Hacker News Reader

Comment by CreepGin | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

Save the kitten then bask in the notoriety. When asked why you did it, claim the painting was disappointingly small and very over rated.

I do enjoy the existence of the Mona Lisa!

It keeps people that only came to the Louvre to see it (and nothing else) well-contained to one area.

Leaves more room for me to look at the actually interesting stuff!

Like "Psyche Revived By Cupid's Kiss" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_Revived_by_Cupid%27s_Ki...)!

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.

Also, I fucking love cats.

I thought this was a trick question, wouldn't anyone with empathy save the kitten?

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?"

>I thought this was a trick question

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.

Interesting. My gut reaction is the opposite. I would expect most people would say the painting.

Even with empathy (or perhaps it would be better to say, especially with empathy), the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

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.

A truly amoral rational agent would save the kitten, because they can't keep the painting.

Only if they valued the continued existence of the Mona Lisa, absent owning it, at zero.

What value does seeing the original add over seeing a scan of the painting?

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.

Point out the kitten as a distraction, then grab some paintings that aren't behind bullet-proof glass on my way out.

First? You want me to go back into the fire for a kitten? :o)

I rescue myself first.

Myself, let both there

the kitten, obviously. it may have consciousness.

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.

kitten.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com