Last week I had a conversation with Pete, a dog-owning friend of mine, and we started to create various mind experiments. Here was our favourite for dog and cat owners out there.
Imagine walking into a room and finding your beloved dog or cat, and a randomly selected two year old child that you have never seen before. You are presented with a simple choice. You have to press one of three buttons. One button will instantly kill your pet. The second button will instantly kill the child and the third button will instantly kill you. No-one will ever know which button you pressed and there will be no legal ramifications for your choice. Answer honestly – which button would you press?
Dog and cat owners please vote in the polls below, and feel free to comment. Everyone else, feel free to comment on what you expect the votes to show, and what they actually seem to show.
I can live with killing a cat, I couldn’t live with the knowledge of having killed a child.
I couldn’t live with killing my self either (literally).
Oh yeah, dogs… BANG! scoop this up!
will never kill myself or my child. dogs and cats, sorry
Yeh, no brainer as they say…
OMG! Can’t belive u kan live with killing a cat!
Gina, or a dog…
I love my two year old more than my dog. Simple fact. I couldn’t imagine taking someones two year old away.
I find it so remarkable that so many psychologist have such an irresistible urge to force us, peace loving people, into making impossible choices.
Would the devil be in fact just a psychologist???
“Would the devil be in fact just a psychologist???”
I wish blogs had a Facebook style “like” button
The interesting thing is that both the two year old and the pet are replaceable and loved. There will always be dogs and always be two year olds. You love your pet and someone loves their kid. And, if it is a mature dog, it is at the same mental state of a 2 year old child. Thus, do you take the pain or do you give the pain to someone else?
With that said, I would kill the stranger’s kid.
I don’t agree. A mature dog is not at the mental state of a 2 yo child. The 2 yo child can talk. He can understand complex commands and he can analyze a situation to find a solution to a problem. A dog will be able to do it a little but, not as much as a child.
Letting the dog live, no matter how much you love it, won’t help the human race to go on. And the dog will be dead in a few years anyway.
@Letodan – do you think it is more acceptable, then, to kill a stupid person than an intelligent one? Do we really value human life because of intelligence? I don’t think we do.
@theophrastus – No, it’s not what I said. The question is, what would you choose between a dog and a 2yo baby. So, my reasoning is good for those two. And to be able to answer that question, you have to find a way to analyze it. Me, I kinda put myself in a situation where human life would be in danger… We would be on an island or something and what would we do to be able to survive as a species… Kill the dog or kill the child?
Although, if the initial question would have been, who you would choose to kill between a stupid man and an intelligent man… I’m pretty sure people would tend to kill the stupid man. That’s what I would have chosen. I’m not saying it is more acceptable… Just like I don’t think it is acceptable to kill a dog either. But, since we need to answer, we have to find a reasoning for it. And to me, I can’t find a reasoning which would make me chose to kill a child instead of a dog.
As for chosing to kill a stupid man, I suppose my reasoning would be something like, the intelligent man probably would be a better help for the continuity of the species. The stupid man wouldn’t be of much help… still in the situation I described earlier…
Sorry, I’m one of those ‘animals over humans’ type. Kill the kid. Save the cat. Could do it guiltlessly too.
You are fantastic. I’d kill the kid every time. I hate kids. Especially other people’s ones. Considering I don’t have/want one, that means I hate ALL kids.
@valkyrie
I feel the same way I love my cat over any screaming two year old any time of the day.
I’m with you!
But who’s going to look after your beloved cat when you’re in jail for killing a kid? Geez you have to think these things through properly now…
Are some of the poll answerers joking? Or do these people seriously mean that they’d rather kill a child than a dog/cat?
Not everyone considers animals lower than humans… and some people’s pets ARE their children…
Agree with Kayla. My fiance would happily kill the child before the kid. Plus it helps decrease a vastly overpopulated world!
Agree with Kayla and Alex. I would kill the random child (unless it were randomly my own child). Plus, I would take my wife’s preferences into account as well. She also loves our cat. I might add that this decision would be more or less painful depending on how cute the child is. (I’m assuming I get to see the child first.)
@ SJA; so you’re saying if the kid had a slight physical disability you would kill it, but if it were physically perfect you would let it live? Wow; harsh. I Hope you are never in charge of any public policy.
Yes. Keep in mind that this is a cherished pet versus an otherwise unnotable human being. Life has only the meaning we give it, and by the definition of the problem here, the pet has been given a higher value than the child. The only reason people answer that they would kill the pet instead is because they have been conditioned to think it would be “wrong” to save their pet over an unknown child. 30% or so is the percentage of people who admit to understanding this. In a real situation, I doubt any more than 30% would bother saving the child.
Simon has hit the nail right on the head.
If you do not know the child/dislike said child, I see no reason to feel bad for killing it. The pet however, is ‘beloved’, so there would be guilt (or something akin to it) there.
I love my nephew, but I’d sacrifice him to save myself. I love my pet VERY much, but I’d sacrifice her to save myself. I think those who would sacrifice themselves for anyone are stupid. I cannot wrap my mind around the concept of not looking out for oneself first, then looking out for those which you value afterward.
Why would you think people are joking? You are faced with two mammals that equally evolved on planet earth, one you know and love, the other you don’t. It’s a no brainer.
I should clarify that if my pet was at an advanced age then maybe I’d kill the pet, it’s not like I want the child to die, I just don’t feel this obligation towards my own species.
Pekka, yes, that’s exactly what it means. I love my dog (not as much as I love my wife, or 6 week old son) and a random person means very little to me. I’ve thought about this before and if both my dog and someone else’s child was in danger, I’d save my dog everytime. Sorry, but tha’t how it is.
Yeah, and we humans are scurge of the Earth. There’s more humans than dogs so no brainer. Also I know myself as harmless person (LOL), but that child for all I know can become Hitler or Hannibal Lecter type so the kid is the choice. Especially that I’m not planning to have any kids anyway
Gosh I really dig those stupid psycho questions
hehehe – there should be an option for “roll a dice” after all life’s a lottery, be lucky
As long as someone is not holding a gun to my head, as is being done to the dog in the picture, why should I press any of the buttons? I would rather sabotage to the button mechanism.
Interesting, it would never have occurred to me that anyone would even have to think about it. Assuming people are being honest, my eyes are opened. Thanks!
I can’t imagine choosing a human to die before another animal. But then, it’s been years since I’ve had a pet, so perhaps I’m just poor at empathising with pet-owners.
Save my cat, sorry. All else being equal, the cat means more to me in a more direct fashion than the child does, and I would regret its absence in my life. I would certainly regret the act of killing the child, but not its absence from this world. I care about kids in an abstract sense, but I care about my cat in a real sense.
The better question to ask is how I got into this situation in the first place, and who would be so cruel as to set it up?
“who would be so cruel as to set it up?”
Hello Chris. I wanna play a game……..
I’d press all three buttons to put an end to this nonsense ……..
My answer would depend on additional factors. As a dog owner, for the most part, I would unhestatingly choose to kill my dog.
But I could also imagine a circumstance where I would choose active euthanasia, and kill myself. After all, you’ve said that the death is instant. Sounds to me like a good way to go, if I were ready to die…
The kid survives in both scenarios…
My 10 year old cat has had a great life. Someone’s two year old is full of potential. Kill the cat, save the child.
I was thinking exactly the same
i agree. my dog just died a week ago. i mourned for 2 days and now i’m ok. the 2 YO child has a lot more potential in life and can do more things than any animal. i can even explain to the child that his life is really precious that someone really dear to me has to die for him to experience life.
Wow, amazing to see such a high percentage of “Kill the Child” answers. I think that’s vaguely psychopathic, and I say that as someone who has been an ethical vegan for fifteen years, and has owned and loved a succession of beautiful, wonderful dogs.
But I also have a child, so I guess I’m not in thrall to silly thinking of the “a dog is like a 2-year-old” or “my dog is like my child” ilk. I’d kill the dog without a second thought and get the child and myself the hell out of there.
Ah, yes, because parents are all wise and above “silly” thinking.
You should probably have a parent/non parent choice too, as actually having a child seems to change peoples points of view.
I don’t own a pet, but it’d be the animal first, then me.
Agreed. I own both cats and dogs, but I think my answer would have been different before I became a parent.
Shocked at such a high percentage who would kill the child (yes my dog got the bang option).
I hope all those people who put animal life so highly put animal welfare high up on their shopping list priorities too.
Yes. I do.
I don’t think this is about animal life versus human. This is about emotional attachment.
If it were a choice between A cat and A child, I would save the child without question. If it were MY cat and MY child, I would also save the child. But it’s about one entity with whom I have an emotional attachment and one with whom I do not. How much I like animals or children in general has no bearing on this situation.
@Chris: Not quite, this actually is about humans and other animals, otherwise he just could have stated a more general dilemma which in short goes something like this: You go to the beach with your daughter who also brought her friend. The two of them swim out too far without you noticing and have trouble getting back to the beach, you want to help them but know you can only save one of them, what do you do?
The other kid in this scenario could be a complete stranger as well i guess. Anyway, Wiseman’s trilemma incorporates the commonly held stance that humans are of greater worth than other animals, you yourself made it clear that you also think that way (“If it were a choice between A cat and A child, I would save the child without question.”). So the question is this: Does the bond to your animal raise it above the child (that is higher by default)? That’s not perfectly phrased i gues but i hope you get the idea.
@Anonymous – You’re right. Anthro-exceptionalism is a powerful player here. All other factors being equal, I suppose I would choose the human over the animal. But if that were the only thing being examined, the situation wouldn’t have involved “your beloved dog or cat,” and the discussion would have been far duller. Adding the emotional content just makes it more discussable.
I think a lot of the shock in the comments comes from the betrayal of assumed loyalties. People assume that, because I am a human, I will always favor the human. Discovering that to be a flawed assumption seems to be getting under people’s skins.
I have a 20 month old son so my answer was simple. I don’t want my kid to grow up without me and I don’t want to kill someone else’s child either. So sorry dog and cat they would be the ones to die. And no to me it doesn’t matter if it’s a cat, dog, fish, horse, cow and so on. We are biologically programmed to save our genes and sadly human genes come before dog and cat genes. If it had been a granny I would kill her as her genes don’t matter anymore to our evolution
That said I would probably be traumatized for the rest of my life and never own a pet again (or a granny
)
“If it had been a granny I would kill her as her genes don’t matter anymore to our evolution”
Wow. You sicken me.
I honestly don’t think I could live with the guilt of killing either a beloved pet, or a human being. Of course if this ACTUALLY happened, I might make a different choice, but I genuinely believe I’d rather take my own life than anything or anyone else’s. (I’m a vegetarian, and have been known to rescue bees or even wasps from drowning in swimming pools!)
Kill the child. We’re hideously overpopulated. Human life is so cheap.
I am probably taking this all too seriously, but I hate stupid multiple choice questions like this, and am very suspicious of any conclusions drawn from them. Life is not that simple. It depends on so many circumstances. I would probably not press any button, preferring to believe that it was a setup that somebody was using to test me, or some other sick reason. It would take a lot to convince me otherwise! Even assuming that it wasn’t and playing along with this for a while, I would probably feel forced to kill my dog, and then spend the rest of my life trying to punish whoever forced me to make that choice. But there are loads of variables that would affect which button I would press:
How old is the cat/dog?
Do I like the look of the kid, or does she remind me of anybody I know?
I suppose the point of these is that enough responses will even out all the variables, but again I am very suspicious of the motivation and conclusions of tests like this.
Ooops! Sorry, meant to post comment but clicked a reply button instead!
Dogs and cats are overpopulated too.
@Gus Snarp: Stop throwing that non-sense around unless you can back it up.
OK, then we can stop throwing around nonsense about human overpopulation too.
@Gus Snarp:
You better stop making up your own reality and start to actually inform yourself about what you are saying.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=growing-population-poses-malthusian-dilemma
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/7865332.stm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p925735872425x30/?p=e666bc5485314816a0e259eddb90b308&pi=5
Anonymous – There’s no kind of scientific consensus on human population. Malthus was wrong, and there are any number of very serious scientists who study human population trends and conclude that the neo-malthusians are just as wrong. One of them was one of my graduate advisors.
Assuming I love my cat/dog, and I love myself, why would I inflict emotional or other damage to myself?
Kill the child. +1
Because you have a shred of morality?
Right, Martin, a shred. Because it takes more than a shred to see killing something not of your own species as immoral.
Because you might choose not to be selfish and to consider the feelings of others?
I’d kill my cat/dog and then make the baby my new pet.
I think that most of the people choosing to kill the child do not have children. I have two children and have had dogs for most of my life. I would have no hesitation in killing the dog.
I guess there should be an extra poll for people with kids!
What extraordinary results! I’m not just shocked that so many people accept this as a personal choice rather than an ethical one, as if it’s just about which aftermath would be the most comfortable for the person doing the killing.
I like dogs and cats, but I’m not that keen on people. Kill the kid.
Seriously people??? I adored my cat, and I was devastated when she died last summer, but come on – we’re talking about a human child there! I think many people who voted ‘kill the child’ are not answering honestly but doing some kind of weird attention-seeking… therefore I’d say this vote is flawed.
Only because you can’t imagine their perspective?
You are really stupid. It’s not ‘attention seeking’
I’d honestly kill the child. In fact I can name a couple of kids AND their parents who could be killed in an accident, that I’m realted to that I wouldn’t CARE if they died.
We humans are DESTROYING this planet, and fuck it one kid won’t matter to the big picture, but the kids that will never be born or created due to the death of that kid, are HUGE.
While I can take my pet and happily live my life. and NOT reproduce.
And what, exactly, makes a human child so freaking special?
@Tara ask yourself, if you were in that child’s position what makes you so freakin’ special?
I am not currently a pet owner but have in the past cared for both cats and a dog. But I’m human, the toddler is human and I would without hesitation kill the pet if my life and / or the life of the child depended on it. For that matter if it was necessary to save the toddler I would personally club every baby seal on the planet. And I would even consider doing it a moral imperative.
We have evolved to be altruistic to our fellow humans, anyone that would rather kill the child, than kill their pets or themselves are either not human, psychotic or egostical. I hope that these people are just not thinking clearly or if they are I hope I never meet them! ^^
Animal first was my answer if you didn’t get it from that!^^
I am quite shocked to see that so many cat owners would rather kill their cat than themselves or a stupid child they’ve never seen before.
They can’t be true cat owners if they feel that way.
I voted “kill the child” for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, its not my child so I’m not emotionally attached to it.
Secondly, I don’t like kids anyway. It’ll only grow up to be an adult who does bad things.
Thirdly I also don’t care if that child has parents who will mourn it cause I don’t give a damn about anyone really (no one gives a damn about me either)
etc etc.
Had there been any chance that I had been in any way emotionally attached to the child in a way that would have made it hard for me to kill it I would have voted “Kill myself” and I honestly mean that.
Call me an asshole or worse for saying I don’t care about people but thats just how I am and how living my life so far has made me see others.
I don’t think its entirely my fault that my cat(s) mean more to me than all the humans that surround me, really.
I actually had a discussion about this with a person who had studied psychology some years back.
I said “animals are innocent”. They don’t do bad things.
Humans aren’t innocent. Children won’t remain innocent (if ever they WERE innocent to begin with). Thats why I would kill all the humans in the room (including myself) and save the cat/dog.
Shocked? You shouldn’t be. Most cat owners are just normal people, not “true cat owners” like you.
However you’re forgetting that there are no “Cat Owners”, Cats have evolved to such an extent that they trick us into thinking we own them. Clearly there are many cats who are “Human Owners”……
If you need any help with deciding to push the cat’s button, then check Catbert from the Dilbert cartoons……….
I completely agree. =)
@ TS: You say “It’ll only grow up to be an adult who does bad things”. Interesting view. How do you know this child won’t grow up to find a cure for cancer or bring about lasting world peace. Or declare you Leader of The Cats.
I think T.S. is right and his/her answer echoes what I believe. For many years I was single and all I had was my beloved cat. She saw me through many hard times involving breakups and personal issues and she is still with me. Meanwhile many smug couples fight over stupid issues and don’t appreciate that they have the one thing I didn’t – a partner to share my life. So people stop being so selfish and thinking what you have is bad, and appreciate that some people are alone in this world and their pets mean EVERYTHING to them.
And for the record, most people get preggers by accident, so that kid is probably the result of a broken/missing condom and is only adding to overpopulation anyway. Don’t give me that crap about it growing up to be the person who discovers the cure for cancer, because that kid to grow up to be a benefit-claiming chav, or even worse, the next Hitler.
Valkyrie – I’d love to see the evidence backing up this particular claim “And for the record, most people get preggers by accident”. I’ve just run a quick poll of the few people in my office with children and of the 12 parents here, all planned on having their children. I guess our office bucks the trend…….. Evidence eh…… who needs it
Malinari, they’re never going to openly admit that they didn’t plan their pregnancies… think about it! Out of all the people I know who have kids, their pregnancies were purely by chance (call it fortune or misfortune, depending on how you look at it) – I don’t think anybody ever purposely decides to go into lifelong debt, hardship and the need to be responsible for another being until it matures. Unless they’re masochists…
@ phil
“How do you know this child won’t grow up to find a cure for cancer or bring about lasting world peace.”
OR you can stop sticking your hope for a better future on kids too involved with their ipods-iphones and being cool and trendy. and bashing each other on theinternet and being ‘leik omg ur r so scene’
AND DO IT YOURSELF> find the cure for cancer YOURSELF.
The term “crazy cat lady” had to have come from somewhere…wow
Apart from the terrifying answers to this question (seriously, you would kill a CHILD before you’d kill a DOG?), can I just say that the photo you used came from a magazine called National Lampoon. It was produced by students at Harvard University in the United States. Once upon a time it was a highly amusing magazine, which produced humorists such as P.J. O’Rourke, and…uh… well, John Podhoretz but nobody really gives a crap what that guy says any more.
In any case, as far as I know this iconic picture originated on the cover of the National Lampoon. I expect it works as well as it does because of the black and white division of the dog’s face, contrasted with the black and white division of the dog’s eyes. And then the giant silvery pistol. It is a fantastic image which has already outlived the Lampoon and I expect will outlive us both.
I really, truly can’t decide. I tried. The only thing I can tell is that I wouldn’t kill myself because that would cause my dog pain. But I couldn’t live with deliberately killing my dog, and couldn’t live with killing a child either. Sometimes you just hate questions like these, and that’s coming from a psychologist-to-be…
Thank God there are laws protecting children.
All those who would kill an innocent child, should be kindly invited to reconsider option c.
Nowhere does it say that the child in question is innocent. Quote: “randomly selected two year old child.”
…and before you say that all children are innocent, I invite you to read the following articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8473112.stm
Children are not inherently special. Preservation of our own species- a fairly selfish reason, all things considered- is the only reason anyone would choose the child.
@valkyrie: Your references are two articles of older children committing murder? The “innocence” Rafael is referring to is that of this two year old. If you don’t think a TWO year old is innocent, then it’s time for a serious self-evaluation. Your anger saddens me
If the child was in the middle of throwing a tantrum and on a train how many people would chose the pet or themselves then?
I’ve noticed how self-centered the answers from the kid-killers seem to be. I can appreciate that you care more for your pet than for a kid that you don’t know. But who do you think would grieve more?
A) You, if your pet died.
or
B) The parents, siblings, grandparents (and so on) of the dead kid.
Can anyone seriously think that the answer is anything else than B? I guess you can’t be a parent, sibling or grandparent in that case.
Do you consider other peoples (parents) suffering at all?
I truly hope that some of you are either joking or haven’t thought the question through hard enough.
You gravely underestimate the bond that can be formed between humans and other animals (note the word “other”). The deaths of any of my previous pets hit me a lot harden than the deaths of any of my grandparents. And since i am a bit of a misanthrope anyway i would probably choose to kill the child even if it was not my own cat or dog.
Here’s something on the mourning of pets: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8454288.stm
I can’t answer for the others, but if they are people I don’t know or care for, I just can’t empathize with them. Even with people I know and like, I have a hard time empathizing… It’s not so much that I’m selfish and those who would make the choice to kill their pet or themselves aren’t; we’re all selfish. We all make selfish choices every day, these selfish choices which make us ‘happy’/'content’. Self-sacrifice is a selfish act. The killing of the beloved pet to feel morally superior is a selfish act. The act of killing some random stranger (child or adult) is a selfish act. Everything is selfish.
You’re assuming that anyone gives a crap about the kid. There are, unfortunately, children that die every day for lack of anyone’s concern.
No question really. the child dies.
Too many humans about as it is.
There are too many dogs and cats too.
@ gus
Dogs and cats don’t wage war, kill each other for fun and profit, rape each other, destroy the planet, and other wise ruin the lives of everything on this planet.
As far as im aware cats or dogs don’t believe in magical pixie in the sky either, and then use that as a reason for the killing of a child. How many children die in the bible because god is double-dared by the devil.
If you read the bible killing children is fine, no problems.
Plus less humans would also mean less dogs and cats. On top of everyting else we are spewing into the world we mass produce all these extra animals.
I would kill my cat, even though it would break my heart
Kill the cat, then go after the fucker who forced me to do it. That’s you, Wiseman!
I’m coming for you, and if you think I’m going to give you a quick and painless death like my cat got, you’re in for a big surprise! I’m going to make an example of you for all psychologists to see!
Ooorah!
Humans are more important than animals. So I’ll let the dog play the Russian roulette.
Humans ARE animals. You missed out the word “other”
@Alex Pryce: Awesome, there’s someone else besides me who cares about this phrasing.
Why do I have to press that button. You have to put more into this question than that. Now I simply can’t see why I should press the button. Is there a man with a gun who otherwise will kill me?? This is more a DVB situation. Also, depends also how many you have left at home, ones you need to take care off I guess.
And erm .. how will it kill you .. this button. Lots of things that will be of importance.
Did that dog owner hear about that story in which the owner had to watch his own dog drown in front of him (hole in ice, ice could not carry the man, no things to solve the problem). I hope I will never end up there. The drive to get on the ice will be major, but if you have no rope, no ladder, no boat, and there are no people .. and the water is deep … (which would kill you with the dog)
This is inane. Why am I killing anything in the first place?
What about fish owners..?
Oh Raphael, have a laugh!
A far more interesting outcome of this discussion may be how many people are making the leap that an answer to a highly restricted hypothetical situation is somehow indicative of one’s choices in real life. What’s more, the death of an imaginary child seems to be getting folks all worked up. Y’all do realize that there is no actual pet or child at risk, right?
Unless, of course, Our Host is more nefarious than we thought.
This. I’d never harm a child, generally speaking.
My wife just pointed out that if you put a two year old in a room with buttons they WILL press them. So whatever you decide, decide quickly.
Very good point!
There are tons of variables here. Whether one owns a child, or how exactly death is inflicted, being two of them.
Sorry, but the kid gets it. I have anthropomorphized my pets to such a level, that effectively, they are people to me. However, afterwards, I would go out to try and find the person who was sick enough to put me, an innocent animal and an innocent child into this situation and make this person pay badly.
Then again, I am saying this from the luxury of my seat. It would probably be entirely different if one was in the situation itself.
What if the cat was the one faced with the problem of which button to push?
1. Kill you.
2. Kill baby.
4. Kill dog.
3. Kill itself.
Bye bye baby, 2 year olds can’t open cans of cat food and the dog bowl is a good source of extra food.
A cat killing itself? Ha Ha!
I would say the cat would kill the dog LOL Baby will grow up to take care of you later, What does the dog do? He might steal your food, bite you to death….
I love dogs and cats and our house has been full of both all my life but of course I would have to kill my dog/cat. It is an accepted downside of pet ownership that you have to grieve their death after 15 years or so if you are lucky. Conversely, no-one expects to bury their child. The child may be unknown to me but you have to assume he/she has a loving family which could be torn apart by the loss.
So far everyone has answered what they think they would do….. well I no longer have dogs….know why? One night at 4am the city police came to my door said my dogs were barking {were not until they came up and started around the yard….and that was what they should be doing} and that I must have them removed and since there wasn’t any boarding open at that time…I was told I must take them to the 24hr vet and have them put down and bring the cert back and prove it or they would arrest me and since I was a single parent then that child protective services would be called to take my children….even when I said they could not do that everything they were saying and doing was illegal and they said yes it was but it would still take days to get my children back and charges dropped. I was given ten minutes to make up my mind. Oh and I forgot to say the officers were friends with my ex-husband. Yeah I chose my children and went and put my dogs down. And filed a lawsuit. But my dogs are still dead.
Are you serious??? This is a shocking story and do not believe they had any right to make you put down your dogs.
I absolutely love cats and have lived with them all my life, but I honestly do not believe I am capable of killing a child, so would reluctantly choose my cat.
It’s obviously easier making decisions when we are not in the situation. I’m sure a lot of the people here who have decided to kill the 2 year old may think differently when confronted with it.
Yes it is true and has broken my heart and was very hard to tell the children too. I didn’t say yes at first and only after them saying they would arrest me and have my children put in foster care until I could get released from charges. Like I said they were friends of my ex-husband and it was a nasty divorce and the case was going to be dropped because they put the wrong charge on the citation {and yes they still charged me and I had to pay the vet bill too!} gave wrong code and when looked up it said I was exposing myself within a hundred feet of a public waterworks department….lol….and why there is a law to cover that I have not a clue!! So by the time we went through all the trouble to get the right charge….. our city and county formed one consolidated government and so when tried to sue it was thrown out because the “city ” police department no longer existed. I look at it like this….karma is a bitch and all I ask is that in someway let me see it when they get theirs.
You know, this is the exact reason why i’d kill the kid and save the cat/dog: Pets don’t grow up and become nasty police officers who come to your house and force you to kill sentient beings.
nor do they grow up to become ex-husbands…..well that may not be true cause he was like a dog….no that’s not right…..shouldn’t insult the dogs….hehe…
It never fails to amaze me how many people are horrified that other people don’t have the same opinion as them.
Get used to it guys: some people just don’t like kids. Actually, scratch the word “kids” and replace it with “other people”.
It doesn’t make us subhuman or morally wrong, it just makes us individuals who happen to disagree with other individuals. And before you ask, I don’t have a cat anymore, but I do have a two-year-old.
Grab my resurrected cat and blast that kid to Kingdom Come.
Best answer!
to me age does matter. if the kid was replaced with an 80 year old I would kill the other
It never fails to amaze me how many people are horrified that other people don’t have the same opinion as them.
Get used to it guys: some people just don’t like hispanics. Actually, scratch the word “hispanics” and replace it with “non-white people”.
It doesn’t make us subhuman or morally wrong, it just makes us individuals who happen to disagree with other individuals. And before you ask, I don’t have a cat anymore, but I do have a hispanic maid.
Grab my resurrected cat and blast that maid to Kingdom Come.
Ah, the race card. A classic.
Next you’ll be pulling Adolf out the bag, and this thread will be Godwin’s.
Nice Red Herring. I’m sure you got what I was aiming at.
It’s not just a different opinion, it’s a particular opinion. You might note that very few are stating their horror at the pet killers. I’ll not apologize for saying that I’m horrified that anyone would choose an animal’s life over a human’s, or for saying that there’s something wrong with anyone who would. That could be my two year old in the room, and then you should consider this: You all die. I kill your dog and cat while you watch, force you to eat them, then kill you and the person who set the whole thing up.
That is, that’s what I’d do if you killed my two year old to save your cat or dog.
@Gus Snarp:
“I kill your dog and cat while you watch, force you to eat them, then kill you and the person who set the whole thing up.”
Hahaha, and you are telling other people that there is something wrong with them? Seriously…
@Pekka S:
Your racist word replacement was really out of place, many of the people who voted to kill the human are quite the opposite of racist, they not only treat races as equal but also species, of course the decision could also be made simply because there is some bond to the cat/dog in this scenario while there is none to the human. But ultimately there is no absolutely justifiable reason why one should value a human over another animal.
Anonymous – You know that’s why we have laws, because without them most people would go after anyone who killed a family member and take their vengeance out personally. The reaction of the child’s parents is certainly something one should consider when choosing kill another person’s child to save one’s pet.
@Gus Snarp:
If i was in that hypothetical situation then i would know that there are five people who care about the cat in varying degrees, i know nothing about the child. In theory i might be able to estimate based on statistics how many people are likely to care about that child. Now even if it is likely for a two year old that more than five people care about it (which i doubt), there is no telling how much they care and how much grief the death of the child would cause, it cannot be quantified that easily. So based on this the best choice cannot be calculated and there also is no basis for valuing a human more than another animal, bonding is rather subjective. Once a black cat was run over close to my home, it looked similar to one of ours and my mother thought it was ours; she started to cry because of that and i was almost paralysed and felt like killing whoever was responsible.
You probably have never experienced something like that, so you cannot understand how people would choose a pet over a human.
Anonymous – I disagree with you so I have never experienced anything like the loss of a pet? You’re wrong. But that’s beside the point. You want to start talking numbers, there’s another thing to take into consideration: owning a pet implies experiencing its death. Dogs live what, 15 years give or take, and that’s pretty long. Cats maybe 20. Virtually everyone who owns a pet is going to experience the death of that pet, one should be aware of that when one brings a pet into one’s home. The loss of a child, on the other hand, is something the majority of parents will never experience. In addition, the pet, assuming it’s the same age as the child, has at absolute maximum 20 years of life left, while the child has about 70-some years left on average. You would be depriving the child’s parents of probably 50 years with the child and the child itself of 70 years of life.
I’d procrastinate indefinitely. And would start by wanting to know “Why do I Have to?” And it’s a lie that no body would know… I would know. So someone knows.
I find the fact that quite a few people would choose to kill a child over their dog or cat quite disturbing. I love my dog to bits and would risk my life to save her, but if it came to the crunch I would absolutely choose to kill her, over the child – or myself for that matter. Killing myself would harm my children, so I would not do that deliberately.
I would press none of the buttons. If I am killed for not pressing a button, it’s not on my conscience.
And what if the ultimatum is that if you don’t push the button then all three die?
Talk about polarizing! Every other post essentially says “Everyone who voted differently from me is an inhuman monster,” regardless of which one they chose. Sadly, that is, indeed, how we do democracy in America.
I am both a parent and a pet owner, and I had a hard time with this question. I am satisfied with my ultimate answer, but I can see arguments being made for any of the options. Not reasonable arguments, since this isn’t a reasonable situation, but valid ones nonetheless.
No, only the child killers have been called inhuman monsters, only one person that I found called the pet killers inhuman monsters. And the child killers, if they actually did it, would be inhuman monsters, but the greater monster would be the creator of the test.
if you have a child you know there is a difference between a child and a pet.
it is a very common stance to “dislike” for children and I know because I once stood that stance. But really, children are not pets – pets are not children. You only say that when you don’t know the love of/for a child. In fact mostly that is a protective stance to protect from the natural instinct to want children. I was there, I know.
Even when I disliked kids, I still would have killed the animal to save the child.
Natural instinct to want children? I see no need for such an instinct. Natural instinct to have sex, natural instinct to CARE for children — we have those. We didn’t evolve in times of readily available birth control. Why would we evolve an instinct to want something that was gonna follow from other instincts regardless of our wishes? That seems like a strange premise.
Sorry for the off-topic comment, by the way, but I’ve heard this child-wanting instinct referred to quite often, and I’ve never understood the reasoning behind that idea. Though that may be because I do not notice such an instinct in myself…
Do *not* assume that everyone who dislikes children is covering up some secret pining to have them. You are only you and no one else. Your experience matters not at all to anyone who is not you, your kid(s), and whoever helped you produce it/them.
I don’t dislike children, as a matter of fact, but the thought of having my own has never inspired anything but dread. I can’t tell you how happy I was when I realized that I didn’t have to have them- I was set free- and I bitterly resent any implication that seeks to degrade that happiness. And that is exactly what you do to childfree people when you go around claiming to know our “instincts” better than we do.
Is the kid a ginger?
I don’t have a dog or a cat (yet, I plan to adopt). That’s a tough decision and there’s no way of knowing what I would do until I have to do it, but most likely I would save the animal which I’m closer to, human or non-human. I’m not a speciesist.
I have some suggestions for future polls:
- your child or a child you don’t know of the same age and sex
- two children you don’t know, one white, one black
- two children you don’t know, one male, one female
- two children you don’t know, one with Christian parents, the other with atheist parents
- two children you don’t know, one disabled and one healthy
- your son and your daughter
- your child or a child you don’t know of the same age and sex
the unknown kid will die
- two children you don’t know, one white, one black
flip a coin but it won’t be me
- two children you don’t know, one male, one female
flip a coin but it won’t be me
- two children you don’t know, one with Christian parents, the other with atheist parents
flip a coin but it won’t be me
- two children you don’t know, one disabled and one healthy
disabled will die although it might depend how severe the disability is otherwise flip a coin again
- your son and your daughter
I would kill myself
I love dogs and have a dog right now that is one of the most affectionate companions that I have ever known. I also have a son. I could only answer the question by changing the situation a bit.
If I were driving down the road and my beloved dog or someone’s two-year old child jumped in front of my car (no, this doesn’t happen often), which would make me feel worse? I would feel very bad if I hit and killed my dog, but I think I would be emotionally wrecked if I hit the child.
Maybe it’s Dawkin’s selfish gene theory working. There is a greater chance that I share genes with the child, so I instinctively prefer its life to the dog’s. Or, maybe it’s because I have more often witnessed pet mortality than infant mortality, so I’m less horrified by pet mortality.
I would kill myself. but i’m very depressed today, so the answer came rather quickly.
I’m not suicidal, but kill myself to save a dog and a child at once would give meaning to my death/existence.
I hope you feel better soon in the mean time don’t go into any rooms where there is a dog or a 2yr old child or buttons….. although I think if you get on an elevator with a dog, 2yr old child….those buttons shouldn’t count so that should be OK…… :}
Simple. Press the (hidden) fourth button, which kills the psychologist who put you in the trap instead
Why do I have to press any button?
I hope most of the kill the kid people are liars.
Dog. She’s kind of a jerk anyway.
Well then, it’s not really a “beloved” pet, is it?
I’m assuming this is supposed to be a situation in which I have no choice but to pick one of the buttons to push, but in real life I’d sure as hell be looking for a way out of this stupid room before pushing any buttons.
Also, as soon as I got out of the room I’d be looking for the sadist who set up this situation.
Why is there no option on the multiple choice to do nothing?
My cat is annoying at times and can be easily replaced at the pound where I got her from. Now my gf’s little girl might be upset for a bit but would get over it with the introduction of a new kitty.
What, is this Aushwitz? I really dislike these though experiments. I’d walk out and kill whomever set it up.
Is there a reward for the kid?
Seriously, screw the pets, I’ll even kill a panda.
Kill the pet, but what if killing yourself would cause a higher theological dilema? What about only beeing killed instead off kill yourself
Replace the pet option with an alien.
No that wouldn’t help….I have several little gray friends {never play strip poker with them!} and while they are not human they too have souls and would be a hard choice…… I’d miss the Friday night poker games….
Clearly kill the pet! Although, I have never owned a pet which may make a difference.
I could not in good conscience kill any, thus the question is difficult.
1.) Kill my cat, I’m going to be pretty dang depressed. Lost one already recently where I had to make that decision (albeit not with the reprucussions of the thought experimetn), don’t know if I could go through that again.
2.) Could not reasonably kill what I assume is a healthy two year old child, assuming it has parents. Then again, if it has parents then they will know that their child is gone. Given that you say that nobody will know you made a decision (other than yourself) it may be unreasonable to assume this. Thus, a parent-free child (maybe abandoned) may be easier to kill, but I can’t see myself making that decision.
3.) Kill myself seems the best option, but the caveat is that if chosen who will care for the cat? As a single person I cannot guarantee that this would be arranged, as I have no other family living with me to ensure the cat’s well-being. Thus, killing myself ultimately kills the cat or causes it grief (if cats can “feel” grief).
Ultimately, I would choose the non-choice. There is no repercussion listed if no option is selected. There appear to be no barriers in the room preventing me from interacting with either child or animal, and since I was able to enter I should be able to leave. I would take both, leave the room, and never look back!
Of course that violates the spirit of the question. Ultimately, one choice must be selected. Unfortunately it is difficult to treat this as a thought experiment as it appeals to emotion. You presumably have an emotional attachment to the animal, but none to the other human. If you were to remove the emotional attachment I think it makes the choice obvious (kill the animal), but with said attachment it is dependent on how attached you are vs. your individual moral stance on killing another human. For that matter your views on suicide are called into question since it is an option.
Not an easy choice to make!
voted for the cat – though in real life any “test” that include killing anyone or anything can only be traeted as immoral and only acceptable choice is “I refuse to participate in anything like this” and do nothing.
While I find these kinds of hypothetical questions absurd, I find it deeply disturbing that anyone thinks they could actually kill a human child over a pet. I have three cats and a dog and I would kill all four of them before I would kill any child.
I do wonder, however, whether these people are right in their self assessment. Sitting there with the child right in front of them, I wonder if they would really make the same choice. I hope not, because if they would then something is terribly wrong with them, and based on the high number of such answers, with us as a whole.
But Gus I felt the same way when we were doing the devil pack question….I was shocked at how many and how fast people stated they do not believe they have a soul…..now it would be interesting to see who answered both posts and how that might match up…..wonder if this is all one big test? Hummmm Mr. Wiseman? ……. ;}
of course I may just be paranoid….hehe….
@ Gus: I know, right? It’s ridiculous to think that humans are capable of killing.
Especially that everyday, non-demon humans, of flesh and blood, could disagree with eachother about anything important.
Svlad – I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at, but I take it you are being sarcastic. I don’t find it odd that people disagree, I do find it very odd that people disagree about whether a human life is more valuable than an animals. I’ll make no apologies for being a humanist. Nor for imagining that it was my two year old that you all are so glibly hypothetically killing to save your damn cats and dogs.
Why would you find that odd? It’s quite obvious that not everyone has some sort of unconditional love for all humans. For many people, animals have brought them as much, or more joy in life than other humans.
Personally, I don’t even think this death is anything to cry over. It’s clearly a painless death. I would only spare the life of the child to save his parents from grief, but if he was an orphan with no one at all, I would choose to keep my cat.
Hmm. I don’t know what I would REALLY do. I said my dog, but what I think is probably different than reality.
I love my cat, and I’d be emotionally devastated for quite some time after his death, but I’d kill him before I’d kill a child, or myself, if forced to make the choice. I’d certainly feel no guilt for choosing an unknown child life over that of my much-loved cat. And, I think it’s simply wrong to act as though the existence of love for the particular animal makes the life of the actual child less valuable.
I’d feel *some* guilt for choosing myself over my cat. Whatever one might say about “oh, but the cat is better dead than without his person,” it’s still self-serving for me, the hypothetical cat-killer. But, I’d probably also kill a child if it were between killing *myself* and killing the child. That’s cowardly on my part, but I don’t think it’s monstrous–killing another person is morally *acceptable* if it’s the only way to save oneself, in my opinion, although I do think that makes me morally inferior to a person who would give their own life to save a child.
Before looking above, I will explain why I would kill the child.
They bear no relation to me.
So you are entirely selfish?
It simply means he doesn’t feel sympathy for a stranger, no matter how cute. I can understand that.
Rex – I believe you have just given a description of a psychopath.
Rex- T says nothing about an inability to feel sympathy for a stranger. You assume too much.
Gus Snarp- See above.
I’m not shocked that other people have a different opinion to me. I’m shocked that so many people would kill a child. I have two dogs. I love them. I have a child. I am consumed by my love for her. It’s not even a choice. For the life of one child, even a stranger to me, I’d kill my dogs AND your dogs too.
Quite disgusted at all of you who choose your pet to kill. The purpose of this question is not wether you would kill an animal or a child, but who’s life you would put first.
Those who matter to you or those who are socially acceptable.
The secret is in the wording of the question.
Those of you who choose your pet are effectively pulling the trigger on your child if the question was worded differently.
Sorry, that wasn’t meant as a reply to you Paul
But if the question were worded differently it would be a different question, and it’s not.
It’s also not just about social acceptability. This question can’t begin to address that because there are far too many complicating factors.
We’ll have to ask Phil but it’s also probably about whether you value an animal over a human and about empathy and how you value the feelings of others. All of that is further complicated by any guilt that you might be wise enough to know that you will carry for killing a child.
Replied to the wrong question, the above should be below.
Quite disgusted at all of you who choose your pet to kill. The purpose of this question is not wether you would kill an animal or a child, but who’s life you would put first.
Those who matter to you or those who are socially acceptable.
The secret is in the wording of the question.
Those of you who choose your pet are effectively pulling the trigger on your child if the question was worded differently.
See above.
Gus,
The question stripped down is simple.
A) You can choose something you love to remove from your life,
B) Something you have never seen before, and have no emotional attachment to.
C) Yourself.
Mate, tell me you wouldn’t choose something insignificant to you over something you love.
Please
That strips the question of the context of what a human being is, which defeats the purpose of the exercise. As a human being I have the capacity for empathy so I can understand how all the other people who care about that child will feel, as well as the capacity to imagine a future in which that child has grown into someone who could save countless lives (or take them, yes). Given the unknown future, I must take the action that allows the most possibility. One less dog or cat will not affect mankind long term. Dogs and cats are killed every day.
And frankly, the guilt and horror I would feel about having killed a child would be far worse than the loss of my pets.
I have 2 children, one 12 and one 11. I have also had many pets.
The question is not what is morally acceptable, but where your instincts lay and, if, the question were turned around, would you choose the same.
My point is the fact that so many people ‘go with the flow’ rather than opt for what is fundamentaly true to them. If it were my son or daughter in the equation, there would be no contest, but, it is a hitherto non-specified person, oppsed to something you cherish, and have bonded with.
Can I ask you this:
And for the basis of conversation I don’t post this question lightly, but purely as ‘in topic’ and no offence is meant.
Your mum is dying. She has many years ahead of her yet needs a transplant, be it heart, liver, etc, and only you are the perfect match. Only you can save her. But, you yourself will not survive the operation, your mum however, will.
Somewhere, in a parallel universe, there is a planet that is at the beginning of life, just like ours was many billions of years ago, ameoba are the only life forms. You have a time/universe machine that can transport you there, and with a serum only you have, you can allow the planet to bear life, and evolve, but once there, you can never come back.
What do you do? You can only choose one.
I find your logic fundamentally flawed. You are answering the question based on your assumption about what it intends, rather than just answering the question. But that aside, I, and many others, would not be able to bring ourselves to kill a human child and would kill our own pets first, and that’s every bit as instinctual as your assumption that we should go with the entity we have an existing relationship with. Humans have an innate ability to recognize other humans and feel a connection with humans we don’t know. Frankly I think that you would choose differently if you were actually in that situation. Pulling the trigger on a child is much more difficult that many may imagine.
As to your own hypothetical question, I fail to see the connection, or even to understand the question. Is the question: save my mother and die or go to another planet and cause life to evolve and live there alone for the rest of my life? Given those choices I would take saving my mother, but at least partly because I would not want to live alone on a world without other people. You mean this, I assume as a measure of how close I am to my mother, but it is just as much a question of how much I value humans.
I was under the impression that this was a psychological debate, and as this is Mr Wisemans blog, considering the nature of his preferred line of work, there is no correct answer.
I did not answer, but merely show and profer my own feelings, which I stick by. I myself could never bring myself to kill a child, but, hypothetically, given the proposition on offer, I would choose emotional bond over morality. To me there is absolutely no question.
That is why I posed my ‘hypothetical’ question, and no, it was nothing to do with your mother, iI apologise if any offense was caused. I chose mother because like Earth, they both bear life naturally. It could be any person who you hold dearly. If there was no life on the planet apart from ameoba, you would only survive a week at max, so my question was aimed at the option of choosing a dearly loved human, or, a planets possible future evolution, with possibly trillions of lives at stake, with both eventualities that you foresake yourself.
Take away the part about you not living (not you, but the hypothetical you), and look subjectively from above. Do you save someone/thing you love, or something/one that will never have any bearing on you? Do you feel compassionate enough to care about others before yourself, or do your primary instincts tell you to protect your own?
I think that is what this debate is about.
My logic is far from flawed BTW, just for the record.
I’m with Gus on this one. The question, reworded, is a different question. It’s not about something you care about vs the socially acceptable answer, and in fact I think the intention had a lot to do with dog owners vs cat owner. There’s not a “right” and a “wrong” answer based on what you assume the designer of the question’s “meaning” might be. The question is literal, and I sure as heck could never kill a human child to spare the life of my pet as much as I love her.
I just assumed it was an unwanted child or a child bred especially to be a subject in this ridiculous psychological test.
Therefore, it becomes the only choice that does not make anyone sad – I would be sad if my beloved pet died, and my family and friends would be sad if I died.
This makes it easier for me to justify pressing the child button, although I would still feel terrible for the rest of my life about it.
Why would you assume that?
Reverse the assumptions. The child is yours, but the cat is a stray. Now what?
Never mind. I just reread the question. I’m an idiot sometimes.
your child is YOURS ESPECIALLY! a dog or a cat isnt that close…. yourself? well, i wouldnt…..
so id kill the animal
The child in question isn’t yours though.
Alex the genes of the child are closer to you then those of the animal so in the end he is more related to you then your animal.
Option 4: push the button that kills the idiot who put you in this otherwise untenable situation.
Every single person who clicks on the pet to be killed, shame on you. You are a person who who cares not about what life means, but more about what society tells you you should do.
I’m just glad you wouldn’t choose the same option if it were not under labaratory conditions.
Sorry dog, sorry cat, not your lucky day.
If there is a shred of reason left in humanity, the polls should overwhelmingly show the animals being killed. But that is a big IF! I suspect there may be quite a few that would kill themselves.
Not really, reason can lead you to the opposite as well, killing the child that is.
How many people is my cat/dog going to kill in its lifetime ? How many people is that kid going to kill if it grows up to be an Adolf Hitler / George W Bush / Peter Sutcliffe etc. Kid’s gonna get it every time. I open the floor to discussion
…
Or the kid could grow up to be Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Dawkins, Wiseman, Salk, Curie, the doctor that cures whatever disease is tormenting you thirty years from now……
@Gus Snarp:
So saving the child is a gamble while saving the pet has a comparatively predictable result, what will i choose? Gambling is a bad habit so i guess i’ll save the pet then…
Anonymous – If one is considering the potential of the child then any response becomes a gamble. Choosing to save the pet and kill the child bets that the child is going to grow up to become a monstrous killer, the odds for which are relatively low. Saving the child simply bets that the child will grow to somehow contribute to society, even if only in a small way, but potentially in a great way.
It seems clear that a lot of this has to do with general feelings toward people. After all, part of deciding to sacrifice the kid might be laying odd that it will grow up to somehow harm society, even if in a small way, but potentially in a terrible wy.
This has been an enlightening exercise. Unsettling, but enlightening.
Note to self: Never have a pet. Some fireman who agrees with some of you might choose to save the gerbils before my daughter.
If the child is of a race other than mine, living on the other side of the planet where I’ll never meet the family, suffering from a heart defect and not expected to live out the day, and the animal is the last surviving female dodo bird, forced to choose I would still kill the animal without hesitation.
And I’M the monster?
I hate kids and have none of my own, I love my cats as they are much more amusing to me than other people’s children.
But honestly, it might come down to the moment. If they were being cute and well mannered, I might soften. But if the child was acting like the annoying kids I see everyday, they’re toast. If only I could take their parents out with them.
But if I were Captain Kirk, I’d rewire the button to open the door and let us all out.
I voted to kill my cat, WITH the caveat that the two-year-old then automatically goes back to wherever it came from. If I have to take care of whichever is left, then I would change my vote to kill the kid: the cat’s much less work to take care of and only slightly more likely to puke on the rug.
And again its 66.6 per cent.
This soul selling thing is getting on my nerves now.
I’d rather kill the person who came up with this ridiculous poll. This is the kind of garbage that will be repeated across the internet as “truth” rather than simply “fun.”
Please return your university degrees.
I think you don’t quite understand what hypothetical dilemmas are for, it has neither to do with truth nor with fun. It’s rather about getting a picture of the statistical moral alignment of people and to provoke some actual thinking. It’s also not meant to be pleasant to think about this, it’s a dilemma, one tries to pick the lesser evil.
Anonymous, he’s not saying it has anything to do with truth. He’s saying it will be viewed/propagated as “truth” on the internet when quite frankly, it’s not. People don’t know what they’ll do in an extreme hypothetical situation. Those predicting things here honestly don’t know what will happen when they are put under pressure.
Notice that society deals with the deliberate killing of an animal very very differently to the deliberate killing of a human being, both in terms of reaction and punishment. You will not get a death sentence or life in jail for killing someone’s pet cat.
Do those who would choose to kill the child believe that the punishment for the death of an animal should be equal to that of a human? The reason society punishes humans for killing each other is because of the emotional reaction killings provoke. If a reader here is arguing that their emotional response to the death of their pet is equal in weight to that of the death of a child, then one would assume they’d want the punishment to be equal too.
Of course, society also recognises that the contribution by humans is far greater than that of pets, which is also why the death of a child is seen as more tragic than an adult. The potential is destroyed along with the person (the potential for productive contribution to society alongside the potential to be a bastard, obviously). Pets are lovely and lower your blood pressure, provide company and make you laugh, but aren’t going to find the cure for cancer any time soon. Their overall contribution to society is less than that of humans. So the value of a human life has to be considered greater.
Of course, this is because the hypothetical scenario tells us nothing about the child. If it was “a mass murderer” instead, then you can weight the potential contribution to society of that person against the pet’s and probably come up in favour of the pet.
“Do those who would choose to kill the child believe that the punishment for the death of an animal should be equal to that of a human?”
Yes i would, actually.
“Their overall contribution to society is less than that of humans. So the value of a human life has to be considered greater.”
Contribution to society is your standard on which you base your decision, for many other people it is not and you cannot justify this standard. Moral values always are built on a postulated value or rule of conduct that of course can be very subjective.
Had to chose my poor cat, and I’d have chosen my dog if she were still with us
Now, if it were a Chimp vs Baby… then I’d probably chose my friend the chimp.
What a bizarrely-phrased question. Since there is no stated penalty for declining to press any button — or anything describing how I would “have” to press anything — I would do nothing.
From the question: “You have to press one of three buttons.” So it does say you “have” to press a button.
Exactly.. What are they going to do to you if you just stand there and deliberate forever?
It’s easy to vote saying you would kill a child. It’s also fairly easy to rationalize. I doubt that any person actually in the situation would kill the child, especially if you had to watch the child die.
I also wonder how many of us are actively making this decision (albeit semi-ignorantly) every day with how we spend our money. We buy premium food for our pets while people starve to death in the streets….
Strip the question down, then answer again
The only reason you visualise what happens, is yourself.
@Jonathan Jobe – Good point.
How is voting to kill the child any easier than voting to kill the pet? Furthermore, how is it any easier to justify? The “acceptable” thing is to kill the pet.
Kill the pet.
This goes to show that most pet owners are psychopaths. IMO anyone who owns a pet has serious issues with people. Basically a mixture of hubris (deciding the fate of the pet / being god) and control freak / dominance urges. The complexity of human/human interaction is too much for them so they prefer to simply own a creature which must love them.
That’s a ridiculous assumption. The vast majority of pet owners- including me- also have strong ties to other people.
I’d kill the kid. Simple really, I don’t know him/her and who knows what that kid is gonna grow into plus i love my dog soooo much, she’s my supporter, my comfort and i’m hers she’s been with me for 11 years and i can’t think of my life without her.
Kill the inane blogger that thought this up.
I couldn’t live with myself either way so I would choose the button that kills me. I am sympathetic to both points of view on this.
On an unrelated note I notice that dog owners seem to be more willing to kill the kid, I wonder why that is? Perhaps dog owners are more likely to own a single dog and thus have a greater loss whereas cat owners are more likely to own multiple cats and thus have a smaller loss. (I’m a cat owner by the way.)
I don’t have my own child… yet. So I went with killing the child. I’ll feel guilty for the rest of my life and would probably never be forgiven by the child’s parents. But I love my dog with all my life. Killing myself won’t help much I’d say. I’m going with killing the kid. But like I said, I’m not a parent so if I were I’d probably choose differently. And I realise that killing the kid is selfish… but it’s my choice
I don’t see species as a factor in my decision.
As TV Tropes would say, “a million is a statistic”. Death doesn’t really hit us unless it’s the death of someone or something close to us. (It’s like that story where a man can wish for whatever he wants but someone will die when that happens. First someone unknown dies, then someone in the neighbourhood, and then his wife and that’s when he stops.)
For me, the statement stays true even once different species get involved.
I would kill my cat. Even though my cat means much more to me than a random two-year old, I’d rather let me live with losing a loved one, than to let someone else lived with the loss of their child because of my choice. Anyhow, SOMEBODY has to hurt from this, right?
And I wouldn’t kill myself because if I did, who’s going to feed my cat?
Now if I knew for a fact that the child was an orphan and had absolutely not connections in this world, I would probably kill the child.
I think part of the question needs rewording… the choice is far from simple!
kids suck, so who cares. the world doesn’t need anymore people in it anyway. it’s the correct choice to kill the kid, no matter what your sense of morality tells you.
Hard decision, I need to think about this.
The cat is the one with the shortest life span, so fewer years would be wasted if I killed her. However, I love her and am responsible for her, and killing her would be betraying that commitment.
The child I’m not emotionally attached to, but she has the most years ahead of her, so that trade off would be the worst. However, she’s also an unknown in that her future is undetermined — for all I know, I may be saving a future serial killer here.
Myself, well, my instincts tell me not to, even though logically it would be the most ethical choice — I have fewer years left than the child, and suicide is more ethical than murder in either case. But I prefer living, really.
It’s more complicated in that both cats and humans are abundant. I’d save a more endangered species over an abundant one, but that doesn’t even factor into this decision.
I don’t think I am able to decide. My brain gets stuck on the question whenever I imagine it. If I couldn’t save all of us, I’d be indecisive until whatever factor wanted me to decide gets impatient and kills all of us…
I’d kill the person forcing me to make the choice.
I’ve spent all day going over and over this and can honestly say I can’t answer it. I’m not sure what that says about me but looking at the other replies I’m glad I’m not the only one!
I’m pretty sure I agree with the idea that people with kids automatically pick the animal to kill and people without are less sure of their answers.
Also, whatever about no legal ramifications, ‘No-one will know which button you pressed…’, surely someone is going to notice only 2 of you leave the room whatever 2 that might be?!
I cannot honestly answer this. My morals say I would allow the child to live because it is a child, a human being, and someone, somewhere, will miss that child dearly. BUT, I have no children of my own, and my pets are my salvation, my lifeline (in times of dire need), my best friends, and my children. So, with that in mind, would I choose my own child over another’s, why yes, yes I would.
Given the details of this question, I view it as one of who do I love more, rather than one of values or perspective. Sure, there are a host of unspoken variables, but they’re not part of the question. Unfortunately, I don’t know the child, but I do love my cat. Sorry, kid. On second thought…oops, too late.
Daniel “on second thought…oops, too late.” …..bad Daniel….bad bad Daniel!….lol…..
I’d shoot the sadist who forced me into this situation.
Can I just say this question makes me feel evil. No matter what I choose I feel evil.
There’s a lot of talk about “a human” vs “a cat or dog”.
The question is supposedly about A human and MY cat or dog.
Sorry, kiddo. I don’t even know who you are.
Oddly, I find the choice more difficult with the dog than with the cat.
well i personally believe that this random child somewhere has to have a mother it is not physically possible to enter this word without a mother think of how distraught you would be if someone killed your kid or one of your pets.
if they killed your child you would grieve for years and you wouldn’t be able to ever replace them.
if they killed your pet then you would grieve for a few weeks or a few months. that pet may never be able to be fully replaced but you can always get another dog or cat.
it simply boils down to the fact that the innocent child may grow up become a doctor and save your life if you ever (not wishing this upon you or anyone else just using it for an example) had a heart attack then that innocent child that almost killed you could stop you from being killed by a terrible predestination
Wow I’m really suprised that so many people think other animals dont have as much right to live as humans! I’m not sure we are that different or better then other animals, not in the broad sense, we certainly wouldnt be able to exist if other animals werent here. I dont think I choose animals over humans either, I dont think there’s a set difference at all!
Also found it interesting that the majority of people would definately not opt to kill themselves. I would definately prefer to take my own life over living with the guilt of killing a little kid or my beloved dog! Heheh maybe I’m taking the easy way out or something! Maybe if I was actually faced in that situation, some chemical reaction would overwhelm me and I would want to survive.
Also, I wonder if my answer wouldve been different if I had kids, I think it definately makes a difference. When you have kids you gain a whole new perspective on life (I assume so anyway).
I’ve put to kill my dog, but if it actually came down to it I don’t know that I could go through with it. As she is my constant companion is more loyal than most of my friends and keeps me going when things are difficult. Thinking about it I should probably kill myself- as my kids are nearly grown and could cope without me and without the dog I don’t tend to do much! Killing a child doesn’t even come into the question for me I’m as certain as I can be that I wouldn’t even consider that as an option. Think I’ll just go and give the dog a tasty bone as I feel guilty even thinking about it!
I’m a vegan who doesn’t have kids and I would rather kill my cute little cat than kill myself or a stranger’s child. I don’t think the people saying they would kill the kid would actually do that in the situation, they just aren’t taking the hypothetical seriously.
The amount of grief you would cause the parents of the child is far greater than the grief you would have for your pet, no matter how much you think you love it now.
I think in reality only a tiny portion of people would actually choose to kill the child, and a slightly larger portion would kill themselves. Everyone else would kill their cat/dog.
I think there is clearly a wrong answer here, and it’s killing the child. Either of the other answers is morally acceptable, but under no rational system of morality could it be considered acceptable to kill the child.
how about someone make a button to instantly kill all the scary people who would kill a human child for a fucking household pet then live happily ever after? i think the rest of us would be safer without them
I love how all the people that chose to save the kid are so self-righteous to say that the ones that choose the animal are evil or aren’t taking the question seriously. Guess what? Everyone has different values and different views of the world. It doesn’t make them evil, just because you don’t have the same opinion.
WTF’s up with humanity? Kill the child, really???
And these people can live with themselves after that. Jeez.
Why do you people find this decision so hard? This poll was made for us pet owners. Frankly I am disturbed that so many of you would vote to kill your own pet over a random unknown child. I can’t stand other people’s children at the best of times, but if I am forced to choose between killing my own beloved pet who has been with me through thick and thin, the child is definitely going to get it. I don’t know the little fucker! He was probably an accident anyway. Why should I kill my beloved pet over some couple’s mistake with contraception?
Sorry I didnt read ALL the comments but perhaps a poll, would you kill a stupid person over an intelligent person (if forced) should be asked. I would kill an intelligent adult over a child (of any intelligence). But I would kill a stupid adult over a clever one, and yes I would trust my judgement on which qualified as clever or stupid…..This is IF FORCED by the way….
Not even a choice for me. I’d kill some random kid before I’d kill my dog. My dogs ARE my family, and mean far more to me than some stranger. I’d save my dogs from a fire before I’d save some of the human members of my family as well. Sorry if that makes me seem cold, but I’ve always loved my animals more than people.
The kid dies. In fact, I would still pick the kid to die even if the death were exquisitely painful and I had to watch through to the end. it’d be better than watching the equivalent happen to someone that I care about. I would even pick my pet over a friend’s child, just as I assume they would pick their own child over my pet, or their own child over anyone else’s child. Of course, after that, we likely could not be friends anymore…
I love my cat and I wouldn’t kill myself. Bye bye kiddo.
Also, remember that you could have been born as a cat or a dog adopted by somebody who would rather kill you than somebody they don’t even know.
I’d save my dogs. For sure. No contest. Not a fan of children to be honest. Bye bye kiddo.
“Guess what? Everyone has different values and different views of the world. It doesn’t make them evil, just because you don’t have the same opinion.”
well in my OPINION it makes them a danger to society
I don’t see how. I’m undecided about what I would do in this weird made-up situation, but in the normal run of things I’d never hurt anyone. Far from being a danger to society, I’m a productive, responsible member of. I volunteer, pay taxes, and work in a helping profession. I’ve never committed a crime, so far as I know. I do know that I’ve never harmed a child. I just don’t automatically assume that a human being is more valuable and deserving of life than another animal.
“Guess what? Everyone has different values and different views of the world. It doesn’t make them evil, just because you don’t have the same opinion.”
“well in my OPINION it makes them a danger to society”
Because so many mad scientists are stealing and locking babies and pets into death rooms…..?
However, if there was a fire in an apartment, I’d save my cats before I saved some random neighbour’s kid. That’s THEIR responsibility. Not mine. My pets are MY responsibility. I made a commitment to them when I took them in.
The kid duuuh. XD
I don’t fuckin care about babies, I’d want to able to keep my wonderful pet. <3
i’d press none and take my cat away. then; eventually i take the kid out of there if i’m on a good day.
My beloved pets know and love me. They recognize me, and trust that I’ll do the best for them. We have a bond that can’t be broken.
I’d kill the random child. It has no connection to me. I don’t know it, nor love it, and it’s life was not my responsibility. It doesn’t even understand what is going on, but the betrayal that I’m sure my beloved animal will feel in the moments before it’s death would outweigh the unknowing end the child would face. (And yes, animals can recognize these things. My cat, when he was dying, would cry after me whenever I left the room to pee or get water, and purr when I was by his side. He loved me and wanted me to be there with him. I was.)
A random human life is worth nothing to me over to the life of something I hold dear. Yes, it is selfish, but humanity is innately selfish. I don’t like kids anyway, and think we’re overpopulated as it is.
SIMPLISTIC MORAL CHOICE IS SIMPLISTIC
PERSONALLY I’D KILL THE PSYCHO-LOGIST FORCING ME TO MAKE THAT CHOICE
Hmm, lets see.
My beloved doggie who is my actual child, or some snot-nosed brat I have no affiliation with.
Kiddie’s going down, I’m afraid.
“Because so many mad scientists are stealing and locking babies and pets into death rooms…..?”
no because saying that you could choose to kill the kid shows you wouldnt experience life ruining guilt over killing a child. i.e you are a psychopath/sociopath
Baby, no question, in the least. No, I’m not joking. I’d do it TEN times if it came to it. I love my cats, I don’t care in the slightest bit about a random infant. As far as I am concerned it’s a squalling, smelly, germy poop factory. Even if someone described one of my pets as that, they’d still be a squalling, smelly, germy poop factor that I care about.
Press all three buttons. Kill fucking everyone.
LOL I love you
The results of the poll yield what people will do. Of course killing self has the lowest rank, preceded by kill the child, while majority would kill the dog/cat. In my opinion I would have killed the four legged one. The reason being, I like self the most and the baby is a reflection of self. I believe, it comes down to survival of the fittest and propagating ones own species over other species. As for the child, one can wait for a few years on the child to become mature and have babies with (subjected to the child being of opposite sex and ones self being sexually active); but with the dog I dont know of a case where a human has given birth to a pup or vice versa.
I love dogs and cats, like myself (most of the time), and two-year olds are annoying little assholes.
So, GOODBYE BRATLEIGH!
and as MUCH as the baby-kissing diaper-sniffing breeders want to deny it, PETS ARE FAMILY, TOO.
and if ya don’t like it you can go blow a donkey.
I had a cat I cared a lot about from when I was three to when I was fifteen*, but the idea of killing myself or any human to save it is just bizarre. Maybe it would be a difficult question if it was “all cats and dogs”.
*more than ten years ago, yeah, I may not qualify for the poll
I’d have to go with the kid since I dislike humans and fear that we, as a species, are doing nothing but destroying the planet that the creatures that live on.
Byebye kid.
These results are sickening… I can’t believe that so many people would say that they would kill the child. My only consolation is that they might find it more difficult in real life.
Somthing tells me this poll isnt going to go in anyones permanent file and will be referenced back at you if decided to run for office.
Its a flippant poll with no real answer to it (No offence Mr Wiseman, i love your Friday Puzzles).
I also think if most people were actually in the situation no button would get pressed.
Few people, it would suggest, would kill themselves, even though this seems like the easiest option to me, but my urge of self-preservation overrides.
Can I possibly be offensive and ask if it would make a difference if this child had some sort of neurological diasablity and probebly would not live as long and have a poor life, as the average cat or dog, because of it?
The 38% who would kill the child scare the shit out of me.
Be afraid… be very afraid.
You guys are pathetic. There are too many people on this earth, and a baby wont know the difference anyway.
Yes. I agree. I think a lot of people’s opinions comes from politically-correct indoctrination. People have forgotten to answer based on what they actually think, because it’s so much easier to answer with the “default” choice in a given situation.
Whoops, ignore the typo
I will always love animals more than humans. I’d save myself and the animal no question. Pets love no matter what. Children are horrid little creatures with no empathy and no respect for others, even their own parents. I see it every day at work.
I suppose I can see both sides to some degree. I’m undecided about what I’d do as the test subject. However, if I had buttons for killing all of humanity vs. killing all of the other animals… oddly, that’s an easier choice. I’ll go with option one, Monty.
I can’t help but sense that most (if not all) of the baby-killers seem to be a bit anti-social, angry and disconnected.
@Anonymous: I don’t know what on earth you are talking about.
My Answer: Kill the child, and braise with garlic, shallots and chicken broth. Enjoy with fava beans and a nice chianti. Pet my dog. Get up, stretch, and stroll out into the world, to hunt the rest of you.
I choose my pets lives, even their entertainment, over the lives of two year old children every day.
Every time I spend money on my pets, that’s money that could go to literally save the life of a two year old. I could be giving the money I use to buy kibble and cat toys to charities that would use it to save the lives of sick children who are dying right now in less fortunate nations. I’m completely aware of this and I choose my pets.
And if anyone wants to call me a monster for choosing my pets over an anonymous child, they should stop and think about how much non-essential STUFF and little luxuries they buy on a weekly basis, and how many little children they could be saving with that money instead. It costs surprisingly little to prevent a child from contracting malaria, dying from dehydration or malnutrition, etc…
Something to think about for all those people horrified by all the ‘child-killers’ in the poll. While you’re calling us monsters for chosing to off a pretend child, you most likely could have skipped that fancy coffee or trip to the movies and saved a real child.
Thank you so much for this.
I don’t have a dog or a cat, but I do have a chinchilla.
Like someone else said about their pet, he IS my baby and he comes first.
Killing myself would be stupid because he’s a one person pet and very attached to me. Killing him is NOT an option, and the baby? Well they’re annoying anyways.
Kill the kid. No question. Not giving a politically correct answer to satisfy the intarwebs, either.
surely would kill the child. It is possible that the child grows and becomes a maniac who would hurt a lot, that my cat gets hurt me or anyone else
What kind of parents leave their child unattended in a room where some maniac with a killing button can do away with her? Leaning towards the child whose parents will probably mess him/her up anyway :^)
Consider the average mourning period (length, intensity, psychological repercussions) of a mother who has just lost her child as opposed to a man who’s dog has just been hit by a car.
I can’t imagine a convincing argument that losing a pet would be more traumatic than losing a child.
Admittedly, it is not your child, so it really just comes down to the question of altruism and if you are able to deny to yourself the reality of what you’ve done after killing the child.
i love my dog and i love my cat both but when it came to losing them me or an innocent child well.. bye bye sparky
Por qué matar? Tengo la opción de NO MATAR. Aunque vos no me la des. Tengo libertad y libre albedrío para no elegir ninguna de tus opciones.
This question would be more palatable if it wasn’t the absurd scenario of forcing me to press buttons – I wouldn’t press any of them.
Maybe a better phrasing would be something like: you are in a sinking ship/building on fire and find a lifeboat/raft/ladder/firescape with space for only two. You either take your pet with you, take the child or put both on the raft and stay behind.
Kill the child, obviously. Too many people on this planet anyway.
Can’t but agree. I’m the savior, the cat is the ruler, the child is a looser. Kill the child.
I love my cat, whereas I’ve never seen the kid before. Of course I’ll save what I love! I would choose my kid over a strange cat, too. This isn’t about other animals vs. humans, it’s about emotional attachment.
Are you kidding????
I find it rather pathetic of those who accuse animal lovers of being monsters, anti-social, psycopaths, etc. If you think about that for a minute and think about the words you describe those with different viewpoints, those descriptions could actually describe YOU. Most people devoted to animals and their causes do so because they recognize that humans are the most despicable animals on earth. Humans are faulty to the core, whereas animals are innocents in their own right, they aren’t influenced by human monstrocities.
We animal lovers are gravitated toward animals because we wish we could be like them, innocent and without fault and sin. And because we want to save them from human destruction. When an animal trusts a human, there is nothing on earth more precious.
Humans hate, kill and destroy each other and hate, kill and destroy other species. If that isn’t monstrous, and psycopathic, I don’t know what is.
Shame on you for believing you are the superior species. And no, I’m not antisocial, not a psycopath, not a monster. I simply prefer to help another species who needs it most.
“Humans hate, kill and destroy each other and hate, kill and destroy other species. If that isn’t monstrous, and psycopathic, I don’t know what is.”
– And this separates us from most other animals how? Many animals will kill and even eat their own infants.
Given the powers and faculties available to us humans, I’m sure a cat would do as badly or worse with the planet.