Who would you rescue?

There's one of those "moral dilemma" questions that I have to laugh at. It's when someone asks you if there was a baby and a kitten drowning, which would you rescue if you could only rescue one.

I think people think that suddenly the example is real, and that you are going to immediately have to make a decision on essentially whether human life is more precious than that of an innocent animal.

Since it's only a hypothetical situation, it's always good for messing up someone's head by challenging the status quo. Invariably, I tell them I would rescue the kitten.

I suppose the truth is that it is forced to make you make that quick judgement in a highly unlikely scenario, asked simply to test your set of values. Anyone who would automatically answer with unswerving conviction could be seen as a sheep--somehow, I think that someone who has prepared a pat answer for something that will likely never happen could just be looking for acceptance, and isn't interested in the nuances of the whole, thoughtfully answered question.

I think that people who ask that question try filtering it down to a point where the answer can only be one of the two options. As a result the answer can only be completed with the "human" response.

It's a game, and nothing else. And it is a trap set by the asker to test the humanity and humanness of the one being questioned.

For most people, such a decision will likely lead to that same answer, but when the question keeps adding on conditions, it becomes obvious that the querent isn't looking for your answer, but is shooting for your moral compass, and has already made up their mind as to your disposition.

Because, realistically...I'd save kitten.

I'm phobic of baby humans. I don't like babies and babies don't like me & I'm okay with that arrangement.

Although I might make a half-hearted attempt at getting the kid as well. ;)

Face it: if the kitten hissed at the kid, the kid would drop to the bottom of the body of water faster than a couple of cement overshoes.

:hide:

but couldn’t decide if she really loved her husband, she told me that she’d imagined standing with him and their dog by a rushing river. In the imaginary scenario, her husband fell into the river and so did the dog. She could save only one of them. Without thinking twice, she jumped into the river and saved the dog. Soon afterwards, in real life, she divorced her husband. She and the dog are still very happy without him.

I always wonder if the baby would grow up to be the next James Dobson, or Adolph Hitler, or one of the Koch brothers. That's one kid that isn't going to make a mess of the future! :D

Is do you think about it, if you take some time to think about it, then you are trying to find a 3rd way, showing you have empathy for both. The pause and thinking and feeling, is showing you care for both the kitty and the baby.

If you immediately answer, and pick either option, you made a calculation with no empathy.

I say save them both and don't let someone set your limitation by framing the question.

And I understood it on the first read!

:evilgrin:

You are supposed to take your time and think about how to save both. You are allowed to ask questions about the situation (is it a lake? an ocean? a stream? a pool? the bathtub? What is the distance between the two? How much time has elapsed? Is there someone else there with you that can assist?)

If you give a knee-jerk response you've lost. It shows that you act purely on emotion. They'll also analyze why you made the choice you made.

That just fucks the Freepers all the way up