Scenario: You are at the Louvre Museum, suddenly there's a big fire. You are standing next to the painting of Mona Lisa that is about to catch on fire. From the corner of your eyes you also see a small kitten collapsed under fallen rubbles and desperately and hopelessly trying to get out. Which one do you rescue first?
I'm going to go for the kitten, but I'm aware that I'm probably in the minority. I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I chose to save an inanimate object over a living creature.
And there's the matter that I am of the firm opinion that art being damaged doesn't stop it from being art. It just adds to the story behind the piece.
To take this example to an extreme, would you allow the Pyramids to be destroyed in order to save one goat? A crab?
It seems entirely reasonable to me that some people would value an important cultural artifact over a kitten. However, I wouldn't expect ordinary people to choose the Mona Lisa over a human child.
I don't think so. I can see someone going "countless animals die or are deliberately killed every hour, what is one more death in exchange for the continued existence of arguably the most famous painting in human history?"
No it's a pandering to the audience question. Ofc everyone would say the kitten to feel better and to show off (especially when the whole GP is about that)
This was a debate topic I saw on TV once. The 2 teams eventually had to battle it out on the ground of answering "present cry for help" (saving the kitten, self-guilt, life with consciousness) VS answering "future cry for help" (saving the painting, sign of civilization, Noah's Ark, etc...). In the end, the "Save the Painting" team actually won.
The painting. Cats are one of the most invasive species in the world, accounting for countless loss of bird populations and other species (toxoplasma infections in seals for example).
Mona Lisa is irreplaceable. The world won't miss one more cat. Losing an irreplaceable piece of history makes the whole of humanity poorer.
Cats have the evolutionary benefit of being cute to humans. Would you even consider saving say a rat or an eel in such a situation?
Also human affection to pets are flawed. We say we love them but yet we mass neuter them, feed them the same food everyday, put them on leashes, and confine them in small spaces.
Trick question; Both would be impossible to remove under the circumstances. You should probably leave immediately, since you're almost as flammable as the Mona Lisa.
I'll bet that if I saved the Mona Lisa, I'd get enough publicity that I could save hundreds of kittens by saying "If you'd like to thank me, please donate to the Humane Society" during an interview.
personal experience with non-profit sector revealed tax-dodges for high-net-worth individuals, and abysmally poor cash-to-cause ratios. still rescuing the kitten. bird in the hand beats two in the bush.
