Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated

[David Sklansky]

Didn't mean the first question to be ambiguous. And the vast disparity of answers makes me wonder if that would continue if the question was clearer.

An adult, non mentally retarded person is about to gleefully torture and kill a random cat by frying it in a microwave. You can stop it, but if you do, the person somehow loses his hand. How doesn't matter. Would you stop the execution?

I phrase the question this way because I believe I am right at the line for most people. Almost no one would kill any human to save a cat that wasn't their pet. Very few would kill an innocent human, even painlessly, to keep a random cat from dying painfully. Most would not maim even a scoundrel to keep a random cat from dying peacefully.

On the other hand most people would subject themselves or others to moderate discomfort to keep a cat from dying tortuously. And most would subject the actual prospective torturer, to serious discomfort or pain, to stop his deed.

The question I asked is in between those parameters.

PS I don't think it is useful to bring up the fact that the torturer may one day be a neurosurgeon or that he deserves maiming. I'm really only asking what lengths you would go to, to save the cat, if there is a non innocent human hurt in the process.