I was looking at someone's post on the first page who said he would save a 'family member' such as a dog, cat, horse or something. What if the pet was a prized race-horse worth a ton of money, and the stranger was an old, decrepit man. People have talked about the idea that decisive action makes saving the pet essentially equivalent to murder/manslaughter of the stranger, whereas passivity in relation to charity is ok. Well, does that mean that you have to allow the horse to die? How would that be different from a stranger randomly knocking on your door and begging for $50,000 because they are dying of cancer and need money for surgery? Your horse (ignoring the emotional aspect) may be worth something to that effect (k, i admit i actually have no idea of how much horses are worth, but i'm sure they could be worth way more if they win a lot), but if they just knocked on your door and asked for cash, you would actively deny them, even if you knew they were going to die, and would tell them to go plead somewhere else, maybe the government if your country has welfare. Even if you think that you would give them the money, this would create a reputation of generosity that would encourage others to come begging for money, and the end result would be that you would either have to be willing to give up all your money or actively condemn a stranger to death. Thus isn't the distinction between active and passive decision somewhat flawed? What instead is the determining factor is the size of the cost in the active decision - some people here view the emotional cost of losing a pet as being great enough to choose the pet, whereas some view it as paltry and are therefore willing to save the stranger. So in essence the question of who to change, going by this argument, is commodified and becomes merely a cost/benefit analysis.