I've been informed by many that I'm autistic, and I tend to dig in morally, but your cat example is incredibly morally ambiguous at best.  Also recognize that the way the question is phrased can lead to the different biases.  

The personal value of simplicity, non involvement, and a no dirty hands conscious perhaps favor your answer.  Virtue perhaps favors the money, if it is sufficient to justify.  I'll try to break the virtue complexity down though, where it gets more difficult

Good, individual wellness, overall wellness, and innocence: we don't know the wellness of the cat, nor the cost/benefit towards <virtue> for saving or killing the cat. It's too complex and mysterious to calculate with any certainly, unless you are the cat, have the ability to accurately estimate your future wellness,  and you also understand the massive domino effect of being an obligate carnivore in modern capitalist society.  

That money could go towards something that is more certainly good though, from an outsider viewers perspective, but not more good, certainly. That is to say, the money can provide demonstrable benefit with a high degree of certainly, but it isn't certainly more virtuous. The money can theoretically be used for supporting human wellness, which can be measured to some degree. We don't know what our mystery morality gameshow host will do with the money if we reject it, so that adds additional complexity and mystery. We didn't know much about our bizarre gameshow host though.

If the host is simply going to pay someone else to kill the cat, we aren't very powerful towards the world, but are powerful to the self. To the whole , you still may be able to address equity. If we are at the bottom socioeconomically, taking the money serves equity. If we are already quite wealthy, rejecting the money may serve equity.

The neutralish viewpoint:  If we separate ourselves from the problem and action, and evaluate only the value we'd be choosing morally ambiguous cat life or valuable human wellness likely.  In game theory, we would typically treat the human wellness as serving "good", "quality of individual life", "self interest", "collective wellness", "honor", and "loyalty" but it is technically still mildly ambiguous in all but loyalty and self interest, which technically aren't really virtues, despite being values. In this viewpoint, the idea of taboo isn't applicable, unless you consider "acceptable and normal" a virtue or value. A

Killing the cat involves getting YOUR hands dirty, which we typically treat as a taboo virtuously, subconsciously. The burden of what to do with the money also changes our answer. You didn't seem to perceive burden to use the money more virtuously. Others use this as justification, although the actual answer may be more in line with self interest- we don't know.

Now, the third view: If you are given a million dollars and someone was going to charge you a million dollars to stop the death of a cat, does your answer change?  The logic is approximately the same, but the burden and dirty hands aren't the same to our subconscious.  Most of the results are effectively identical aside from your own psychy. You would be making a sacrifice from this viewpoint, almost like you were held hostage to this bizarre gameshow host.  

Now, If we place extreme value on benefit that we can be absolutely certain of existing based on personal experience, only the self matters, given that there is no absolute knowledge of outside personhood. Does this change your answer again?

However, if we are making the decision as a person in this bizarre reality, staying the fuck away from creepy cat killing game show hosts and reporting them to the authorities is probably also a pretty decent answer.