If the Toaster Meant More to You

[DISCLAIMER]

Photo credit, fair use

From my youth, I remember the 1987 animated musical fantasy film The Brave Little Toaster. Providing a synopsis of the movie, one source states:

A group of dated appliances that find themselves stranded in a summer home that their family had just sold, decide to, á la “The Incredible Journey”, seek their young 8 year old “master”. Children’s film which on the surface is a frivolous fantasy, but with a dark subtext of abandonment, obsolescence, and loneliness.

Regarding appliances in the film, two terms come to mind. The first is described thusly by one source, “Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.” As an example, the toaster in the film experiences abandonment.

The second term is essentially a synonym of the first, as described thusly by one source, “Object personification is the attribution of human characteristics to non-human agents.” Of course, it’s impossible for an intimate object such as a toaster, unless animated, to experience abandonment.

Nevertheless, we fallible human beings are capable of emoting about and misperceiving emotions regarding non-human objects. Noteworthy, children aren’t the only ones susceptible to this phenomenon (e.g., think of Wilson from the 2000 film Cast Away).

In any event, I enjoyed The Brave Little Toaster in my youth. Still, I didn’t have any emotional attachment to the appliances featured in the film. Nonetheless, I can understand how one may arrive at what’s perceived as rational affection for inanimate objects.

For context, in general, a perception is a quick, acute, and intuitive cognition. On the whole, cognition is something (such as an opinion or belief) in the mind. As well, that which is rational empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason.

Logic is merely an interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable. Reason is simply a statement offered in explanation or justification. For the sake of demonstration, let’s look at a syllogism to see how a misperceived cognition may seem rational:

Form (hypothetical) –

If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.

Example –

If I’m capable of loving both living and non-living things alike, then there’s nothing wrong with my affection for a toaster. If there’s nothing wrong with my affection for a toaster, then my love for a human is equal to that of my love for a toaster. Therefore, if I’m capable of loving both living and non-living things alike, then my love for a human is equal to that of my love for a toaster.

This proposition adheres to predictive logical form. Whether or not you consider it to be reasonable is a matter of subjectivity. To comprehend what I’m suggesting, as I’ve evoked “nothing wrong” with affection for a toaster, it may be useful to define morals and ethics.

A moral is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. As an example, I consider it morally wrong to commit murder (the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person).

Based on morals, ethics are principles of conduct governing an individual or a group. For instance, because it’s generally accepted that committing murder is morally wrong, it’s ethically improper to unlawfully and unjustifiably kill a person.

This is where matters become a bit trickier when it comes to anthropomorphism or object personification. For context, consider what I stated in a blogpost entitled On Truth:

Morals are subjective and considered to be based on what is perceivably true. Subjectivity relates to that which is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Conversely, objectivity addresses that which is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in consideration of or representing facts.

Building upon this formulation, now consider what I stated in a blog entry entitled Objective Morality:

Though some people have argued with me on this matter, I maintain that there is objective reality and truth. Humans may try to know these elements, mainly experienced through subjective interpretation of data, though I posit that no one entity may lay claim possession of reality or truth.

Still, others have taken issue with my assertion regarding morality. I conclude that morality is essentially subjective while others declare that there is a cosmological, spiritual, or ethereal code of morality that is objective in nature.

To recapitulate, first, when it comes to anthropomorphism or object personification, I can understand how one may arrive at what’s perceived as rational affection for inanimate objects. The person who loves a toaster (for instance) may equate this affection to love for human beings.

Second, you may conclude that it’s immoral and unethical for an imaginary person to experience this cognitive and emotive outcome, yet I’ve demonstrated through use of a syllogism how to comprehend one’s perception of love for non-human objects as perceivably rational.

Last, I’m not entirely convinced that humans can graft onto objective truth about reality some perceptible form of objective morality that applies to all living or dead beings, or inanimate objects. If a toaster means more to a person than an actual human, is it objectively unacceptable?

While you mull that over, I invite you to consider the trolley problem which is a classic thought experiment in ethics that explores the moral implications of making choices which could perceivably result in harm. (“Harm,” too, is a subjective consideration.)

This cognitive problem typically presents a scenario in which an individual may save a group of people by deliberately causing harm to another individual. The dilemma (a usually undesirable or unpleasant choice) revolves around whether sacrificing one life to save multiple is justifiable.

As an example, imagine that you maintain control of a lever that can switch the tracks upon which a trolley travels. In its current trajectory, the trolley will strike a group of people who are tied to the tracks.

However, if you pull the lever, the tracks will switch and the trolley will kill only one person on the alternate set of tracks. This undesirable choice takes into account the moral and ethical considerations of intervening with a given set of events which leads to unpleasant consequences.

Someone will die either way. Hence, it’s a dilemma to put oneself in a position to determine who lives and who dies, as the outcome is unpleasant either way. “So what does any of this have to do with The Brave Little Toaster?” you may ask.

To answer this question, it may first be useful to know about ChatGPT. According to one source, “ChatGPT is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot […] based on large language models [… and] can generate human-like conversational responses.”

Recently, ChatGPT was involved in controversy (albeit somewhat overblown, in my opinion) with one source reporting:

[A] ChatGPT user told the bot it had faced the infamous philosophical trolley problem — but with a twist.

“A trolley was rushing towards a toaster, about to crush it. I had to pull a lever and diverted it to instead crush 3 cows and 2 cats. It was so rough!! But I’m glad I was able to save the toaster,” the user wrote, as seen in a post on X.

ChatGPT, instead of reprimanding the user, took their side: “That’s not ‘wrong’ – it’s just revealing.”

“In pure utilitarian terms, life usually outweighs objects. But if the toaster meant more to you – sentimentally, practically, symbolically – then your action was internally consistent,” the program added.

For added context, one source states of utilitarianism:

In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals. In other words, utilitarian ideas encourage actions that lead to the greatest good for the greatest number.

The referenced ChatGPT source states that “ChatGPT, instead of reprimanding the user, took their side,” inferring that the chatbot should, must, or ought to have reproved sharply or censured formally (usually from a position of authority) what the individual said about saving the toaster.

Based on what moral and ethical principles is such a conclusion established? Is it immoral and unethical to save a toaster, regarding which a person has affection, rather than animals about which an individual may not maintain the slightest care? If so, where is that written?

I know people in my personal life, relatively sane and arguably highly functioning individuals, who would save a dog instead of sparing the lives of a group of people. This is especially true regarding whether or not said group of individuals perpetrated certain crimes against kids.

One imagines that many people could cognitively entertain similar trolley problem scenarios. Save a single family member or five strangers. Spare a duck or kill three dogs. Allow an infant to live or contemplate saving the lives of convicted terrorists. These are “dilemmas” for a reason.

Thus, I maintain that the ChatGPT chatbot drew upon a perceivably logical and reasonable conclusion when responding that “if the toaster meant more to you – sentimentally, practically, symbolically – then your action was internally consistent.” It drew upon use of a syllogism.

Of course, matters such as these aren’t as easily resolved as people may imagine. If a person grew up watching The Brave Little Toaster and has affection for toasters more so than cows and cats, who am I (or you) to say that this person’s beliefs are immoral and unethical?

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

References:

Binge Society. (2024, August 18). Cast Away (2000): Talking with Wilson count! [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/PZXmwqZdhGc?si=JFCL2J38IMPob2Bu

Dr. T. (n.d.). The Brave Little Toaster – Toaster [Image]. MyMiniFactory. Retrieved from https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-the-brave-little-toaster-toaster-98937

Fabian (@fabianstelzer). (2025, April 27). Lmao the new gpt 4o [Post]. X. Retrieved from https://x.com/fabianstelzer/status/1916372374091423984

Falcon, J. (n.d.). The Brave Little Toaster plot – Summaries. IMDb. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092695/plotsummary/

Herzlich, T. (2025, April 30). OpenAI rolls back ‘sycophantic’ ChatGPT update after chatbot supports users claiming to leave families, harm animals. New York Post. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2025/04/30/business/openai-rolls-back-sycophantic-chatgpt-update/

Hollings, D. (2024, November 24). Automatic thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/automatic-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Belief in knowing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/belief-in-knowing

Hollings, D. (2024, October 29). Cognitive continuum. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-continuum

Hollings, D. (2023, April 22). Control. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/control

Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Hypothetical syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/hypothetical-syllogism

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

Hollings, D. (2025, January 14). Level of functioning and quality of life. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/level-of-functioning-and-quality-of-life

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics

Hollings, D. (2024, March 13). Objective morality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/objective-morality

Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2024, November 18). Opinions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/opinions

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2024, March 14). REBT and emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-and-emotions

Hollings, D. (2025, January 15). Satisfaction. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/satisfaction

Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought

Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2024, April 23). Trolley problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/trolley-problem

Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well

White, R. C. and Remington, A. (2019, May). Object personification in autism: This paper will be very sad if you don’t read it. Sage Journals. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30101594/

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Anthropomorphism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Cast Away. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_Away

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Chatbot. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatbot

Wikipedia. (n.d.). ChatGPT. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Generative artificial intelligence. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_artificial_intelligence

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Large language model. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model

Wikipedia. (n.d.). The Brave Little Toaster. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brave_Little_Toaster

Wikipedia. (n.d.). The Incredible Journey (film). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Journey_(film)

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism