Most Explicit Animal Axiom Question Yet

[David Sklansky]

What I am really driving at with these questions is whether you think random human beings are close to infinitely more important than any random animal (not a pet). And how much that would change if the human was "worse" than random. Here's some questions along those lines that are quite specific:

1. Someone is choosing between letting one random human die painlessly or letting x random sentient animals (choose whichever is your favorite) die painfully. I have no idea how this situation has arisen so don't worry about it. Is there some number for x that would make you wish he chose the human? If so, what is it?

2. The human is not random but is instead a very bad person. How bad would he have to be for your x to be below 100? How about 1 (in other words one animal is more worth saving)?

3. Same question except while one alternative is to let x animals die painfully, the other alternative is one random human becoming blind in one eye. What's x now? And for x to equal one, how bad a person does he have to be?

PS If the human or animals are saved, assume their life is now normal.