Who is right?

Question

2 brothers where playing in the yard and 1 of them found a butterfly trap in the spider’s web. The spider begins to approach the butterfly, but then the boy reaches to save it from the spider’s web. As the boy reached to help the butterfly his brother crashes the spider. The 1 who tried to save the butterfly got angry and asked his brother why he killed the spider. The brother replies, because you wanted to save the butterfly from the spider. His brother replies no I wanted to save them both! The one who killed the spider then said Spiders need to kill butterflies or they will die of starvation so if you keep saving the butterfly the spider would die away. So to spare the butterfly and to ease the spiders suffering you should just kill the spider. The one you saved the butterfly said no you don’t have the right to take the life of the spider. He wanted to save them both.

My question is: would you save the butterfly or kill the spider?
Basically asking who do you feel is right.

Answer 1

Leave them both alone, and let nature take its course.

Answer 2

Actually, if you touch a butterfly's wings it will prevent it from flying properly, which will result in the dealth of the butterfly regardless. Therefore, the right or wrong was taken care off prior to either brother entering the picture. Also, the brothers are switching sides.
Brother 1--found butterfly, tried to save it from the spider web
Brother 2-helps the butterfly
Brother 3--kills spider in process of trying to save butterfly
Both are trying to save the butterfly, but then the spider killer (brother 2) switched political parties and lectures in support of spiders.

Neither is right.

Answer 3

Neither is right. The boy who saved the butterfly could not have known if the spider would actually have killed it. The butterfly may have freed itself before the spider got to it. Furthermore, the boy saving the butterfly from the spider claimed he was trying to save the spider as well, but save it from what? He couldn't have known his brother would kill it, either.

Answer 4

The way you asked the question automatically makes the brother who tried to save the butterfly right. If you reread the paragraph you'll see that the brother wanted to save them both. Ask yourself, who was the first brother saving the spider from. It wasn't from the butterfly I can tell you that. He was trying to save the spider from his brother.

I think that he was trying to do id anticipate his brothers actions. He thought that his brother, who believes in things not suffering, would have just killed the butterfly because of the way spider digest their food. Or he would have killed the spider because the spider eat butterflies and killing it would prevent future suffering of the butterfly species.

The only way to save both of them is to remove one of them from the equation so that his brother would not have had to make that decision.

Because the brother was trying to save the spirder from his brother and the butterfly, I believe he would have let nature run its course if his brother wasn't there. The reseason why is because the spirder would have gain and this gain would have offset the butterfly's loss

Answer 5

The brother who tried to save the butterfly. He did not like what he saw. The spider can wait for a next victim.

Answer 6

I thought this one was most interesting because neither one of them is right. The boy trying to save the butterfly is doing it for selfish reasons just like the boy who killed the spider. Sometimes life happens and we don't understand it. That's like saying who should live, the mother giving birth or the child being born? The mother has had her life and lived it so let the child live. That makes it sound like mom has ruined her life and someone else is better qualified to live it. The child does not know the conscious difference between life and death so the child should die. Neither answer is correct. What if that child is to contribute marvelous things to this world or what if they are the next Charles Manson? No one knows...so there is no right answer. That's why we should learn what's our business and what's not so we don't interfere with God's business...

Answer 7

I wouldn't do either; let nature take its course. It is all part of the food chain & the cycle of life.
Besides, to remove the butterfly from the spider web, the one boy probably would have bruised the butterfly's wings so it would have died a slower more tormented death. (Sometimes the best intentions cause worse problems.)

Answer 8

I would say both r somehow r8 and i couldnt say who is absoloutly wrong becoz i feel that the spider wont alive without the butterfly if he gets survived becoz its his food. however, its not r8 to kill the spider like that becoz that would b against animal protection and the spider has also an own life like we human beings so he should actually decide 4 himself when he wants to die and we shouldnt take this decision but i dont want to say that the other boy is wrong also becoz even when the spider alives then he' ll die soon becoz of no food.

Answer 9

Neither was right. The butterfly and the spider are links in the food chain. One exist so the other may live. It has nothing to do with beauty or rightiousness. They both also perform services to their world. The spider culls the population of lower insects, and the butterfly pollinates flowers. To interrupt them both is a disservice.

Answer 10

I think the brother who saved the butterfly is right. Saying that the spider can't survive without eating butterflies is wrong, they also eat mosquitoes, and no one would save a mosquito. Let the spider eat pests, butterflies don't harm you, so don't just sit there and watch it suffer.

Answer 11

I would save the butterfly and let the spider catch something else when I wasnt looking.