Adolf Hitler and a gorilla are drowning in a river. You can only save 1.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Seriously though, SWE (provided he's not trolling) is absolutely correct.

Unless we're talking about Hitler when he's in power and can still do damage (in which case the moral question is a completely different ones that has nothing to to with gorillas), then saving the human being is the only morally acceptable course of action.

Gorillas are an endangered species

Hitler killed 11 million people

And you save him? That isn't morally acceptable.

What's not morally acceptable is to care more for an "endangered species" than for a fellow human being.

So we should let Hitler live and not care about our planet. Got it.

Yes. It's not like anything bad is going to happen by saving him.  The decision not to would be driven by hate. Even if it seems just, it never is.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Wait, is Tony saying that if Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was captured and arrested, he'd choose to save his life over that of an innocent animal's?

What's the heck is wrong with you? Of course! Who wouldn't?! A basic human right.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Only on Atlas would this be a controversial question.

Which is why 86% of posters chose the morally wrong answer...

Let it go.  You've lost this one.

Antiono'ss not wrong, but it would strictly depend on Hitler's life, before are after he instituted concentration camps etc.

No, it wouldn't. That would only make him lose his humanity in a figurative sense.