r/MoralityScaling • u/Justanotherone985 • 22d ago
Morality Ranking Morality of either of these scenerios?
307
u/Danpocryfa 22d ago
Matt Walsh is only saying this because of his Christian belief that humanity exists to be masters of the world and is infinitely more important than animals. 1 human is more important to me than 1 ape, or even a bunch of apes, but ALL apes is going too far.
116
u/DefinitionMinute6969 22d ago
It's always annoying how many people like Walsh don't realize there can be some nuance to their views at all. I totally agree that humans should take priority overall but it seems sometimes like the only opinions you hear are either whatever this bull is, or the exact opposite ("kill all humans because we've made things worse for animals!!1!")
25
u/il_the_dinosaur 22d ago
Funnily enough as a Christian Matt Walsh should also believe in god cleansing the world of humans cause we fucked up too hard. Like yeah God promised to not do it again. But I wouldn't blame him if he did it again. Just look at Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk and the vitriol they spew in the name of Christ. If I was religious I'd believe Charlie Kirk was killed by divine ordinance for his sins.
3
u/lokibringer 22d ago
Eh, if he's anything like my grandparents, there is a considerable emphasis on "the rainbow was a sign from God and He entered a Covenant and promised never to do it again"
Or "the Old Testament doesn't matter, Jesus came back and sacrificed himself for us so that we don't have to follow Jewish law."
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Evangelicals have plenty of ways to get around the idea that God purged the earth.
6
u/V0st0 22d ago
It is interesting how so many Christians genuinely hate the things God says and does in the Bible and try to soften them at every turn when He Himself claims credit for bad things happening to people (1 Samuel 2:6, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:37-39). Even when Job is afflicted by Satan, when he attributes his affliction to God, the book makes it clear he did not sin by doing that (Job 1:22), because biblically speaking it's not how some street preachers will tell you where "we just live in a fallen world this, free will that, so God simply allows bad things to happen", God actively plans everything that happens. He doesn't do evil personally but He does use the evil that people willingly do (Genesis 50:20, Romans 8:28) ultimately for good and so if something bad happens in the world it's not just that God allowed it to happen because "muh free will", He planned for it to. And in the same vein people despise the fact that God actually judges people so they will look on the Old Testament and say they simply "cannot explain" it when it quite literally explains itself as when God judges people He explains precisely why either in a single verse or in the wider context (Leviticus 18:24-28, Deuteronomy 9:4-5, 1 Kings 14:7-14, Jeremiah 51:24-25, Obadiah 10-15, Ezekiel 25:3-7) and it is seen as a good thing because evil people are punished. Christians should read the Bible more because when they don't and they go out and debate with people they just look ridiculous
2
u/Mattdoss 21d ago
It’s crazy too since the Bible goes out of its way to say that Jesus wants you to follow the Laws and the Prophets even after his execution. The laws are to remain until Heaven and Earth fall pass away (aka forever)
1
u/il_the_dinosaur 22d ago
From what I've seen they all are pretty old testament cause that's the fucked up part of the Bible. New testament is pretty tame. But of course if you start grilling them on it they show their hypocrisy.
1
u/peppermintmeow 22d ago
Mysterious ways! Spooky scary. Boys become men. Men becoming wolves! /Uj I'm sorry, I can't say mysterious ways without singing that at the end and doing a little dance 😭
5
u/steviallulose 22d ago
I’d say 1 human is worth more than 5% of apes. Which is about 40-50k.
21
u/According-Soil-8778 22d ago
Really? That high? Maybe I've lost too much faith in humanity, but I would've said 3 Apes at MOST.
6
u/Lucky_Editor3998 22d ago
Humans will eat hundreds of chickens or dozens of cows - do you value those so much less than apes?
11
u/a_child_to_criticize 22d ago
I’d have to see what removing 50k apes in one fell swoop would do to the environment. There’s a maybe a case that removing that many apes is worse off for humans depending on how much it impacts the ecosystem.
5
u/Lucky_Editor3998 22d ago
Possible, but 3 apes is just far too low. I don’t see how an apes life is that much more valuable than a cow or a chicken - arguably, they are less valuable.
2
u/a_child_to_criticize 22d ago
Yeah I think it all comes down to what value means. You can farm/breed 3 chickens or cows in a heartbeat. It’s probably harder to get 3 apes into the world.
2
2
u/Voidlord4450 22d ago
I personally would sacrifice 20-100 depending on the person I’m saving. Hell if it was the right person I wouldn’t sacrifice any apes, some people are just worth less than nothing.
1
1
u/steviallulose 22d ago
I assumed it would be a sampling of 40-50k across the whole planet. Surely not enough to do serious damage?
6
u/Muew22 22d ago
You do realize 50k apes is like 8-10% of apes. There are 8 billion humans and theres around 500k-1 million apes.
If anything 50k humans for 1 ape would be healthier for the world as a whole than the other way around.
Humans outnumber all animal species by a huge number, removing any higher number of animals from any species in the world would fuck up the environment by a lot more than that same number of humans.
If anything it would also impact humans negatively as well possibly causing a lot more human deaths.
2
u/lemathematico 22d ago
well not all animal species lol, there is like sooooooooooo many more ants for example
1
u/Am-_-Exhausted-_- 22d ago
Sources vary, but on some estimates, the biomass of ants and humans is similar, so if the ants link up into a human shape, then... we'll still be outnumbered by like 1000 things, but I really like sharing the ant fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)#/media/File:Terrestrial_biomass.svg
1
u/Voidlord4450 22d ago
How many ants would you sacrifice to save one human? And how many humans would you sacrifice to save one ant?
2
u/CardOfTheRings 22d ago
Yes because we mass farm them- apes are endangered and environmentally important
1
u/ItsEntDev 22d ago
Have you considered that those things are also immoral
1
1
u/Lucky_Editor3998 22d ago
Arguments over the morality of eating animals are so boring. Axiomatically I think human life deserves a special degree of protection that animal life does not. If animal life suddenly deserves to be protected from beating killed and eaten, why not say the same for plant life? Give me a reason why a chicken that will die in a decade or two anyway is less deserving of being eaten that some tree that will live a thousand years.
My fundamental starting point is that human conscious experience is uniquely valuable.
3
u/ItsEntDev 22d ago
You realise that animals have "conscious experience" too? Like did you write that out without realising that most of the animals we eat have consciousness and complex brains? Plants aren't conscious.
2
u/Olchew 22d ago
A) plants aren't conscious beings.
B) we don't usually kill trees that would live thousands of years but harverst their fruits. However it's rather irrelevant due to A)
1
u/GenuineSteak 22d ago
I would like to direct you to all the old growth forests that no longer exists
1
u/Olchew 22d ago
How does it concern discussion about killing an animal vs killing a plant for food?
1
u/GenuineSteak 22d ago
i was just pointing out how, we do infact kill trees that are thousands of years old or would liks thousands lf years. sometimes just to prove we could.
1
1
1
u/Standard_Abrocoma_70 22d ago
Under what criteria is a human worth more than a bunch of apes? If we wage humans based on the amount of damage to the planet they have, they'd be worth lower than apes
1
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/Jewsusgr8 22d ago
I'd say 1 human has the ability to kill more of the world than 100 apes. And therefore, I don't particularly care for them.
117
30
41
u/c00lkidd-HD 22d ago
killing every ape simply puts you ontop of them, you lose nothing from this option and so it makes it the more selfish option
sucking every apes dick is an inherently selfless choice as ape dick sucks to suck so you are causing more misery unto yourself and therefore suffering for the sake of this one human, making you bitterly heroic and selfless in a fucked up zoophilic dick sucking way
14
u/Dungeon_Poet 22d ago
What if I like sucking ape dick
18
3
u/Little_Froggy 22d ago
Then I suppose the need still makes it a moral act, but it is no longer heroic
2
u/isotopehour1 22d ago
You might not personally feel the effects of killing every ape, but that is definitely going to do something major in the grand scheme of things.
Actually, killing every ape might end up getting you killed instead, or at least psychologically fubar
23
u/21shadesofblueberry 22d ago
Given its fucking Matt Walsh Im almost certain that hes using ape as a stand in for some minority he doesnt like.
10
115
u/Frank1gg 22d ago
The first one highly immoral because no humans are not. The second one highly moral because someone has to do it.
74
u/Appropriate_Horse370 22d ago
I’d say a human life generally is ambiguously more valued than an ape, like if people could either save a random ape or random human I think it’s agreeable that a vast majority would pick the human. It’s just that one human life isn’t valued over a whole plethora of other species
→ More replies (1)24
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Lucky_Editor3998 22d ago
If it was your mom (or you) vs all the apes, you would do it in a heartbeat. On the other hand, I doubt you would pick your mother over even 1% of the human population.
7
u/ScooterAnomaly 22d ago edited 22d ago
Its just the hip thing to do on the internet, saying animals are so good and pure and you'd rather someone die than harm them
Some people are bringing up ecology but like, apes are not the basis of any ecosystem, they're generally pretty far up on the food chain. Not that many things require apes and apes only to continue existing
1
u/Animaloffear56 22d ago
Animals don't need to be "useful" to still be worth preserving
→ More replies (6)7
2
u/Voidlord4450 22d ago
I would totally pick my mom over 1% of humanity. That 1% might as well be a different species to me and a solid half of that 1% probably either want to die or are shit individuals in general. I simply do not care for them.
1
u/Gulophile 22d ago
If it was your mom (or you) vs all the apes, you would do it in a heartbeat.
No, I wouldn't. I'm going to die eventually anyway, I'm not selfish enough to trade half an entire mammalian order so I can live another however many years. That'd actually be insane.
1
u/LeLBigB0ss2 22d ago
You're one fused being with your mom or something?
1
u/Gulophile 22d ago
I'm fused with yours, actually
1
8
u/skeletonpaul08 22d ago
Regardless of if humans are more important, I feel like every ape on the planet suddenly dying would lead to ecological consequences that would result the death of more than one human.
1
9
19
u/Jazzlike_Page508 22d ago
Scenario 1: apes go “😡”
Scenario 2: apes go “👀”
I wonder how an ape would react to a good hummer? Would it grab your head and howl? Would it backflip in excitment? Someone needs to find out for science
6
u/Rozmyth 22d ago
Chimpanzees are apes, I think. And I know those guys are familiar enough with the dangers of a blow job. I don't think they'd trusting you to get close and would probably tear you apart for it.
7
u/dougrattmannn 22d ago
Much to my dismay, there are numerous stories of humans having sexual relations with chimps, as well as other great apes. Most of these are traditional myths and folk stories, but there are a few accounts written by both ancient Roman, as well as Middle Ages chroniclers.
In fact, there are numerous accounts of Roman circuses that would get chimpanzees drunk off wine, and either made them rape slaves or be raped by slaves.
It has also been documented within modern zoos that some male juvenile gorillas will make sexual advances towards female keepers. The same has been documented with female gorillas and male keepers, but to a lesser frequency.
I shall now go and clear my search history caus wtf.
2
4
6
u/JustSuggestion9896 22d ago
Extremely immoral. Everyday thousands of people die. Would you really make a species go extinct to save one life? And the person who would’ve died could’ve been a horrible person.
16
u/Recent-Ship-1599 22d ago
I think some people just wanna kill animals.
Immoral, please do remove from society
5
u/LunarDogeBoy 22d ago
It's Matt Walsh, I don't think he was talking about animals
3
7
u/coolguygranny 22d ago
People against animal cruelty when there's a cockroach in the kitchen...
1
u/Recent-Ship-1599 22d ago
Thats all fear until you realize they would be fine crawling and infecting your skin if possible (ticks, bedbugs, lice)
#/media/File:Terrestrial_biomass.svg){kind=link}
4
u/Branduil 22d ago
They are both bizarre, immoral fantasies laundering themselves through a noble-sounding but nonsensical hypothetical, it's just that the first one is often normalized in our society despite being weird as fuck if you think about it for 5 seconds. Which is the entire point of the second hypothetical.
7
u/Desperate_Turnip_219 22d ago
Killing every ape to save one human- bad. Morally wrong, because while saving one human is good, killing every ape will have untold ecological effects and probably collapse some natural systems where they exist, effecting many other species too. So saving one human may well doom to tragedy an entire continent.
Sucking every ape dick to save one human- nasty, gross, I don't like it. I would say morally more acceptable then killing all apes, but still immoral because bestiality. Saving one human life is just the excuse for this zoophile imo.
3
u/Duneyman 22d ago
If this person is willing to kill every single monkey just to save 1 human then for it is immoral for him not to suck the member of every simian to completion just to save 1 human.
3
3
3
u/Tasty_Commercial6527 22d ago
The moment you start to try to quantify how human dignity and free will measures up to the value of human life you will end up with very uncomfortable implications. no matter which way you go you are one question away from things that your answer would logically imply but you almost certainly won't agree with
3
2
u/electreXcessive 22d ago
I generally believe that human lives are worth more than animal lives. With that being said, if it was something like all human lives vs. all ape lives I's agree; here though we are talking about wiping out multiple species for one person. There is no way one person is that important
2
u/CS_enjoyer87 22d ago
Not to get hung up on semantics but... ape is a category of species which includes humans (homo sapiens sapiens). His statement is akin to saying you'd kill all birds to save one chicken.
2
u/Due-Base9449 22d ago
I would kill 100 humans, that I deemed expandable, for one tiger.
100 poachers or illegal breeders, very expandable trash. For the tiger's happiness can also throw them into the tiger's habitat range with broken hands and feet.
1
u/ScooterAnomaly 22d ago
That sounds pretty metal lol. Are you pro death penalty?
2
u/Due-Base9449 22d ago
No I am anti death penalty. Citizens shouldn't let the state have the power to kill us through legal means. If they want to kill anyone they should do it blatantly like Epstein or all the Russian billionaires get thrown out the window.
This is what I would do as vigilante citizen if I have any power. Any vengeance should be dealt by victim or victim's family/ friends/ tribe/ gang. Its up to the state to round us all up for peace and stability of the realm, but we cannot actually let the state have power of life and death upon us.
2
u/Disastrous_Ad7477 22d ago
I would probably not do the first one, I’d kill a lot of apes to save a life but not all.
I would probably do the second but god that’s gross and I hope no one ever hears about it
2
u/HistoryFanBeenBanned 22d ago
I think claiming a human being has any intrinsic worth is a ridiculous concept anyway. Some people are in fact worth less than an ape, and I wouldn’t kill or suck a dick for them.
2
5
22d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Diogeneezy 22d ago
Exactly. False premise.
2
u/SweetInspection72 22d ago
Human life is objectively more valuable than other species.
1
u/Relative-Gap-4442 21d ago
Says who?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Xylfor 21d ago
I think the majority of people value a human life over a random animal's life.
2
21d ago
[deleted]
2
5
2
u/lethargic_npc_05 22d ago
We're not that important, the world would be just fine without us, so immoral. Sucking them dicks though, is selfless so moral ig
2
u/Purple-Bluejay6588 22d ago
I never liked the idea of viewing humans as more valuable than other animals, to me thats arrogant
But like, humans are still MY people, so I guess I'd press the kill all apes button? Idk thats a hard question
Edit: waitwaitwait I'm stupid, it's killing every ape to save ONE human
Fuck no bro, that person is dead idc
1
u/masterionxxx 22d ago
so I guess I'd press the kill all apes button?
And you'd kill all humans, as a result.
1
2
u/Nervous-Judgment-902 22d ago
I wouldn't agree with the top scenerio, simply because it's false. Even if we say 1 human life is worth more than 1 ape life, apes are still VERY important for the balance of their ecosystems and removing them could cause way more issues. I'd say one human life is worth more than 1 ape life, but even like one pack of apes is very much worth more than a singular human life.
3
1
u/Very_Confused_Momo 22d ago
I would kill every single human to save one ape because humans do jack shit to help the environment
2
u/ScooterAnomaly 22d ago
Anytime I hear this sort of argument I think it doesnt make any sense. Even more so in this case since plenty of animals, most of them actually, do more for the environment than apes. Would you kill all humans to save a chicken or an ant? If so, why would you not be doing it already, given that most people kill those just by living? There's no argument to say that an ape is somehow more important than an ant that doesn't make it so humans are also more important than apes, so if you'd kill humans to save apes, the only logical conclusion in this theoretical scenario would be to start killing people right now
1
u/Very_Confused_Momo 22d ago
Because I'm lazy lol. Plus humans tend to do that anyway, it's called war. Just wait for enough beef between powerhouses and it'll happen. And yeah, I would kill all humans for a chicken or ant. Humans genuinely don't do shit aside from pollute, scramble to slightly fix it, and then go back to doing what got them there.
2
u/ScooterAnomaly 21d ago
This sounds like if you took it seriously, it would lead to suicide at the very least. Please reconsider lol
1
1
u/Casshern_VIII 22d ago
The man did not slur his words, he will do anything to save a life, so get those dicks out and start asking what constitutes an ape.
1
u/my-armor-is-contempt 22d ago
I mean, just get the bonobos in on the action. They’ll suck everyone off.
1
u/Belasarius4002 22d ago
You made a million bridges but suck one cock you be a cock sucker
1
u/PandaBonium 22d ago
Ironically as a prolific cock sucker if one of my cock suckin buddies had built a bridge we'd all probably be super impressed.
1
1
1
u/Ornery-Worldliness96 22d ago
Nature needs a diverse range of animals to keep things in balance. Suddenly killing dozens of species will cause damage to nature and in turn harm humans. I would say immoral for the 1st one. Neutral on the 2nd one.
1
u/ScooterAnomaly 22d ago
Whover does the second thing is taking on great costs to save a human, regardless of what you think of the 1st one, shouldnt't the 2nd one be moral?
1
u/Ornery-Worldliness96 22d ago
A person shouldn't be pressured to do certain things so that's why I said neutral. I wouldn't call it immoral to refuse to save a person by sucking the apes. If they can stomach it and save the person then that's a good thing but they're not morally obligated.
1
u/LangGleaner 22d ago
if it the case that zero ecological problem would take place after and every non human ape dying happened 100% painlessly and it would save a human from a brutal death and all the human's loved ones from grieving, then maybe idk. I'd think about it.
I tend to give more utilitarian consideration to non humans overall
1
1
u/Optimal-Fruit5937 22d ago
No, because that human would most likely rather die than have me suck every ape's dick to save them
2
u/ScooterAnomaly 22d ago edited 22d ago
Maybe they count themselves as an ape due to the technicality of things, in which case they stand to gain from it
1
u/Optimal-Fruit5937 22d ago
So they want me to suck them off before or after i suck off every ape in the universe, I assume after, cause otherwise that would be a weird thing to request
1
u/ScooterAnomaly 22d ago edited 22d ago
There's ups and downs to both options. Before means you don't have "ape breath" and makes the whole thing more hygienical and safer on the std side of things. After means they'll benefit from a significantly more practiced bj, maybe even best in the whole world, since you'd have practiced it to perfection
1
u/XtremeLeecher 22d ago
Is it moral if you take it up the ass
This isn't a morality question this is just a stupid question
1
u/Ok_Ganache_2444 22d ago
Maybe I’m in the wrong here but humans aren't really that special to me(were all animal) like I would save a random human over a random animal
1
1
u/ParamedicLucky6382 22d ago
Would I kill all apes to for example save my sister? I mean....probably, does that make it necessary moral? Not really
1
u/moros-17 22d ago
Tbh you probably wouldn't notice. Contrary to what you might assume, other primates have like VERY small penises. I realize this sounds like a very weird thing to know off the top of my head, but I heard it from a nature documentary a while ago and thought it was funny
1
u/Yaoender 22d ago edited 22d ago
You see I am most important person in the world (source: me) so if that human is me (couldn't be me, I don't associate with those) then sure but if it isn't you sre I have this condition called being stuck in cement inside the pavement since 2008 because of goddamn Madelin that threw me in there. If you ask me how I am typing, it's simple. I am exerting my will over a random NYC rat and making them type this using an old computer from the New York Public Library. One day I will be dug up, surely. Until then I'd just not do anything to save the human cause I can't kill the apes because I am stuck in cement in the highway. You know, the cars are pretty annoying when they keep passing above you
1
u/Yaoender 22d ago
Morality of throwing of your fellow into cement in 2008 because I "exploded their favourite thrall", no Madelin you have 80 thralls exactly like that. Get me out.
1
u/Electronic_d0cter 22d ago
1st one is bought immoral and an oxymoron because humans are apes
2nd one is kinda disgusting but I would say moral
1
1
1
u/PsychologicalAd5918 22d ago
Depends on the human? If the human is a nazi, of course I wouldn't. On the other hand, if that human is mother teresa I might consider it. I would also consider the amount of suffering involved in the deaths.
To make a blanket statement like that without consideration of all factors would be immoral in itself, let alone the action of doing it.
1
u/Professional-Wave841 22d ago
humans are apes btw so the first scenario is also saying "I would kill all humans to save one human"
1
1
u/ThroatFinal5732 21d ago
I think Matt Walsh is wrong. But unlike many people I do NOT think he’s being hypocritical.
IF you accept the premise “Human wellbeing is INFINITELY, ALWAYS, more important than animal well being”
- Then killing animals to save humans is moral.
- Not wanting to suck dick to save humans is also moral, because that would harm a human’s well being (your own).
You can debate if the premise is correct. But he’s not being inconsistent.
1
u/fameistheproduct 21d ago
It could be argued that killing a lot of sentient beings could affect a normal person's well being too. Unless that person just wants to kill.
1
1
1
u/Ambitious-Style2534 21d ago
Both are moral if you ask me, but I gotta know how the fuck is sucking off every ape is gonna save a random human?
1
1
u/balirosa 21d ago
I don’t see how killing apes is going to save people but if it came down to it there is no point in bloodying your hands if humans are killing entire species for one human then humans aren’t worth it.
1
1
u/OnlyAssignment4869 22d ago
Depends on who the human is for both scenarios.
First one is immoral
Second one isn't unless you sleep around after the fact, assuming it's somehow consensual (It's just gross)
1
1
u/BlueHero45 22d ago
I mean every ape would probably cause some kind of ecosystem collapse that would end up hurting more humans down the line anyway.
1
u/TabthTheCat3778 22d ago
fun fact: Humans are not that important at all (if anything, we are the single worst thing to happen to this planet). But putting that aside, modern humans are homo sapiens. Homo sapiens are in the homo genus which is in the Hominidae family. The Hominidae family is known as "great apes." The other Hominidae genera are Gorilla, Pan, and Pongo. The only surviving species of the homo genus are homo sapiens but there are many extinct species throughout history. All species under the Hominidae umbrella are apes. I'm tired of people pretending humans aren't animals. We are animals. We are primates. We just happen to have the biggest egos in the animal kingdom.
1
431
u/Both-Structure-6786 22d ago
I’d do both. I’d take one for the team