I was recently part of a group discussion about "life or death" hypotheticals. One of the scenarios brought up was: "If you were in a crisis and could only save your long-term pet or a person you’ve known for six months, who would you choose?" Without hesitation, I said I would save my dog. I’ve had her for years, she’s my literal baby. A peer in the group took great offense to this. He argued that a human life, no matter the length of the connection, is objectively more valuable than an animal’s. The debate got pretty heated, where he ended up leaving the gathering because he was so frustrated by my answer. I feel like pet owners would understand where I’m coming from, but now I’m wondering if being that blunt about my priorities makes me the asshole. AITA for being honest about my choice?
Lmao why even have these hypotheticals if there’s only one “correct” answer you’re willing to accept. NTA.
NTA
I would pick an animal over human any day of the week!
I think that these kinds of moral questions focus on objective value as opposed to subjective value.
Objectively, a human life means more than a dog.
Subjectively, your dog means far more to you than most people.
NTA. Is it a bit selfish? Sure. But it doesn’t make you an asshole – it was answering a hypothetical question and you face a reasonable response.