Moral dilemma: save the dog or the braindead child?
Let’s say you were put in a completely contrived position of being able to only save one life and you had to choose between a young child that was completely brain-dead and would be guaranteed to never have a single higher-level thought for the rest of it’s life, and a healthy dog. For sake of argument, assume that such a scenario exists where your only option is to save one of the two (it could involve trains, switches, evil villians, falling elevators, buttons or other contrivances to force you to make a choice).
Which do you choose to save and why?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
20 Answers
I would choose my child, always. My son/daughter might be braindead, but I’m still here to love him/her. I would give him/her every chance to survive and have a happy life.
~Besides I don’t like dogs, if it was a cat then perhaps…
Save the dog. The brain dead child is just as good as dead.
I’d save the dog and be “screaming with delight” to put the child down (quote from another thread about abortion).
A “brain dead child” is dead.
However, if I had the dilemma of saving a dog or being able to save a brain dead child to harvest organs, I would save the child to save many more children through transplants.
It isn’t a moral dilemma. It’s a dog.
Feed the child to the dog.
I’d save the dog. The child is already dead in every way that matters.
Save the child .
In the future there might be medical advancements to restore to perfect health.
Human life is more valuable than animals.
Imagine if it you were that child who understood but no one knew?
In fact there was a case where a man was thought to be in communicated but later revealed that with therapy ( like Hawkins) he was able to type out what he heard, saw and experience ( abuse from caregivers).
The child. How would I know if he/she was brain dead? Hopefully, there will be time to save the dog.
@Inspired_2write
Brain dead means the brain is no longer functioning. Not just that you can’t communicate. The brain is, literally, dead. The cessation of brain function is death. The person is only “alive” (in the most pedantic sense possible) because their heart, lungs and other organs are being kept functioning via machine intervention.
Seems like an easy question. Maybe too easy. Is this some type of link to the logic involved, in the abortion threads?
Obviously the dog has an enjoyable life ahead of it, and the child doesn’t. Why save the child even if a dog’s life isn’t at stake?
The dog since the child is technically dead and prolonging its suffering would be inhuman.
If he’s brain dead he isn’t suffering.
Genuinely puzzling why sites like this have so many questions to do with sacrifice in some way.
It’s like you people have little else on your minds but doom :D
I’m with @zenvelo . Save the dog and use the child to save others.
The only sensible answer is the dog. But this narrow question is asked in such a way where the asker can unfairly reply back “So you care more about a dog than a human life?” (Not accusing the OP of this by the way)
I would do nothing even though it would mean the death of the child. I think that would be true even if it was my own child and even if there was no dog.
The brain dead child is already dead.
Response moderated (Spam)
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
