6 Chimpanzees or 1 Baby — Who Do You Save?
A philosophical thought experiment about the value of human and animal life.
One evening you are on a hike where you stumble across a train track. Tied to the track are six chimpanzees and one human baby. They are all screaming for help as a train hoots its horn and its headlights glow in the distance. You don’t have time to save both groups but can only save either the one baby (as their ropes are tied particularly tight) or the 6 chimpanzees: who do you save?
While this scenario is incredibly unrealistic, it is a useful thought experiment to help dwell on the value we associate with human and animal life and test our intuitions on who we think it is right to save. In this post, I will argue for the more controversial choice, to save the 6 chimps. I will outline why, look at some of the strongest objections to my view, before finishing with why, even though we should save the chimps, we shouldn’t be blamed for saving the baby.
I will begin with the case for saving the chimpanzees, which is simply that by choosing this option we are saving 6 lives in the place of one. Life is incredibly valuable, as it gives us the chance to experience happiness, love, wonder and fulfilment. Life is a chance for us to explore who we are and use our freedom to fulfil our innermost desires. So, by saving more lives, more happiness is created, which is surely the morally better choice?
The most common objection to this view would be that though my argument would be true if it were saving six humans in the place of one, it certainly doesn’t work in this instance because it is saving chimps! Surely, we have a stronger moral obligation to save the baby since they are human, and we have a strong natural intuition to protect our own?
However, this response falls victim to what Australian philosopher Peter Singer terms ‘speciesism’. Singer argues in many of our moral decisions we use speciesist reasoning: we are prejudiced to our own species for no rational reason, but simply because of the way they look. In the case of the chimps and the baby, both groups have the same interests (to live), both are able to feel pain, and both have similar intelligences or rational capacities. The only thing that separates the group is their species, but surely this isn’t a morally relevant difference, as it only changes the way they look? Both value life equally and both have similar intelligences (so have similar interests in living), therefore, we should still save the chimps, as this option saves the most lives.
Our strong natural intuition to save the baby is built on our survival instincts to preserve our species — but just because we have this natural inclination, it does not make it moral. It is perfectly natural to do many things, like defecate whenever we feel like it, but that doesn’t make it moral! What is natural is no guide to what is moral and, instead, for an action to be moral, it has to be built on sound reason and logic. So, when we apply the logic to this case, it seems only right to save the chimps.
However, it could be easily argued that humans are not equal to animals in every way: when humans are fully developed, they are often far more intelligent than animals. Often, they are able to feel pleasure and happiness far more acutely when older and they also live far longer than chimps, so that happiness of saving the baby would be longer lasting. The human’s higher rational capacity when they grow also means it is likely the fecundity of the happiness will be far greater if the human is saved, as a human is able to use their intelligence to create something that could go on to save thousands of lives, in a way that isn’t impossible for chimpanzees. So, taking all this information into account — surely it is more rational to save the baby?
While this argument brings up some good points, relying on ‘what ifs’ and focusing on potential outcomes should always be met with suspicion, especially since the opposite scenarios are just as likely. Though it is true that when the baby grows, they will be able to feel happiness more acutely, this does not mean that they will feel acute happiness in their life. Instead, the baby could end up having a miserable and horrible life (likely scarred from being tied to a train track), whereas the chimps could end up having incredibly pleasurable lives. Further still, though the baby could grow up to save the lives of thousands, they could also grow up to become an evil scientist and take the lives of thousands.
In short, we cannot know for certain what will happen to the different groups in the future, and so it can only be rational to work on what we do know. We do know that both the chimps and baby are equally matched in their intelligence and current ability to feel pleasure and pain. We also know that saving the chimps saves five more lives than if we chose the baby. So based off what we do know, saving the chimps seems the moral choice.
However, this is not to say that it is morally blameworthy to save the baby instead of the chimps. Whichever group is saved, the outcome will be incredibly tragic as it will result in the loss of life. Whichever group you choose, you should be praised for risking your life for others, so to punish you for saving one of the groups instead of the other seems bizarre.
Furthermore, if you had any relation to the baby (such as if you were their parent) you would have a moral obligation to save them. This is because they rely on you for their survival and to ignore that need would be incredibly hypocritical, considering we also relied on someone to look after us when we were babies. Therefore, we want it to be the case that all babies are properly looked after by their carers since we enjoyed this benefit growing up and thus, we have a duty to save the baby.
To conclude, if you ever find yourself in this unlikely scenario, I believe the moral choice is to save the chimpanzees (as long as you have no relation to the baby). However, you should not be blamed for saving the child, as you have still acted heroically in saving their life. There is still one more question that requires answering, though: who on earth tied six chimpanzees and a baby to a train track?
I hope this thought experiment has been useful in helping you reflect on what gives value to life, and what (if any) the difference is between the value of humans and animals. I have given my ideas on the thought experiment, but I would love to know your thoughts about this in the comments below.
