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.