Who would you save between your cat and your worst enemy?
Who would you save between your cat and your worst enemy?
I've been discussing with my sister (a big fan of her cats) about what lives we would save in an emergency. I think a human live is worth more than an animal's no question asked but she thinks otherwhise. So to end this discussion I'm writing here.
- Who would you save between your cat and your worst enemy?
- What if it was between your cat and a stranger?
- Why?
I would save my cat every time. I don't value human life above her life. She's been there for me for the past 15 years and helped me through the darkest times.
Yeah, my kitties got me through the pan. I lived alone and wasn’t in a relationship and had no car at the time. The isolation was extreme.
That's so cute, I can't. Thanks for paying your taxes on time.
Took me a moment to realize the dark mark on her face wasn’t her hind paw.
She's a Siamese chocolate point. In Siamese cats, there is a mutation for the genes of an enzyme (Tyrosinase) that inhibits the production of melanin above a certain temperature. Where the body temperature is lower (extremities, airways), that enzyme is deactivated and melanin is produced, allowing the fur to darken.
Siamese kitten are born completely white, as their temperature is kept high everywhere in the womb, and rapidly start to color after birth.
I don’t blame you.
- Cat
- Cat
- Cat
EDIT: If you need a serious #3 answer, one aspect is that my cat is dependent on me. That's the relationship I accepted when I chose to take care of a domestic animal. My enemies, or strangers, are not my dependents. They are not vulnerable in that sense.
Permanently Deleted
I'm with you there. A couple winters ago I was a delivery person, I dropped a package on someone's porch and I heard a little meow. Couple seconds later this little furball was climbing up my pant leg.
I knocked on the door to talk to the homeowner who said his mother had been hit by a car, and she had a cantankerous dog so she couldn't take care of him. So I took him
I feel extremely responsible for my cat. He's not like an "accessory" he's something I made a commitment to saving and is dependent on me
I would save YOUR cat before my worst enemy, and I don't even like cats. Is that bad?
Kind of curious who your enemies are, OP.
The ones I haven't met personally are causing the deaths of millions of people.
The ones I have met personally are rapists and child abusers.
Would you save those kinds of people instead of saving a cat to whom you have a duty of care?
Got you one better, where tf do you meet these people? I know there are a bunch of em', but I'm not in these circles and don't plan to be, thus I don't know any.
They are not in special "circles" - they are unfortunately distributed through society. You've probably met a couple without realizing.
The only ways of knowing who they are is if you are either told about them by their victims, or are victimized yourself; or if they are convicted of their crimes.
Not OP, but how I know someone so despicable:
He was 30 when he raped my 13 year old best friend and when he got out of prison, continued dating her piece of shit mom instead of fucking off. I'd sooner throw him into a burning building than save him from one.
I dislike the belief that human life is worth more than any other animal.
Even if we're going to argue that, because of intellect or the ability to grasp out own existence or whatever arbitrary philosophical reason we'fe going to come up it, a human life is in general more valuable than that of a cats life, my "worst enemy" would have to be someone so morally corrupt that removing them from the world would make it a better place. This makes is a very pointless question.
A stranger is more of a real discussion. The stranger is enough of an unknown factor that I think I could assume that allowing them to die is likely to have a worse impact on the world, so it makes sense to save them. I certainly wouldn't be able to say so with enough certainty to fault anyone for disagreeing with me, though.
I feel like the idea that an animal life is worth less than a human life is demonstrably true at a societal level though, right?
Like, we don't sell human parts at a grocery store to eat, and I feel like people would call it a moral tragedy if we did.
If an animals life is equivalent to a humans, then meat is in fact murder, no?
Yes and no. For one, many vegetarians and vegans would agree, so on some level, sure, that's a very defensible opinion. Secondly, North American sensibilities would call it a moral tragedy to sell cat or dog parts, so at some point we have to accept that what is and isn't okay to kill and consume is a question of cultural bias as opposed to moral truth.
Lastly, you can accept the state of the food chain without holding the belief that those at the top of it are "better" or "worth more". I don't eat beef because I am, in some universal truth way, worth more than a cow. I eat beef because I accept that in the chaos of existence, this is where the chips fell. I do not feel a sense of superiority for being able to do so. If you're going to get really strict about it, I'd define "murder" as the act of killing for the sake of killing, and say that killing for consumption and in some cases survival is different. But even then, I recognize that this is bias. If you want to call murder the act of taking a life, I've murdered a lot in my life, and I don't intend on stopping any time soon. Mosquitos won't squish themselves.
The question of intellect and understanding and the weight of these qualities in the value of a life is a dangerous road to wander down, so I like to keep in perspective that we're all meaningless specks in the grand scheme of the universe. Otherwise, the questions get even more challenging: to say a truly reprehensible thing, what happens when we replace the human or the animal in question with an exceptionally low functioning human being? Do we now say their life has little value because they can't contribute to society, they can't understand the state of their own existence, and in many cases they're not even capable of verbal communication? Does it become okay to choose to let them die, as in the original question? Are they suddenly fit for consumption as cattle? Or does the responsibility fall on the more capable to protect them?
Appraising and tiering life is an incredibly dangerous road to go down. You can choose any example of historical racism to see just how dangerous it gets. Life is life, and the strange differences between what's "okay" and what's not is luck more than anything else. Even as I consume a steak while my dog begs for the scraps, I believe it's important to keep an understanding of how we got here, else hubris allows us to justify basically any atrocity.
Question: why does my life has more value than my cats? We both think, we both feel. We both have people who love us.
Is mine more valuable because I have a longer lifespan? Are children with terminal cancer less valuable?
Is mine worth more because I'm self aware? I'm pretty sure some cats have shown self awareness with the mirror test.
Sure, I may be smarter. But, does that make me intrinsically more valuable? Why?
I feel like the idea that an animal life is worth less than a human life is demonstrably true at a societal level though, right?
Society will make all sorts of fucked up (and some not-so-fucked up) decisions about what's acceptable and what's not, "true" is not the right word here.
Like, we don’t sell human parts at a grocery store to eat, and I feel like people would call it a moral tragedy if we did.
Selling cat parts would be seen as a moral tragedy too, at least in my society.
If an animals life is equivalent to a humans, then meat is in fact murder, no?
Life eats life, an organism that kills for biological need isn't a murderer (though our diet + modern factory farming system arguably is). Killing a conscious being of any species unnecessarily can be considered murder I'd say. If there was an animal that (still existed anyways) evolved to eat humans, it would not be murder for it to eat.
Ultimately, humans are not inherently more entitled to anything, including life, more than any other species, though society is likely to disagree.
I'd choose
1 - cat
2 -
humancat3 - because the fallout from the human death will be more than from the cat, and could itself include a pet death or cat in a cage for years (people tend to not care much about a deceased person's cat).3 - I'm changing my answer after reading a few others. They're right, I am responsible for my cats, they are my family and I promised to care for them.
Well, to play devil's advocate - and species eating it's own on the regular would be a failure - but much more so for one whose primary strength is working together.
- Cat
- Cat
- Cat
My favorite thing about this post is that question 2 is asked based on the assumption that you've answered question 1 correctly by picking "cat".
I don’t even love cats and I’d still save your sister’s cat over my worse enemy!!! LOL
I have no enemies
My cat and it's not a hard decision
- My thrift store dollar bin reject rescue cats without a moment's hesitation
- Cats
- I promised my cats I would care for them all their days
Gonna change your question to "dog", as that's what I have
- I would choose basically any other life over my worst enemy's. In a choice between them and no one, I'd save no one. I feel you don't understand how emnity works.
- Better question, dog,
- because he's a member of my family that I'm responsible for. As annoying as his theivery is and as bad as his farts are, he's my friend. Would you choose a stranger over one of your friends?
In a choice between "saving them" and "saving no one but also losing a leg" I'd be hard pressed to make a choice!
my worse enemy is the father of my friend who abused her when she was a kid, and watched CP, i don't know him, i don't want to know him, and if i had the chance to let him die in front of me, i wouldn't hesitate to let it happen, and make earth a better place
Yes, saving a cat is a nice bonus.
true
My cats are my family, so they have priority over most humans. This would only be a tough situation if it were between my cats and my best friend because I consider her to be family too. But, in that case, I would say screw the "you can only save one" mentality, I'd become like a mom who can lift a car off her baby, and somehow save them all.
If you don't want your worst enemies dead they aren't much of a enemy.
There's about 8 billion Humans, and about half of them suck more than any friendly domestic animal. The worst? I'd create an emergency.
More than half in my experience. I get to save my cat and make the world a better place for 1 and also 2 statistically
Cat
It's a moral dilemma between a life and a life, one is not lesser than the other regardless of whether one is human or not, so the issue then becomes which one is more valuable.
But valuable to whom?
Society? I may think my worst enemy is a bastard but they're likely to be a productive member of society.
But valuable to me personally? I'm picking my cat every single time, it's like asking to pick between your worst enemy and your child, it doesn't even require weighing the options.- Cat
- Stranger
- I would not piss on my worst enemy if they where on fire. Stranger well , human Vs animal life.
could have been between the cat and myself. The cat still gets preference.
Pets are family. I'd choose my pets over strangers life any day and not feel bad. Hell, I might choose my pet over someone I know.
My wife > dogs > myself.
List stops there.
-
my dog.
-
my dog.
-
people suck. They don't deserve dogs. Consider me John Wick. I would choose to wipe out 10,000 strangers to protect my dog.
-
My cats are extremely cute and my enemies are extremely bad people.
Cat
Society has deemed that a human life is more valuable than another animal, but that doesn't mean that this applies to everyone. I'd save my dogs over a stranger sure, but I'd sure make an effort to save both. The value of a life on a personal basis is primarily driven by how connected you are with them.
I would save my cat over pretty much anyone because taking him in meant being there for him and protecting him. I would move mountains for that guy
My cat. There are plenty of moral and ethical arguments to say I'm wrong about this, but still - cat.
I have a dog, so I'll apply that.
- Dog.
- Dog.
- In scenario 1, I not only have a good reason to save my dog, but also let my worst enemy die. In scenario 2 it's more complicated, but my dog trusts me, and the stranger has no such expectations (I hope). Lastly, for both cases, there's no way to regret death. They won't be able to care. Humans can also much better understand the current situation than a dog/cat.
Who is more likely to be able to save themselves? Like, if it's a fire I'm getting the people out, the cats will get themselves out. If someone is getting pushed off a 3 story building? The cat, more likely to survive.
Water rising? I am grabbing the cat, the person can figure out something for themselves.
Theres a pretty short list of people I would like to see dead... trump, putin,un,mcconnell for examples... my dog definitely deserves life over those pathetic excuses for human beings
When we really consider who our worst enemies actually the question becomes simpler. Mitch McConnell is the first example that came to mind for me.
Yeah, my worst enemies are all people I consider threats to humanity and/or the planet so a scenario where I passively allowed one of them to die as a side effect of saving my cat is a dream scenario.
Even better would be if saving my cat caused multiple enemies to die.
Oh yeah, if we're doing politicians this becomes easier. For some reason I was thinking of personal, mutual enemy relationships.
There’s only one person I’d pick over my cat, so, sorry guys.
So, you mean something like, would I save my cat or Putin? The answer is - my cat. When it comes to strangers, I feel it's more difficult and depends on many factors.
I'd pick any random manatee over a human.
Why? Manatees seem nicer than humans, as far as I can tell.I don't know that much about manatees though, given a sniff of power maybe they'd turn into arseholes too; but I think I'd rather someone else had a turn than yet more humans.
- My cat
- Tough one, but probably my cat.
- Not only do I love my cats, taking care of your pets if your responsibility as a pet owner. I have no love or relationship to a stranger, they don't care about me and I don't care about them, and It's also not my responsibility to protect other people. An animal that I raised from near-birth, and who has always shown me basically unconditional love and affection seriously means as much to me as a child. My pets are there for me when I have a bad day, and they're with me when I'm having a great day too. They bring so much joy and comfort into my life and they are so innocent and kind. Even after a lifetime of interactions I never have a single bad or negative moment with my pets. I don't hate people and I wouldn't like to have to decide in a fucked up scenario like you're describing here. But to be honest, I'm probably saving my pet. Sorry.
You seem to quite fundamentally, or perhaps simply maliciously, misunderstand your sister? Or maybe I misunderstand you?
- My cat
- The stranger? Maybe
- Because I know how worthless a human being my "worst enemy" is and I could justify the loss of a great many good things if they were removed from existence. If the only "loss" of removing my worst enemy is getting to keep my cat, then obviously, I'll do his family a service and take this monkey's paw.
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 👍
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
Team Sister here, 100% saving the cat over my worst enemy.
I'm more of a dog person.
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.
I agree that a human life is generally worth more than an animal’s, but that doesn’t mean I would sacrifice my cat.
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.
Cats have 9 lives, so saving them just save one of their lives. But there are people in this word who’s 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.
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.
Animals > humans
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:
- a bad (eg aggressive) cat, or your worst enemy,
- a cat, or a stranger,
- your cat, or your best friend
