killing 1 human or killing 10 of an endangered species (like gorillas or tigers or something)
whatever you answer, Why?
2007-12-14 00:08:50 · 29 answers · asked by Ste B 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Killing 10 endangered species by far
Im not a mean person or anything, but it's alot worse, especially since they are endangered
2007-12-14 09:18:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Killing 10 of the endangered species but that's because I prefer animals!
Seriously though, I think they're both pretty much close together (unless the human is a hunter) but why should a gorilla or a tiger's life be of any less value? A controversial answer I know, but it's just my opinion :)
2007-12-14 00:14:50 · answer #2 · answered by carmelia.marcella 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Killing 10 endangered species
2007-12-14 02:47:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can't tell. Suppose the endangered animals were needed for food for people. Or the person killed was an 'Enemy of Humanity'. Or the person killing the endangered species knew that killing them would result in some bad state for people further down the line. Morally, you can't tell. It's the heart (the informed heart) that decides. I mean, you can give somebody a nice gift in order to embarass them, or spank a child in order to help them grow up better.
2007-12-14 04:57:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither is acceptable or worse than the other Killing an endangered species or a human being is baseless and cruel. The thought of wiping out an entire species is just wrong on so many levals
2007-12-14 00:20:25 · answer #5 · answered by Ya Ya Vegas 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are so many different ways of answering this question and all of them could be 'correct' depending on the circumstances.
From an amoral global perspective, what is better, saving one man's life or saving another species from extinction?
The death of one man, however great and good he may be, will not result in mankind's extinction.
Killing 10 of an endangered species may lead to the extinction of that species.
BUT.. does the world (meaning Gaia, the global biosphere) care whether a species goes exctinct? Other life will go on. New species will evolve given time.
There is no adequate single answer to this question.
2007-12-14 21:48:39 · answer #6 · answered by Greg K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would think that endangered or not, keeping your kill-lust within a species is better than imposing your dominance upon another species. It would depend upon your moral guidelines - Which one would result in the greater good? As a human, killing the animals is better as they can not contribute or influence as much as a human. As a Humanitarian, i would chose the human as one death is better than 10. Personally, i would take the human life as i like animals. I think you need to isolate what you mean- this is a very broad question. What type of human? you have given a type of animal.....
2007-12-14 04:05:15 · answer #7 · answered by jamiedajedi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would kill any endangered species. how could anyone compare human life with that of an animal. I mean, sure we prefer to kill the human for many reason, but if is a relative I am sure all of you "animal lovers" would not hesitate on killing a white tiger.
2007-12-14 01:30:41 · answer #8 · answered by Nergal 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I feel as if killing the endangered species is worse. People died everyday, and so do animals, but humans are no where near to extinction.
Animals life are just as precious as an humans life, probably even more so, because they are for the most part harmless, unlike human nature.
2007-12-14 00:23:10 · answer #9 · answered by JB 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if it came down to a real life situation then my view:
i would say killing 10 endangered species was worse than killing 1 human. lets face the human race isnt on the bout of extiction are we?
but really it one is just as bad as the other.
2007-12-14 00:19:00 · answer #10 · answered by Nichola C 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋