Kin or kind? Conflicting moral values in dilemmas involving pets

Research shows that, across the world, most people prioritize the welfare of humans over the welfare of non-human animals. At the same time, people feel special moral obligations towards family members. These two moral principles, humans over animals and family over strangers, collide when pet owners, most of whom regard their pets as family, must choose between their pet and a human stranger. Across three studies with large, demographically diverse samples of North American pet owners (total N = 1,999), we examined how people navigate such dilemmas. Most participants viewed their pet as a family member and reported feeling very or extremely close to their pet. In contrast to the strong pro-human bias typically observed in human–animal trade-offs, a slight majority prioritized their pet over a human stranger (57% in Study 1). When responding on a continuous scale (Study 2), people’s preferences were polarized, with many strongly favoring either their pet or the stranger (i.e., evidence for inter-individual conflict). In Study 3, most participants prioritized their pet when asked what they wanted to do but prioritized the stranger when asked what the ethically right thing was, pointing to conflicting motives within individuals (i.e., evidence for intra-individual conflict).