A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
I don't think there's an objective way to measure the worth of a life, but for me, length plays a factor. It would feel shitty to save my cat over a small child, because that child has over ten times the amount of time left as my cat and I'd feel like I was robbing them of more experiences than I would be robbing my cat of.
Fortunately, both the men I consider my enemies are older and not in great health π
You seem to quite fundamentally, or perhaps simply maliciously, misunderstand your sister? Or maybe I misunderstand you?
Definitely the person. If I saved my cat, people would call me crazy. Mostly because I donβt have a cat and that would be a dick move of me to save something imaginary.
Maybe in your case saving your cat = getting a cat who is like, your soulmate pet.
Impossible, my soulmate pet is a dog
Don't be so hasty, you haven't met your soulcat yet! Need to kill your enemies first.
I'd save a stranger, but between a cat and my enemies I can't say I'd be inclined to go out of my way for either.
I agree that a human life is generally worth more than an animalβs, but that doesnβt mean I would sacrifice my cat.
The closest thing I have to a worst enemy is the mother of my children, but my kids also really love my cat so I don't know how I'd answer.
What is the definition of my worst enemy? Can I just declare e.g. Putin to be my mortal foe?
If it has to be somebody I have met so far, I will rather save a human than a cat
Why, because a human has more potential to effect the world, has an understanding of death and therefore the worse time dying and in the interest of a species your should allways priotize members of your own species
I'm going out on a limb and say the person, but only because my present cat is young and healthy and a cat, so there's a 99% chance she'll save herself if I just get out of her way, and if I try she'll just have to hurt me first before taking care of herself.
The stupid human I would probably prevent from dying, although I wouldn't work too hard at minimizing their pain.
I'm more of a dog person.
Cats have 9 lives, so saving them just save one of their lives. But there are people in this word whoβs death means happiness of millions and saved live of thousands. Why would I want to save such person?
Saving cat is just a bonus. And I would still do that.
Team Sister here, 100% saving the cat over my worst enemy.
Neither because I don't have a cat, and a stranger first, because they are human too. Saving both is the goal, but first I'd save the stranger, then the cat, and depending on how bad they are, the worst enemy. If that enemy did only a bit of bullying, save. If that enemy is likely to not do anything good back, and has caused suffering, no saving.
People have gotten weird about animals over the years. I adore my cat, don't get me wrong, and would do everything in my power to save them, but like, it is still an animal at the end of the day.
In scenario one I can see saying cat if you actually wanted your worst enemy to die. Like, if you were fine with killing them without the cat in the balance, then yeah, of course.
But otherwise it's the person, right? Animals have lower moral value than people, right? I mean, I'd be curious what percentage of people saying that they'd save their cat are vegetarian/vegan?
Yeah, you're right. I find it strange that people here literally would prefer to save a cat over a human. Would they really let their friend burn over a cat? A stranger who likely has done nothing except work and be generally kind to others? I think that they who let the stranger burn, then have worse morality.
The question is bad because it features an animal the person is assumed to have a band with, and a stranger. I think a better example would be:
Who would you save in these scenarios: