance, that's my point.............willful ignorance, so you have to weave intricate nonsense to try to hide the fact that you are playing dumb in purpose
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.
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.
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
sometimes it's nice to need reading glasses because I can see it's you who made a post and knowing you I"m glad I can't read whatever stupid response you gave after I said something nice about you.
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.
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.
I am not sure I understand your points. Religion was invented by man, in your opinion, as a survival tool. Many would say that religion was created when the man, Jesus Christ, walked this Earth. It was/is a reality, not a survival tool.
I am not sure what you mean by "every animal species alive fits that criteria."
Yes, humans are the only animals with the capability to destroy life on earth. This also means that they are superior, if not more dangerous. I believe this still shows, in a disgusting and inhuman way, that a human life is still more important than that of an animal.
It is a fact. Religion is a set of stories used to help people live together without killing each other.
The stories of Jesus Christ are told in such a way to unite people in not hurting fellow man instead of as the story of how God came down and fixed everything.
You are saying because humans are alive that they have survived when other species have gone extinct. The moose has survived when other species have gone extinct since it exists today. The best has survived when other species have gone extinct since bears exist today. There is no species alive today that hasn't avoided extinction just as well as humans.
Would you also save violent criminals before you save a law abiding citizen? They are more dangerous, too.
I am not sure I understand your points. Religion was invented by man, in your opinion, as a survival tool. Many would say that religion was created when the man, Jesus Christ, walked this Earth. It was/is a reality, not a survival tool.
That's an objectively incorrect claim to make. Religion existed for thousands of years before Christ.
I understand that we are classified as animals, but what I'm wondering is how that classification makes us animals. What does our classification have to do with how we are as humans?
Except it does. The word "animal" means belonging to kingdom Animalia. The fact that we are classified as animals means that we are animal, biologically speaking.
That doesn't make sense as a question. Animal as a word is a classification. You are asking what justifies a classification if classification wasn't a thing.
Here: "The word 'animal' is derived from the Latin word animalis which means 'having breath'. The Kingdom Animalia is characterized by eukaryotic and heterotrophic organisms. They are multicellular and lack cell wall. They depend directly or indirectly of plants for their food. Food is ingested and digested in their internal cavity and food reserves are stored as glycogen or fat. Nutrition is holozoic, i.e., by ingestion of food. Animals follow a definite growth pattern, the adults have a definite shape and size. Higher forms of animals exhibit well developed sensory and neuromotor mechanism. Most of the organisms are capable of locomotion. Reproduction is by copulation of male and female which is followed by development in embryonic stages. "
Animal as a word is a classification. You are asking what justifies a classification if classification wasn't a thing.
Ok, that was my bad.
I don't think you answered the question though. What is it about our biology that makes us animals? I know we are classified as such, but how does it go to biology as well?
"The word 'animal' is derived from the Latin word animalis which means 'having breath'. The Kingdom Animalia is characterized by eukaryotic and heterotrophic organisms. They are multicellular and lack cell wall. They depend directly or indirectly of plants for their food. Food is ingested and digested in their internal cavity and food reserves are stored as glycogen or fat. Nutrition is holozoic, i.e., by ingestion of food. Animals follow a definite growth pattern, the adults have a definite shape and size. Higher forms of animals exhibit well developed sensory and neuromotor mechanism. Most of the organisms are capable of locomotion. Reproduction is by copulation of male and female which is followed by development in embryonic stages. "
I think I'm just having a hard time seeing the connection. I don't see how humans are animals even if we are classified us as such on the taxonomic tree. Even if there are some biological similarities between us and animals, that doesn't necessarily mean we are. We are intellectually and, in some ways, physically above them
A gorilla is intellectually and physically above a squirrel, yet they are both animals. The term "animal" isn't a term predicated upon levels of intelligence, or self determined importance. It simply has to do with the nature of that particular species (how they eat,move,mate,etc).
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.
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.
God will have all the animals. We are in a fallen world, the animals are not at fault for their death, they are innocent and God will preserve them.
If you ever read the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, you might notice that it says a voice is heard, of every creature, saying "Praise the Lord". It clearly says everything that has ever lived will be alive forever except for people who die in their sins and will be dying forever in the fire of Hell with the Devil and his angels.
For now, God gave us the animals to eat...except for when they eat people.
Fact: evolution would lead a species to defend the other members of the species. You are unwittingly defending a position that exists because of evolution being real.
A species can't survive if it is helping all the other species. A species that helps other species instead of itself would not survive.
The very fact that humans manage to do this renders this entire evolutionary assertion false. Further, if humans did not help other species, in some cases, it would have adverse intraspecific consequences.
Helping those animals helps humanity. That isn't a case of helping a species and not helping your own. You are right in that we have become prolific enough that we can start helping other species.
But, religion fits a basic evolutionary need. That's why Saintnow disregards animal life even though he thinks God created it.
Comeon, Cartman, think about what you are saying. If you really are trying to make a point, the only point you're making is that you can talk so stupid the only appropriate response is to laugh..........hahahahaha
Think about what someone other than yourself is thinking. We are all smarter than you. How would a species survive if it sacrificed itself for other species. That goes against evolution.
You need to understand what evolution says in order to criticize it. It isn't about believing it, it is about actually understanding what it says. You don't understand it not believe in it. You can't make claims about evolution since you have no knowledge on the subject.
You and I both know that you know more about the Theory of Evolution than to say that it says his mommy was a monkey. You're sandbagging the guy, right? Deliberately tossing up a Straw Man? (Or should I say, a Straw Monkey?)
yes, I have no knowledge of how your monkey faced mother produced a monkey face like yours. Obviously I know nothing about it, I was not there, check on which zoos mommy spent time at and see if the gorilla cage locks are secure.
How convenient. You utter a ridiculous phrase to give your ignorance an excuse. Too bad the same dumb statement completely destroys your argument for God.
But, you were the one confused. Pretending that you not being there constitutes an argument is exactly what trying to claim confusion as intelligence. Why do you religious people always attack people with the exact arguments that should be applied to yourself?
No. If you believe God created the animals, then you would also believe God's word when he says in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,a and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
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.
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-
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.
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?
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.
I'm not sure you actually gave a rebuttal to anything I said. It seems like you have a gross misunderstanding of capability. You're right when you say that tigers can't do the things that humans can, but they can also survive on their own. They belong to a class of animals called predators. They've been like that since ever. Tigers are not so incapable that they can't do anything without humans
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.
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.
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.
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?
The ecosystem is always in flux. An ecosystem imbalance is its natural state .... Any perceived balance is simply an inability to see all variables.
This may be technically true, but a further imbalance as a result of an entity intendedly compounding the imbalance would not maintain the notion that the new natural imbalance--as caused by the said entity--as being 'natural'.
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.
Earth fineness is dependent upon those who experience it; and for a species to wittingly ebb earth's resources necessary for so many lifeforms including itself is unarguably irrational.
Animals go extinct all the time. They always have and always will. Tigers can go extinct and things will ultimately be ok.
But why allow an animal to go extinct when there is absolutely no reason to do so? That one baby's value, in terms on quantity, is mathematically lesser than the three tiger cubs. It seems a little wicked to intentionally facilitate the reduction of a critically endangered species, when one can do elsewise.
What if the choice was between a baby and 3 baby critically endangered stag beetles? Will this change the logic of your argument?
No, actually; I am not a speciesist, and therefore value the presence of all animals equally (with the rational exceptions of offspring, sibling, and/or other close relatives).
If I were a tiger, my worldview would be tigerpocentric.
You seem to imply that any certain species will have an overly interspecific-centric worldview, which my advocacy for saving the three cubs evidences the contrary.
This may be technically true, but a further imbalance as a result of an entity intendedly compounding the imbalance would not maintain the notion that the new natural imbalance--as caused by the said entity--as being 'natural'
Humans don't suck up resources with the intention to further imbalance ecosystems, we suck up resources to use them just as any other animal naturally would in our position. 300 million years ago there was so much plant life that insect larvae had to grow large to avoid oxygen poisoning and we had dragonflies the size of seagulls. This followed a period of low oxygen levels which enabled the plants to thrive in the first place. There is nothing unnatural about humanity. We are doing what other species have done before us. The difference is we are a little more aware than other animals.
Earth fineness is dependent upon those who experience it; and for a species to wittingly ebb earth's resources necessary for so many lifeforms including itself is unarguably irrational
It's certainly irrational to use everything today when we should save something for tomorrow. Every time a human eats, they consume another life form. Many of our resources are other life forms. The act of living is going to conflict with other beings ability to live, that's life. That's natural.
But why allow an animal to go extinct when there is absolutely no reason to do so? That one baby's value, in terms on quantity, is mathematically lesser than the three tiger cubs. It seems a little wicked to intentionally facilitate the reduction of a critically endangered species, when one can do elsewise
The baby's value is not mathematically lesser, there's no such thing. The marginal utility theory of value first accounts for the fact that a thing is valuable to someone for some reason, and then shows how quantity affects said valuation. Numbers alone don't cause value. I agree that we should not allow an animal to go extinct for no reason, but you asked merely about saving 3 of a species at the cost of 1 human.
If these 3 are required to keep the animal from extinction, then they are already genetically doomed (and of little value to any notion of ecosystem balance) and you can go ahead and save the baby. If they are not required to keep the tiger population from extinction then you need not concern yourself with an ethical dilemma and you can go ahead and save the baby.
No, actually; I am not a speciesist, and therefore value the presence of all animals equally (with the rational exceptions of offspring, sibling, and/or other close relatives)
You would hold 3 endangered stag beetles to be more valuable than a baby. Why would relatives be a rational exception? If it's the selfish gene theory, then you would have to extend that exception to the human race which shares more genes in common with you than any other animal on the planet.
Keeping in mind that pandas are so few in numbers that they essentially do no matter to the ecosystem, and that they are mostly kept in existence by humans, would you save 3 pandas over 1 human? The value of pandas to humans are almost entirely aesthetic and emotional, they are essentially non-functional in nature. Do you save the panda?
You seem to imply that any certain species will have an overly interspecific-centric worldview, which my advocacy for saving the three cubs evidences the contrary
If I were a tiger, my worldview would be tigerpocentric because it would be reasonable and in accordance with the course of nature. The only species that occasionally does not follow this formula is the human species. When a human does not follow this natural inclination, it is an anomalous and irrational occurrence. Not to say it never happens of course.
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.
Really though, if I ask a question and your response is that you're not going to answer because I can't think, it looks like a cop out. It looks like you're not willing to think about the question so you act like its a dumb question. You keep doing it if you like, it's what you've always done. I'm just saying that it comes off as ineptness or laziness. You do you though.
You truly think you are God dont you? Fuck me youre one crazy Rude stupid fatty moron doggy idiotic bratty nasty faced dope headed foul mouthed punk fool hater.
your stupid question is not worth an intelligent response or you would figure it out for yourself......it would be a waste of time for me to try to get you to answer your own stupid question
why would I ask you your stupid question? Your just trying to make stupid comments with questions pretending like you have some kind of wisdom in asking stupid questions. Just keep on fooling yourself, and I'll keep on mocking you while you reject plain simple truth.
You need to wake up man. The truth hurts only when you fight against it. When you believe the truth, it will correct you so you know when it hurts if's for your good and it's not really hurtful but rather heals.
I would have banned you for asking stupid questions. The Title question of this debate is a stupid question, and I said it once which was enough so I don't care if I get banned.
He didn't ask a question, he's making stupid comments, he does not want the answer to his question which is really not a question at all.
Your apparent inability to see this fact which I saw before the fool tried to trap me into answering stupid questions is evidence of your own confusion.
You not knowing the answer to a question does not make the question stupid. You knowing the answer, but being incapable of articulating it, does not make the question stupid.
You and I will both say that a human baby is more valuable than 3 tiger cubs. The difference is that I can articulate the reason why it is true.
The question "why" is rarely a stupid one. It's your frustration with your own ability that causes you to think it is.
Don't bother me about hell in a conversation concerning value judgments between humans and non-humans when you can't even signify apple core leadership.
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.
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.
