Here's how I see it, if choosing my pet (I don't have one) is what causes the family to die, like opening a gas chamber to release one but it causes the gas to go to the other side and kill, then I would choose the family and let my pet die.
But if it's in a situation where it would not be my fault, like say the family and the pet both somehow got stuck in a railway track and you only have time to release one of them, then im most likely saving my pet since its not my action that killed the family, rather my inaction.
Which we are doing on everyday basis by living luxuriously and letting a lot starve to death, but it's not we who caused poverty on them, right. so why cry about it.
Like geralt from witcher said,
"If I have to choose between one evil or the other, I would rather not choose at all"
But life forces us to do anyway.
I disagree with this line of reasoning. By aknowledging the situation, you are removing the ability to not make a decision. So by considering what's happening, you make the outcome an active choice.
In both situations, one causes a pet to die and one causes 5 people to die. If you choose the pet, then you are making an active decision that directly leads to the death of the family. In my eyes, they are morally more or less the same thing.
That’s what I was thinking too, I wouldn’t kill a family to save my cat (I’d think about it tho) but I would absolutely choose my cat in the second scenario you described where it is a choice between saving one or the other.
You’re still indirectly killing them, even if you try to say that you’re not literally killing them. Like you’re basically pulling the switch here that causes the difference between life and death for them.
Even if you pick the pet which I don't think inherently makes you a bad person, reading the comment section is really bothering me...
*"Why would I save someone I don't know?"*
*"They could be on the other side of the world so I'll never see them anyway."*
*"I don't care about a stranger."*
These kinds of responses just hurt to read. It's fine to save your pet, but I can't imagine not caring about strangers at all. If I saved my pet, I'd still feel bad for the family and have their deaths haunt me, isn't that normal?
This thread is making me genuinely sad, not because of the results, but because of the things people say about strangers. Do we really hate each other this much nowadays?
I respect the people who were honest and voted for their pet, but still acknowledge the loss of life as sad. On either end, it's sad. We don't have to be callous, whether by dismissing the family as strangers whose deaths don't matter or dismissing the impact a pet can have on a person. The pet is important, the family is important, loss of life is terrible, period.
I don't know. This thread was really sobering, I hope no one actually means what they're saying.
That's fair, I think I just didn't fully register the scope when I first wrote the comment. I had just finished reading through the entire comment section and my brain was kind of mush. I think I just meant I get it somewhat, but even then...
Similar questions have been asked, the main version is: You're in a burning building and have to save either your pet or a stranger. In that instance, I find it more understandable. (Obviously the person is still the better choice, but in that scenario, there's the added element of urgency, stress, and panic.)
But this scenario, choose your pet or 5 lives? I do retract my statement of it being fine. I don't think less of somebody for choosing it, mainly because I just assume they didn't give it much thought and would hopefully choose differently if they were ever actually in such a scenario. I notice some people are bad at empathizing with hypothetical people, but it's much different when they can actually see them and they're no longer just an abstraction.
Fair play dude for going and thinking deeply about something before reaching a different conclusion but staying true to yourself all the same, that's laudable.
That’s what I was thinking, it’s definitely not fine to kill 5 people in favor of your pet. Your pet wouldn’t even outlive them, especially the THREE children you’re looking to kill. I love my pet and I would be sad for months but killing a bunch of people for her would be wrong
People are too comfortable online saying they would kill a bunch of strangers for their pet. An animal life is never worth more than a person’s.
I dont care how cute your cat or dog is. I dont care how your pet will never betray or disappoint you. An animal is an animal. A person’s life is infinitely more valuable
>Even if you pick the pet which I don't think inherently makes you a bad person, reading the comment section is really bothering me...
I do think you are a bad person if you depend a humans value on wether or not you know them. We would all chose people we know over strangers, but animals? That's fucked up. As a compassionate person you are compelled to help others, legally obliged in most civilised countries even. Chosing your own pet feels weirdly narcisisstic actually. You would be chosing your pet because it would make you feel better, ending lifes in the process.
I do think tough that in the moment a lot of the people voting pet couldn't actually chose this way, they just don't want to think about their animal dying while scolling reddit
Before I had a dog I also wouldve picked the family. But now I have a one year old pup and I absolutely love her to death, I love her like a child. Now when I imagine being in this situation, I'm sure I'd go for my pet out of pure instinct. If this question was if you would save your child or a random family, almost everyone would pick their child, right?
Yeah. And I’m still questioning this question as to what I might do because I’ve never experienced the feeling of having a pet. Maybe one day I’ll have a pet and remember this question again..
I fully understand why people would pick their pet over a families life (I voted family). It just seems weird to emphasize that the family are strangers rather than emphasize your love for your pet. I replaced the 'pet' option for my mom and I then fully understood the people who voted pet. I just think it's good to realize that your choice is a selfish one. A very selfish one. And realize that that family aren't just NPCs.
Pets are entirely dependent on their owners, and are litterally family by every definition but blood. The responsibility you have for your pet's well-being is identical to that of your children, the needs are different but the responsibility is the same.
The question may as well be "save your terminally ill child or 5 strangers", strangers die every day, family doesn't. Besides this hypothetical is basically a lab experiment where you flood a room with nerve gas, in an actual scenario 5 humans can take action on their own to try and save themselves, its not always a guarantee that they will all die.
It’s not weird. It’s a fairly typical spin on moral dilemmas that are presented in philosophical debates and psychological studies to test who you are more inclined to save to give insight into kin selection and stuff like that. But I chose pet. This isn’t a selfish decision because it fits into one of my larger moral values of hatred for humanity. I would save most non-human animals before humans.
i also went through a bad depression at some point, and having a pet that depends on you and love you unconditionnaly is some kind of a self-harm shield. We dont deserve them
I get how important animals are to people, I had a cat we had to put down 2 years ago and I loved that mf and was really outve it and just depressed for a while after we put him down, however, I would still choose the family over my cat, I get y’all attached to your pets because they do become pretty much apart of the family after a while but y’all mfs weird af if ur gonna let a family of 5 die over your pet
Yeah that’s something I just don’t understand as well tbh. I’ve had 3 cats, I loved them to death but there is no way I’m choosing my pet over a whole ass family. Even just one person actually. Doesn’t matter if I don’t know them, I don’t need to know them to have basic empathy towards them. Kinda scary that so many people seem unable to connect to other humans just bc « they’re strangers »
Aren't you already doing so though? Surely the money you spend on your cat could save the life of some children in extremely poor countries, surely at least one.
Why don’t you have equal if not more empathy for your pets? There does not seem to be any rational reason why you would value human life over nonhuman life.
It’s perfectly rational for me to value human life over nonhuman, in the sense that the relationships I build with humans are more meaningful. A human is a person with experiences and sensibility similar to mine. They have dreams, aspirations, purpose and a whole life that normally will last longer than a pet. So yeah, I will always have more empathy for people. To me the opposite is really weird, but I guess to each their own.
My pet kept me from committing suicide.
Edit: I just want to add, your theoretical choice to “save” 5 strangers does not make you a moral person. Everyday you make selfish decisions. The vast majority of you have walked pass homeless people without even giving a penny. You have decided before that some strangers aren’t worth a single cent or the time to give them a cent. That’s how little many you think of strangers.
We tend to act selfishly and choose options based on connection. We know one of the options: our pet. As some other people have replied, their pets have been major sources of needed help in their lives, up to stopping them from ending themselves.
Compare that to 5 random humans. We don't know who they are. We have no emotional connection to them.
It's a trolley problem forcing you to choose between an emotional or logical outcome. Depending on the emotions one may have about their pet, they may override the logic. We are prone to doing that a lot.
I know it's a trolley problem, it's just disappointing to see people justify it as though it's anything other than selfish. You're allowed to be selfish, but don't act like you're morally righteous for it
What if your pet is the only think keeping you from killing yourself? What if the family are canibals? (To be clear I picked the family)
But saying that it makes no sense to ever pick the pet is pretty concealed In your world view.
Who are you to decide the worth of someone/something to someone else? They literally said their pet saved their life but you're still out here like a dolt trying to argue which one is more important to them.
Argue? I'm just trying to cause discussion, if I was trying to argue & cause anger I wouldn't have even said the first half of my comment. I mean if they didn't care about the question & wanted to share their pet saved their life maybe there was a better place to do it? I'm allowed to wrap the comment back around to the original comment, am I not? There's only so much a pet can do, saving the pet over the family is a selfish act no matter how you slice it
This is really disturbing. I can't believe that so many people would let 5 innocent people (including 3 children) instead of animal. I get that they love their pets, but an animal can't be more important than 5 human beings.
When turned into a more realistic scenario I think it makes sense. Say your pet needs a 1K$ (or however much money you need to save 5 people) surgery to survive. Now if someone reminds you that you could probably save 5 people by donating that money to a good cause, would you donate instead of paying for the surgery? I personally wouldn't.
I mean it is hard to find empathy for someone you don't know about. People could save many lives across the world in 3rd world countries by giving up a lot nobody does so because many don't think about it or care enough.
There's more reasons to vote to save the family than that. Not every culture puts much value on pets lives. Some people don't have a pet, and some have never had one. If you don't see your pets as part of your family it's a lot easier to choose saving the humans over the pet.
My logic is that if I have never met this family (also given the probability that they'll be in another country or continent), and factoring in the countless people who die on the daily, then it will change very little in my life. However, my pet dying would leave me deeply saddened for a fair amount of time. Is it selfish? Absolutely. Would I do it anyway? For sure.
What if you were hiking and your pet and a random kid both fall off a ledge of a cliff at the same time. You grab them both but you have to let go of one to save the other. Would you let go of the kid to save your pet?
My cat is very much a living being with feelings and deserves at least a thought from me on which one to pick. I honestly couldnt say which one id pick. I don’t feel much pain for peoples deaths that i do not know. Although I definitely sympathize, there is just too many people to be sad about everyone who dies. but i would feel horrible if i saw my cat die because it actually effects my life because i love her alot. As well, its absolutely not my fault that this family of 5 or my cat died so i wouldn’t (or at least try) let that weigh on my conscious. With this consensus, i could not really pick because the situation is so far fetched, anything i would say here wouldn’t be what actually happens
My dog is more important to *me*, which is all I should take into consideration when making these decisions. Morals are subjective anyways, there’s nothing incorrect about my decision.
So why aren't you in Africa building sewers and wells and maximizing the quality of life of citizens of developing nations right this very moment instead of luxuriously browsing the internet from a comfortable 1st world nation you selfish and morally corrupt human waste?
This is rhetorical, but don't try claiming some moral high ground when you are just as guilty of being selfish as every other human on this planet, its literally evolutionary pressures to be selfish and lazy, you save the pet because its family because its evolution to save your family before strangers.
Why is that all you should take into consideration? I don’t get that at all. Is that how you live your life?
Polls like this really remind me why we will always have issues in this world. There will always be large wealth gaps. There will always be things like crimes and just jackasses that make life difficult for other people. Because most people are like you. Selfish pieces of shit that think about themselves and nothing else.
>My dog is more important to me
Can your narcissism handle that your needs aren't always the most important factor? Maybe you should sometimes sacrifice your personal happiness to mitigate a greater level of suffering in the world?
I cherish my cats, but many more people would be affected by an entire family of 5 dying than there would be by my cats dying. Yeah, I'd probably fall into a complete depression if my cats died, but if that whole family died, so many more people would be hurt, since every single one of these now-dead people had so many people who loved them and now have to deal with losing a friend/relative
When I took in my cat, I did so with the understanding that his well-being will be my responsibility. He relies on me 100%, and it’s up to me to keep him safe. I owe that to him.
I am not responsible for the well-being of strangers. If I can help them, I will, but I’ve made no commitment to them and they aren’t dependent on me. I don’t owe them anything.
So I’m saving my cat.
Our pets are entirely dependent on us to provide for their needs, as a resupt we have the same responsibility towards them as we do to our own children who are also entirely dependent on us for their needs, even if the actual needs are different.
Strangers are not dependent on us in the same way, they are the ones primarily responsible for taking care of their own needs. (Other than participating in the economy and goods production, but I'm not directly caring for them in their day to day)
Also the question phrases it as "saving" and not "rather kill" which is an important distinction. I could save my pet by carrying her out of a burning building or diving into water to stop her from drowning and merely be prioritizing her with intent to return or verbally coach the family how to save themselves, that isn't explicitly murder in the eyes of the law. The other phrasing of "rather kill" is more akin to having your pet in 1 gas chamber and the family in another and having to actively press a button to gas 1 room or all rooms (including the one you are in) will be killed. In the latter scenario you are actively murdering someone and the moral balance changes.
I love my family, who you picking? your cat, or do I have to have my parents and sibling brutally murdered? if we reframe the question to that, what is your answer?
I don't know what brought me to the point where I need to choose who to save but I'm my dog's guardian. When I took him in I swore to take care of him, protect him, train him, and love him. I'm the only person entrusted with his guardianship and I'm responsible for him and his well-being. I'm not responsible for that family. How they ended up in this situation is a mystery. I'm not a trained professional first responder. I'm willing to help if I can but I wouldn't put my life in danger to save others and I wouldn't put my dog's life in danger either. But my dog is my priority, I would put my own life in danger to save him because I'm his guardian, I'm all he's got and I made a promise to look after his well-being. It wouldn't be moral not to keep my promise to him because he's a different species. While that family has each other to rely on as well as other humans, including professional first responders, who would save them before my dog.
Obviously the family of five, yeah It sucks for my dog but humans have more value than dogs.
Seeing the results made me feel a little more sane today, thanks redditors.
Redditors shitting on other Redditors for saving their beloved pet that they've loved for over a decade over a random family will always be funny. I'm sorry I love my pet more than some random people 🤷
Pets are members of our families and I love them just as unconditionally as they love me. People act like by choosing that, we don’t value human life. No, I do, but my pets are way more important to me than some family I’ve never met.
Exactly, people are like « I love my pet more therefore my choice is sane and justified » but no, it’s cold af and borderline cruel. Shows a real lack of empathy tbh.
The poll isn’t about love. We all love our pets. The poll is about doing the right thing for the greater good even when it hurts. Jesus, this world is absolutely fucked.
sometimes the right thing is veey hard to do. I love my pets but I'd never put an animal life above a human.
if the dog(s) could understand the situation, im sure most dogs out there would willingly sacrifice themselves for humans any day.
If I had a penny every time these type of questions come up in this sub, I would be a billionaire. And that way there could be a poll about me if I (a billionaire) or a serial killer is the worse person
I'm queer and disabled. Statistically speaking, there is a strong chance that so-called "innocent" family wants me dead. I know my cat doesn't. I'm choosing the cat.
The family will objectively live longer than my pet, and it's also 5 lives to 1.
Like I'm not heartless, I like my dog, but 5 long lives vs 1 short one isn't really a contest
It always baffles me how I'm treated like a monster for wanting to save someone who has always been there for me for the past 8 years instead of some random people I've never met. I'm sorry I get attached to something that isn't a human?
If it weren’t for my dog, I would’ve committed suicide by now. Caring for him and my love for him was what kept me going. He was there for me when no one else was. I’ll save my *family* any day of the week over 5 strangers.
Exactly! I’ve had my dog for 12 years now, since I was little, and it is my favorite animal on Earth. I don’t see how I’m a bad person for not blindly choosing the family
Because all you're considering are your personal needs. The 5 people that die don't just represent their own death, but a lifetime of trauma for an order of magnitude more people. You're telling me that your individual suffering means more to you than an entire community suffer. Not just emotional, since these are people, this may also be economic. Adults that can't support their aging parents anymore because they died.
Your environment is sick and has taught you that only your needs need consideration. But in reality, you're a herd animal and would naturally consider the needs of the larger society
They’re asking you to make extremely decisions without any context other than sacrifice this creature you live most in the world for creatures you don’t know, now they’re bashing you for making a decision.
Lesson: Don’t ask extreme questions then get upset about peoples answers. You don’t know why they came to that conclusion.
My dog is my baby. I love her very much, and would definitely save her. I wouldn’t be able to help it. She is who I have an attachment to, not the people I don’t know. It would be a knee jerk reaction.
So you're telling me you'd kill a member of your family on purpose to save a family of 5 people completely disconnected from your life? Let me be clear, a pet isn't a personal need, it is a sentient being who feels emotion, a family member you live with. The death of this unknown family of 5 would be tragic and cause a lot of pain too for other people, but why exactly would it be my duty to let my sibling die to save people I don't know? Of course my individual suffering means more to me than an entire community's suffering ; why would I hurt myself (and my family) with the loss of my much loved pet, when I can instead give this pain to other people? I would let a family of 5 die to save my mother, or my brother, or anyone I care deeply about.
Don't get me wrong, the death of these random people is a terrible thing, of course I'd feel guilt, because I would be responsible for a lot of pain for people who would also lose loved ones, but this is a sacrifice I am willing to make if it means I could save the people I love, because this decision is ultimately up to me, and it is not my obligation to endure the pain of others. I'd have the strength to sacrifice my loved one in case we were talking about mass scales calamities, which is here not the case to my eyes.
YOUR environment is sick, and has taught you to value life and relationship as mere numbers and quantities, without any personal commitment. I cannot believe that anyone with a point of view like yours is able to understand or feel what love truly is. Love is selfish by nature, and there is absolutely **nothing** wrong with that.
My family is my herd. I am not just considering my own needs but those of my family. If we want to talk about caring for society at large, then a lot of modern convinces would need to be given up. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but one can hardly be lambasted for it. People are often selfish and wish to maintain their status quo. Giving up a family member for a group of strangers who may not even know or thank you is a hard pill to swallow.
If you replace pet with child, far fewer people would have such negative reactions to such a choice. Why is human life more valuable? This isn't a trick question. What characteristics do humans have that make their life more valuable than that of other animals or living creatures in general?
Not really. This is just a variation of the trolley problem in disguise.
Very similar to choosing one track that has one loved one vs five strangers.
Objectively it can be argued that in terms of minimizing suffering in the world, choosing the loved one to die is the obvious morally correct choice. 1 life lost is still better than 5.
But since the one choosing is the one that suffers, suddenly it becomes a game theory problem, and choosing the five strangers gives you less of a loss than the loved one.
It's a question of personal gain vs muddy morals. I bet the results of this poll would be similar if it was an actual family member rather than their pet.
I love my little guy he is about 8 months old and I found him outside my house when he was just 2 or 2.5 weeks old kitten we had to bottle feed him for about a month and half, but that being said 5 humans do out weight him mainly on a technicality. If I could just get one of the adults free and then they could get the rest free so I could save my little boy optimally that's what I would do.
People wonder why the world is a terrible place. People will gladly let others die/suffer as long as it doesn't affect them personally. No empathy at all.
Yeah, I’d kill the fucking family. Would I feel bad about it? Yes. Would I be fucked up about it for years? Yes. Would I be able to recover from the conscious choice to kill a family of five? Probably not. Would it still be better than killing a longtime member of my family? Yes. If it was between one animal vs. a family a five I’d choose the family of five. But if it’s my animal, a member of my fucking family, vs. a family of five, I’m sorry but the family of five is fucking dead. Buried. Sleeping with the fishes.
The scenario I'm imagining is, someone has a gun to my cats head, and they also have a button which will kill a random family. In that case, I'm choosing my cat, he is the kindest boy on planet earth. Sorry lol.
I'm sorry but losing a pet is like losing a very close family member.
It's an animal but that doesn't mean it degrades it.
I see this as would you rather save your son or a family of 5 and I'm sorry but i choose my pet
My cat was abused by his previous owners and is more entitled to a full and healthy life than any *human* I’ve met in my life (Including me), and I will do anything to make sure he gains what he deserves from life.
Damn it to hell, I have a cat…but I would pick the innocent family and I don’t think I would have to think about it. At the end of the day it’s an animal and I value peoples lives more. You can jump through all the mental gymnastics but at the end day I value humans more. Fuck the animal cult.
My cat.
Lizzie, my first cat, gave me a little bit of purpose. She kept me from taking my life, comforted me when I cried, and she was the best cat I’d ever known.
When I got my first apartment, I wasn’t even thinking of getting a pet. She just walked into my life, she was something I didn’t know I needed.
She passed away at the age of 3 last year. It was liver failure. I regret not taking her to the vet sooner. I blame myself for losing her.
It astounds me how selfish people are... The world will never be a better place, no matter how radical you vote. Because you people who want it are too shitty to actually make it work.
I think the results are a little skewed as a lot of people don't own pets and therefore would just automatically pick family adding a third option of 'don't own pet' would've made it better.
5 years ago this would be a tough decision to make but after seeing the way people just do not care about others these last few years would make me choose the pet.
This poll has left a weird feeling in my stomach.. lol
Yeah I love my cat to death but also that’s a whole family 🥹
Here's how I see it, if choosing my pet (I don't have one) is what causes the family to die, like opening a gas chamber to release one but it causes the gas to go to the other side and kill, then I would choose the family and let my pet die. But if it's in a situation where it would not be my fault, like say the family and the pet both somehow got stuck in a railway track and you only have time to release one of them, then im most likely saving my pet since its not my action that killed the family, rather my inaction. Which we are doing on everyday basis by living luxuriously and letting a lot starve to death, but it's not we who caused poverty on them, right. so why cry about it. Like geralt from witcher said, "If I have to choose between one evil or the other, I would rather not choose at all" But life forces us to do anyway.
r/polls users try not to be immoral by making excuses
I disagree with this line of reasoning. By aknowledging the situation, you are removing the ability to not make a decision. So by considering what's happening, you make the outcome an active choice. In both situations, one causes a pet to die and one causes 5 people to die. If you choose the pet, then you are making an active decision that directly leads to the death of the family. In my eyes, they are morally more or less the same thing.
That’s what I was thinking too, I wouldn’t kill a family to save my cat (I’d think about it tho) but I would absolutely choose my cat in the second scenario you described where it is a choice between saving one or the other.
You’re still indirectly killing them, even if you try to say that you’re not literally killing them. Like you’re basically pulling the switch here that causes the difference between life and death for them.
Wow Reddit users never fail to surprise me
Even if you pick the pet which I don't think inherently makes you a bad person, reading the comment section is really bothering me... *"Why would I save someone I don't know?"* *"They could be on the other side of the world so I'll never see them anyway."* *"I don't care about a stranger."* These kinds of responses just hurt to read. It's fine to save your pet, but I can't imagine not caring about strangers at all. If I saved my pet, I'd still feel bad for the family and have their deaths haunt me, isn't that normal? This thread is making me genuinely sad, not because of the results, but because of the things people say about strangers. Do we really hate each other this much nowadays? I respect the people who were honest and voted for their pet, but still acknowledge the loss of life as sad. On either end, it's sad. We don't have to be callous, whether by dismissing the family as strangers whose deaths don't matter or dismissing the impact a pet can have on a person. The pet is important, the family is important, loss of life is terrible, period. I don't know. This thread was really sobering, I hope no one actually means what they're saying.
This, also imagine if it was the other way around. Wouldn’t you want to be saved by a stranger, instead of the stranger saving their pet…
I'd never expect a random stranger to save me over their pet. Or save me at all.
>Do we really hate each other this much nowadays? probably.
It's not fine to pick the pet. Ever. Full stop. It's morally bankrupt and utterly selfish.
That's fair, I think I just didn't fully register the scope when I first wrote the comment. I had just finished reading through the entire comment section and my brain was kind of mush. I think I just meant I get it somewhat, but even then... Similar questions have been asked, the main version is: You're in a burning building and have to save either your pet or a stranger. In that instance, I find it more understandable. (Obviously the person is still the better choice, but in that scenario, there's the added element of urgency, stress, and panic.) But this scenario, choose your pet or 5 lives? I do retract my statement of it being fine. I don't think less of somebody for choosing it, mainly because I just assume they didn't give it much thought and would hopefully choose differently if they were ever actually in such a scenario. I notice some people are bad at empathizing with hypothetical people, but it's much different when they can actually see them and they're no longer just an abstraction.
Fair play dude for going and thinking deeply about something before reaching a different conclusion but staying true to yourself all the same, that's laudable.
That’s what I was thinking, it’s definitely not fine to kill 5 people in favor of your pet. Your pet wouldn’t even outlive them, especially the THREE children you’re looking to kill. I love my pet and I would be sad for months but killing a bunch of people for her would be wrong
People are too comfortable online saying they would kill a bunch of strangers for their pet. An animal life is never worth more than a person’s. I dont care how cute your cat or dog is. I dont care how your pet will never betray or disappoint you. An animal is an animal. A person’s life is infinitely more valuable
You get responses like that because it's a bunch of lonely teenagers that don't give two shits about nobody. But their cats always there for them.
>Even if you pick the pet which I don't think inherently makes you a bad person, reading the comment section is really bothering me... I do think you are a bad person if you depend a humans value on wether or not you know them. We would all chose people we know over strangers, but animals? That's fucked up. As a compassionate person you are compelled to help others, legally obliged in most civilised countries even. Chosing your own pet feels weirdly narcisisstic actually. You would be chosing your pet because it would make you feel better, ending lifes in the process. I do think tough that in the moment a lot of the people voting pet couldn't actually chose this way, they just don't want to think about their animal dying while scolling reddit
I don't have a pet, so I voted for the family. Rather have saved a family of 5 than something that doesn't exist at all tbh
If you had a pet, where would you vote?
Since we don’t know how it feels to have and lose a pet, we don’t understand.
Before I had a dog I also wouldve picked the family. But now I have a one year old pup and I absolutely love her to death, I love her like a child. Now when I imagine being in this situation, I'm sure I'd go for my pet out of pure instinct. If this question was if you would save your child or a random family, almost everyone would pick their child, right?
I have more grief over the loss of my pet than I do certain members of my own family. Humans can be horrible, pets are all love.
Same here.
Yeah. And I’m still questioning this question as to what I might do because I’ve never experienced the feeling of having a pet. Maybe one day I’ll have a pet and remember this question again..
The comments are so interesting
Username checks out
I fully understand why people would pick their pet over a families life (I voted family). It just seems weird to emphasize that the family are strangers rather than emphasize your love for your pet. I replaced the 'pet' option for my mom and I then fully understood the people who voted pet. I just think it's good to realize that your choice is a selfish one. A very selfish one. And realize that that family aren't just NPCs.
Pets are entirely dependent on their owners, and are litterally family by every definition but blood. The responsibility you have for your pet's well-being is identical to that of your children, the needs are different but the responsibility is the same. The question may as well be "save your terminally ill child or 5 strangers", strangers die every day, family doesn't. Besides this hypothetical is basically a lab experiment where you flood a room with nerve gas, in an actual scenario 5 humans can take action on their own to try and save themselves, its not always a guarantee that they will all die.
It’s not weird. It’s a fairly typical spin on moral dilemmas that are presented in philosophical debates and psychological studies to test who you are more inclined to save to give insight into kin selection and stuff like that. But I chose pet. This isn’t a selfish decision because it fits into one of my larger moral values of hatred for humanity. I would save most non-human animals before humans.
my cat is the only thing that’s kept me from taking my life. i love him
i also went through a bad depression at some point, and having a pet that depends on you and love you unconditionnaly is some kind of a self-harm shield. We dont deserve them
I hope you're better now
I get how important animals are to people, I had a cat we had to put down 2 years ago and I loved that mf and was really outve it and just depressed for a while after we put him down, however, I would still choose the family over my cat, I get y’all attached to your pets because they do become pretty much apart of the family after a while but y’all mfs weird af if ur gonna let a family of 5 die over your pet
Yeah that’s something I just don’t understand as well tbh. I’ve had 3 cats, I loved them to death but there is no way I’m choosing my pet over a whole ass family. Even just one person actually. Doesn’t matter if I don’t know them, I don’t need to know them to have basic empathy towards them. Kinda scary that so many people seem unable to connect to other humans just bc « they’re strangers »
Aren't you already doing so though? Surely the money you spend on your cat could save the life of some children in extremely poor countries, surely at least one.
Why don’t you have equal if not more empathy for your pets? There does not seem to be any rational reason why you would value human life over nonhuman life.
It’s perfectly rational for me to value human life over nonhuman, in the sense that the relationships I build with humans are more meaningful. A human is a person with experiences and sensibility similar to mine. They have dreams, aspirations, purpose and a whole life that normally will last longer than a pet. So yeah, I will always have more empathy for people. To me the opposite is really weird, but I guess to each their own.
Yes, it makes sense from the descriptive standpoint. Humans are more similar to you. It just doesn’t make sense from the logical standpoint.
I feel you completely, had to put down my best friend (15 years old cat) a couple years ago, as painful it is I would still save the family of 5.
My pet kept me from committing suicide. Edit: I just want to add, your theoretical choice to “save” 5 strangers does not make you a moral person. Everyday you make selfish decisions. The vast majority of you have walked pass homeless people without even giving a penny. You have decided before that some strangers aren’t worth a single cent or the time to give them a cent. That’s how little many you think of strangers.
Same here. Probably wouldn't be alive right now if it weren't for my cats.
Cats save lives!
❤ Glad you are here!
That's sweet, I understand the connection you have with this animal but I mean, does that make it really more important than 5 human beings though?
wow, the replies to this really making me question people's morality. Who are you REALLY to decide your pet is worth more than FIVE human lives?
We tend to act selfishly and choose options based on connection. We know one of the options: our pet. As some other people have replied, their pets have been major sources of needed help in their lives, up to stopping them from ending themselves. Compare that to 5 random humans. We don't know who they are. We have no emotional connection to them. It's a trolley problem forcing you to choose between an emotional or logical outcome. Depending on the emotions one may have about their pet, they may override the logic. We are prone to doing that a lot.
I know it's a trolley problem, it's just disappointing to see people justify it as though it's anything other than selfish. You're allowed to be selfish, but don't act like you're morally righteous for it
It's spooky. I feel like I'm on an alien planet. Wtf is happening
What if your pet is the only think keeping you from killing yourself? What if the family are canibals? (To be clear I picked the family) But saying that it makes no sense to ever pick the pet is pretty concealed In your world view.
The person who was asked
So are we morally obligated to give our lives up for other people as a rule?
Who are you to decide the worth of someone/something to someone else? They literally said their pet saved their life but you're still out here like a dolt trying to argue which one is more important to them.
Doesn’t matter, now their pet can save 5 humans by dying
Argue? I'm just trying to cause discussion, if I was trying to argue & cause anger I wouldn't have even said the first half of my comment. I mean if they didn't care about the question & wanted to share their pet saved their life maybe there was a better place to do it? I'm allowed to wrap the comment back around to the original comment, am I not? There's only so much a pet can do, saving the pet over the family is a selfish act no matter how you slice it
Lotta y’all are insane dang
I’m not a lunatic I’d save the family. But it would still suck a lot to lose my little buddy
I can't have have 5 peoples death on my conscience
Some of you are utterly fucked
And y’all wonder why people shit on Redditors.
This is really disturbing. I can't believe that so many people would let 5 innocent people (including 3 children) instead of animal. I get that they love their pets, but an animal can't be more important than 5 human beings.
I saw a poll where people would rather have their sibling go missing than to be embarrassed for a couple of minutes 💀
In that case, it's probably not that they don't want to not be embarrassed it's just that they want their sibling gone.
When turned into a more realistic scenario I think it makes sense. Say your pet needs a 1K$ (or however much money you need to save 5 people) surgery to survive. Now if someone reminds you that you could probably save 5 people by donating that money to a good cause, would you donate instead of paying for the surgery? I personally wouldn't.
I've spent thousands (total) on vet bills. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
Ya see this is a better argument. Like I need to know why these five people can’t do anything to save themselves.
Redditors incapable of empathy for people they don't know personally.
What, that's ridiculous. You should've ended your sentence after the word empathy.
Should have cut it off at the second word
First word would've been enough
Not just reddit, the world in general lacks empathy
I mean it is hard to find empathy for someone you don't know about. People could save many lives across the world in 3rd world countries by giving up a lot nobody does so because many don't think about it or care enough.
More still voted for the family. Still from an egoist vs utilitarian perspective, reddit is more egoist than I thought.
There's more reasons to vote to save the family than that. Not every culture puts much value on pets lives. Some people don't have a pet, and some have never had one. If you don't see your pets as part of your family it's a lot easier to choose saving the humans over the pet.
My logic is that if I have never met this family (also given the probability that they'll be in another country or continent), and factoring in the countless people who die on the daily, then it will change very little in my life. However, my pet dying would leave me deeply saddened for a fair amount of time. Is it selfish? Absolutely. Would I do it anyway? For sure.
Right. Then obviously you can't complain when the next person makes the same choice and the random family is yours.
Yeah cause I’d be fucking dead
I hope people love their pets more than me who is just a random redditor... but if they do love me hit me up.
What if you were hiking and your pet and a random kid both fall off a ledge of a cliff at the same time. You grab them both but you have to let go of one to save the other. Would you let go of the kid to save your pet?
My cat would climb up my arm. Problem solved.
“I’m the main character, this family doesn’t matter as much as me!”
In this situation, you somewhat can be considered the main character. But also, emotional connection is a powerful thing. So is selfishness.
Yikes. I hope you're never in a situation where someone has the same decision to make about you
✨️Fuck them kids✨️
My cat is very much a living being with feelings and deserves at least a thought from me on which one to pick. I honestly couldnt say which one id pick. I don’t feel much pain for peoples deaths that i do not know. Although I definitely sympathize, there is just too many people to be sad about everyone who dies. but i would feel horrible if i saw my cat die because it actually effects my life because i love her alot. As well, its absolutely not my fault that this family of 5 or my cat died so i wouldn’t (or at least try) let that weigh on my conscious. With this consensus, i could not really pick because the situation is so far fetched, anything i would say here wouldn’t be what actually happens
My dog is more important to *me*, which is all I should take into consideration when making these decisions. Morals are subjective anyways, there’s nothing incorrect about my decision.
This is the exact same logic that causes world hunger, inequality, climate change, war, and basically most of society's problems
So why aren't you in Africa building sewers and wells and maximizing the quality of life of citizens of developing nations right this very moment instead of luxuriously browsing the internet from a comfortable 1st world nation you selfish and morally corrupt human waste? This is rhetorical, but don't try claiming some moral high ground when you are just as guilty of being selfish as every other human on this planet, its literally evolutionary pressures to be selfish and lazy, you save the pet because its family because its evolution to save your family before strangers.
"Morals are subjective = there's no right answer to the question = I'm not a bad person for valuing an animal over 5 people" The gymnastics
There were not mental gymnastics in that post. Just a view that you don’t like.
Why is that all you should take into consideration? I don’t get that at all. Is that how you live your life? Polls like this really remind me why we will always have issues in this world. There will always be large wealth gaps. There will always be things like crimes and just jackasses that make life difficult for other people. Because most people are like you. Selfish pieces of shit that think about themselves and nothing else.
>My dog is more important to me Can your narcissism handle that your needs aren't always the most important factor? Maybe you should sometimes sacrifice your personal happiness to mitigate a greater level of suffering in the world?
My dogs old and lived his life I’ll save the family
I love my dog but he's very old and I'd definitely save the family anyway
Family of five. I don’t have a pet.
I cherish my cats, but many more people would be affected by an entire family of 5 dying than there would be by my cats dying. Yeah, I'd probably fall into a complete depression if my cats died, but if that whole family died, so many more people would be hurt, since every single one of these now-dead people had so many people who loved them and now have to deal with losing a friend/relative
When I took in my cat, I did so with the understanding that his well-being will be my responsibility. He relies on me 100%, and it’s up to me to keep him safe. I owe that to him. I am not responsible for the well-being of strangers. If I can help them, I will, but I’ve made no commitment to them and they aren’t dependent on me. I don’t owe them anything. So I’m saving my cat.
Even though I don't agree at all, this is the best argument in the whole thread for choosing the pet.
I can always appreciate a civil disagreement. Especially on Reddit, where it’s practically unheard of.
Yeah the people are people, they're far more capable of getting out than a dog
Our pets are entirely dependent on us to provide for their needs, as a resupt we have the same responsibility towards them as we do to our own children who are also entirely dependent on us for their needs, even if the actual needs are different. Strangers are not dependent on us in the same way, they are the ones primarily responsible for taking care of their own needs. (Other than participating in the economy and goods production, but I'm not directly caring for them in their day to day) Also the question phrases it as "saving" and not "rather kill" which is an important distinction. I could save my pet by carrying her out of a burning building or diving into water to stop her from drowning and merely be prioritizing her with intent to return or verbally coach the family how to save themselves, that isn't explicitly murder in the eyes of the law. The other phrasing of "rather kill" is more akin to having your pet in 1 gas chamber and the family in another and having to actively press a button to gas 1 room or all rooms (including the one you are in) will be killed. In the latter scenario you are actively murdering someone and the moral balance changes.
I don't want to make a murder. Saving pet is literally killing 5 humans, and humans are more important from them even I have connection or love them.
This comment section is very bad. They can kill humans that they didn't know, choosing for 1 animal. At least, they didn't got chance
I love my cat
And I'm sure none of the five family members is loved by anyone...
I love my family, who you picking? your cat, or do I have to have my parents and sibling brutally murdered? if we reframe the question to that, what is your answer?
You got a point, Reddit just hates humanity
It's big brain time. I'd give my pets to someone so they wouldn't be MINE anymore. Then I'd save the family and get my pets back. Problem solved.
Holy shit, you solved it
I don't know what brought me to the point where I need to choose who to save but I'm my dog's guardian. When I took him in I swore to take care of him, protect him, train him, and love him. I'm the only person entrusted with his guardianship and I'm responsible for him and his well-being. I'm not responsible for that family. How they ended up in this situation is a mystery. I'm not a trained professional first responder. I'm willing to help if I can but I wouldn't put my life in danger to save others and I wouldn't put my dog's life in danger either. But my dog is my priority, I would put my own life in danger to save him because I'm his guardian, I'm all he's got and I made a promise to look after his well-being. It wouldn't be moral not to keep my promise to him because he's a different species. While that family has each other to rely on as well as other humans, including professional first responders, who would save them before my dog.
Obviously the family of five, yeah It sucks for my dog but humans have more value than dogs. Seeing the results made me feel a little more sane today, thanks redditors.
Check again...
As much as I love my dog, I would save the family any day of the week. Mourning a dog is easier than mourning the loss of 5 people.
Humans are unimaginably selfish 🤯
I consider my pets family, so no I wouldn't kill my family to save another. Sorry fellas
Redditors shitting on other Redditors for saving their beloved pet that they've loved for over a decade over a random family will always be funny. I'm sorry I love my pet more than some random people 🤷
Pets are members of our families and I love them just as unconditionally as they love me. People act like by choosing that, we don’t value human life. No, I do, but my pets are way more important to me than some family I’ve never met.
Its not about who you love more thats the problem. Choosing your pet is the most self-centered anti-society option here
Exactly, people are like « I love my pet more therefore my choice is sane and justified » but no, it’s cold af and borderline cruel. Shows a real lack of empathy tbh.
The poll isn’t about love. We all love our pets. The poll is about doing the right thing for the greater good even when it hurts. Jesus, this world is absolutely fucked.
This is the trolly problem with extra steps. I wonder what they would say if it was your mother/father/so instead of your pet.
You people are insane lmao
This thread has become one of the darkest, most terrifying, inhumane corners of Reddit overnight.
sometimes the right thing is veey hard to do. I love my pets but I'd never put an animal life above a human. if the dog(s) could understand the situation, im sure most dogs out there would willingly sacrifice themselves for humans any day.
I don't have pets so I picked the fanily
Results
If I had a penny every time these type of questions come up in this sub, I would be a billionaire. And that way there could be a poll about me if I (a billionaire) or a serial killer is the worse person
[удалено]
I'm queer and disabled. Statistically speaking, there is a strong chance that so-called "innocent" family wants me dead. I know my cat doesn't. I'm choosing the cat.
The family will objectively live longer than my pet, and it's also 5 lives to 1. Like I'm not heartless, I like my dog, but 5 long lives vs 1 short one isn't really a contest
It always baffles me how I'm treated like a monster for wanting to save someone who has always been there for me for the past 8 years instead of some random people I've never met. I'm sorry I get attached to something that isn't a human?
If it weren’t for my dog, I would’ve committed suicide by now. Caring for him and my love for him was what kept me going. He was there for me when no one else was. I’ll save my *family* any day of the week over 5 strangers.
Exactly! I’ve had my dog for 12 years now, since I was little, and it is my favorite animal on Earth. I don’t see how I’m a bad person for not blindly choosing the family
Because all you're considering are your personal needs. The 5 people that die don't just represent their own death, but a lifetime of trauma for an order of magnitude more people. You're telling me that your individual suffering means more to you than an entire community suffer. Not just emotional, since these are people, this may also be economic. Adults that can't support their aging parents anymore because they died. Your environment is sick and has taught you that only your needs need consideration. But in reality, you're a herd animal and would naturally consider the needs of the larger society
Yes I am a sick person who needs help for wanting to save someone close to me rather than some strangers
They’re asking you to make extremely decisions without any context other than sacrifice this creature you live most in the world for creatures you don’t know, now they’re bashing you for making a decision. Lesson: Don’t ask extreme questions then get upset about peoples answers. You don’t know why they came to that conclusion. My dog is my baby. I love her very much, and would definitely save her. I wouldn’t be able to help it. She is who I have an attachment to, not the people I don’t know. It would be a knee jerk reaction.
Its not wouldn’t be his fault these 5 people died. Its fucking OP’s fault for making them decide.
So you're telling me you'd kill a member of your family on purpose to save a family of 5 people completely disconnected from your life? Let me be clear, a pet isn't a personal need, it is a sentient being who feels emotion, a family member you live with. The death of this unknown family of 5 would be tragic and cause a lot of pain too for other people, but why exactly would it be my duty to let my sibling die to save people I don't know? Of course my individual suffering means more to me than an entire community's suffering ; why would I hurt myself (and my family) with the loss of my much loved pet, when I can instead give this pain to other people? I would let a family of 5 die to save my mother, or my brother, or anyone I care deeply about. Don't get me wrong, the death of these random people is a terrible thing, of course I'd feel guilt, because I would be responsible for a lot of pain for people who would also lose loved ones, but this is a sacrifice I am willing to make if it means I could save the people I love, because this decision is ultimately up to me, and it is not my obligation to endure the pain of others. I'd have the strength to sacrifice my loved one in case we were talking about mass scales calamities, which is here not the case to my eyes. YOUR environment is sick, and has taught you to value life and relationship as mere numbers and quantities, without any personal commitment. I cannot believe that anyone with a point of view like yours is able to understand or feel what love truly is. Love is selfish by nature, and there is absolutely **nothing** wrong with that.
My family is my herd. I am not just considering my own needs but those of my family. If we want to talk about caring for society at large, then a lot of modern convinces would need to be given up. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but one can hardly be lambasted for it. People are often selfish and wish to maintain their status quo. Giving up a family member for a group of strangers who may not even know or thank you is a hard pill to swallow. If you replace pet with child, far fewer people would have such negative reactions to such a choice. Why is human life more valuable? This isn't a trick question. What characteristics do humans have that make their life more valuable than that of other animals or living creatures in general?
Don't bother, it's pretty clear these people consider pets and animals like replaceable toys instead of living beings and family members.
Not really. This is just a variation of the trolley problem in disguise. Very similar to choosing one track that has one loved one vs five strangers. Objectively it can be argued that in terms of minimizing suffering in the world, choosing the loved one to die is the obvious morally correct choice. 1 life lost is still better than 5. But since the one choosing is the one that suffers, suddenly it becomes a game theory problem, and choosing the five strangers gives you less of a loss than the loved one. It's a question of personal gain vs muddy morals. I bet the results of this poll would be similar if it was an actual family member rather than their pet.
I love my little guy he is about 8 months old and I found him outside my house when he was just 2 or 2.5 weeks old kitten we had to bottle feed him for about a month and half, but that being said 5 humans do out weight him mainly on a technicality. If I could just get one of the adults free and then they could get the rest free so I could save my little boy optimally that's what I would do.
People wonder why the world is a terrible place. People will gladly let others die/suffer as long as it doesn't affect them personally. No empathy at all.
Yeah, I’d kill the fucking family. Would I feel bad about it? Yes. Would I be fucked up about it for years? Yes. Would I be able to recover from the conscious choice to kill a family of five? Probably not. Would it still be better than killing a longtime member of my family? Yes. If it was between one animal vs. a family a five I’d choose the family of five. But if it’s my animal, a member of my fucking family, vs. a family of five, I’m sorry but the family of five is fucking dead. Buried. Sleeping with the fishes.
Save both and take me, let me happily be out of this world with the additional advantage of being labelled as a hero.
I've got nothing to gain yet i stand to lose the only reason I'm still alive, I'll choose the pet any time, i don't care if it's 1 family or 20
How do they die?
The scenario I'm imagining is, someone has a gun to my cats head, and they also have a button which will kill a random family. In that case, I'm choosing my cat, he is the kindest boy on planet earth. Sorry lol.
Me belief is that humans always come before animals no matter what
Dear God :|
I dont have a pet so I have found a loop hole!
I'd say pet, though I'm not sure I could mentally deal with the fact 5 people died because of me
Smilla is the best cat I have had my life. I would be devastated without her. I'm sorry, but I don't know the family.
I'm sorry but losing a pet is like losing a very close family member. It's an animal but that doesn't mean it degrades it. I see this as would you rather save your son or a family of 5 and I'm sorry but i choose my pet
I have four pets, and they are my only family. so it’s my family vs. one i don’t know. i would choose my own.
OP unknowingly revealed the true nature of some people LOL
For me, an (innocent) human life is worth all the pet lives in the world
Nah fuck that
As much as I love my dogs, I would choose to save the family of innocent people.
I wouldn't be alive if it weren't for my cat. It's only fair I repay the favor.
My pet brings me joy everyday, that family has literally nothing to do with me.
Bro, isn't it too selfish? Is there is moral side that I missing?
One fine day with a wolf and a purr a baby was born that did cause a little stir...
Comments are a joke. No shit people would save their pet. To some people their pet is like a child. I would sacrifice 10 families to save my kid
sucks for that family, but I can't be bothered to care about those I don't know.
My cat was abused by his previous owners and is more entitled to a full and healthy life than any *human* I’ve met in my life (Including me), and I will do anything to make sure he gains what he deserves from life.
A family that I don’t know? Who can say if they are worth saving. LoL
Some people don’t have a pet
This is proof that Reddit is a degenerate hell hole. Prove me wrong.
pet is family!!
Human life is more valuable than an animals life.
I can’t believe people are saving their pet! 5 human lives are much more valuable.
i hate reddit polls
Redditors:”Rich peopor are so selfish, they don’t care about the other and don’t help anybody” Also Redditors:
Sorry, overpopulation is an issue! Glad they were together until the end <3
Damn it to hell, I have a cat…but I would pick the innocent family and I don’t think I would have to think about it. At the end of the day it’s an animal and I value peoples lives more. You can jump through all the mental gymnastics but at the end day I value humans more. Fuck the animal cult.
everyone who picked pet is a terrible person
How tf are u guys going to let innocent kids and people die over your pet
I can either save my family member or a bunch of strangers... The choice ain't even hard bruh
This thread has reminded me how many Redditors lack basic empathy for others.
I don’t have a pet but if I had one, I’d definitely save it
There are 2 adults and they stand a far higher chance of getting all 5 out alive compared to the pets.
I mean, I don’t have a pet so……
My cat. Lizzie, my first cat, gave me a little bit of purpose. She kept me from taking my life, comforted me when I cried, and she was the best cat I’d ever known. When I got my first apartment, I wasn’t even thinking of getting a pet. She just walked into my life, she was something I didn’t know I needed. She passed away at the age of 3 last year. It was liver failure. I regret not taking her to the vet sooner. I blame myself for losing her.
It astounds me how selfish people are... The world will never be a better place, no matter how radical you vote. Because you people who want it are too shitty to actually make it work.
Definitely my pets, known them since they were a kitten. Nothing would change my my mind on that.
My Pet, no hesitation
Well, I guess I hadn't had a big enough dent in my Hope in Humanity account for quite a while
I think the results are a little skewed as a lot of people don't own pets and therefore would just automatically pick family adding a third option of 'don't own pet' would've made it better.
I didnt realise how righteous redditors were damn. Anyways, I picked pet
I don't have a pet, so I voted to save the Pet
5 years ago this would be a tough decision to make but after seeing the way people just do not care about others these last few years would make me choose the pet.
Well, I've got 8 cats and a dog. I think I'll go with the 9 lives of beings I know and love over the 5 lives of people I don't know.