A building is burning. You have time to either save a child trapped inside or

Save the kid.

I'll find another way to raise money for the kids.

Art is hard to sell unless you already had a buyer for certain.

I don't think that people understand these questions offer no alternatoves ,there are scenarios in which you have only the choices presented in the question itself , they are used in philosophy classes usually for arguments in the value of life ,euthanasia,abortion,choice and death in general .
Anyway as per this scenario there are many different philosophical schools that could give different answers ,or the same one but for different reasons , for example in the case of saving the child from the fire it could be argue that you stop direct harm whereas the starving children are facing a somewhat more indirect death to you. Other schools would argue that the aim is to minimize damage and you do that by saving the most amount of children and therefore letting the one child die in the fire. It could be argued forever ,either way there is no right or wrong answer in philosophy it's more so a projection of our inner world and moralities

The present, which is the child. What do they say, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?

Can never be certain with the future.

The child from the fire. Because I am certain I can save them. Whereas the painting my not sell at the price I want, may not get used by the charity appropriately.

id save the child and then do whatever I could to help the 20 starving children, or take them all home, coz I got lots of food at home

The child would be my immediate concern and I would bring them out of the fire. Then go back for the painting and die because even though I saved one life I couldn't live with the knowledge of the price I was forced to pay.

Save the child of course. I don’t care about the painting. I could start a fundraiser for those 20 children.

I'd retrieve the valuable painting, but I wouldn't use the proceeds to save the children starving from starvation. That money is my own.

I would save the child because either the child would be related to me or under my protection.

why should this be questioned what life has more value than some art work on a piece of canvas .its simple save the child from he burning building ,I may have saved only one on this particular day ,but this would be the building block to create publicity for helping to save not just 20 children but many more form sponsors that would see this story and create a charity for the 20 children

The painting, sell it and keep the money

There are enough kids in the world now

Save the kid
the others may be starving but there is potention for them to find a way to exist

without help the child in the burning building will most likely die
(unless the fire department is on scene - in which case I grab the painting - and forget about the starving kids)

This kinda question is questioning my morality.

If we are talking about guarantee I'd bet on those paintings.
Children born every single day. One die, one born again.

But the art, is well known also the painter is no longer made it probably died, the picture would be goddamn valuable.

Save the child

Save the kid now because that feels like the only certainty that I can do. The rest is potential.

save the child, teach it to make valuable paintings and then sell it for the 20 other kids 😌

Not eating for a day is enough to feed 20 children.

Kinda easy choice

A child, who tf saves inanimate things when they know they can save a person?

Save the child to avoid the guilt of knowing I let someone burn to death

The child from the fire, as the painting does not belong to me at all

The child. I don't care about the painting.

Here's a different version of the dilemma:

You're in room in a burning building. In one corner a child is huddling. In the other corner is a deep freeze flask with 100 frozen embryos.

You can only carry one item out to safety. Which is it, the child or the 100 frozen embryos?

Good question! I have one too!
Can I light a joint and in the fire?

As far as i can see here, the difference between this and the trolley problem is that here inaction kills everyone. Either choice is thus morally better than doing nothing. I suppose it puts more focus in the saving a life now or saving more lives later. Can people seek a better result with delayed gratification.

Save the one .
Im terrible at marketing😏

I asked a similar question awhile ago. If there were 200 embryos in a building on fire or a toddler and could only save one, who would you save?

I would save the child and then figure out how to feed those 20 kids.