Maybe the children are simply rationalising by saving those who would tend do them less harm?
An adult needn't make that call as they tend to be able to look after themselves.
Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
101–110 of 162 posts
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
i think this speaks far more to the way you value the life of people over animals. for me and my dog it's very different. if i had to choose between killing my dog and letting a stranger die, i wouldn't be able to kill my dog. if i had to choose between him and my partner, he's gonna have to die. i also don't feel like human life has some intrinsic value. my dog brings a lot of love and happiness to my life. i've kno…
I'm with you. As I said below: > People die all the time. Animals die all the time too. But this animal dying would have a huge negative impact on my life, whereas whether or not someone I've never met would not. I also agree with you that human life doesn't have intrinsic value. Lots of humans are "good", but lots cause a lot of pain and harm to lots of other people and animals too. So choosing a stranger of whom I…
>I also agree with you that human life doesn't have intrinsic value.
Then I guess this is ultimately the difference in our thinking. I hold that all human life has intrinsic value, and that that value is infinitely greater than any animal regardless of the person.
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#103I haven't heard a great argument explaining why human life is objectively more valuable than animal life. The most common argument I hear, even from otherwise thoughtful people I know, is something along the lines of "because one is a human and the other is an animal , duh!" but I don't consider that to be a persuasive argument. Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"? If that's the case, is the life of a…
If humans didn't highly value their own lives, they would be much less likely to survive and reproduce, and we wouldn't be here having this conversation.
> Is it because we think animals aren't capable of feeling fear, pain, anxiety, and love?
Historically, I think this was a common justification. Although, the conversation has shifted and will likely continue to do so, as we have realized that animals have many of the feelings that we have, even if it isn't exactly the same.
> Is the "moral" expectation that a chimp would value chimp life higher, a dog would value dog life higher, and a human would value human life higher?
Yes, most likely. Although the world would probably look very different if other animals were capable of discussing such things :)
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#104Children are often placed in a caretaker position over dogs--they sometimes help feed it, take it out to the bathroom or on walks. They don't spend much mental energy thinking about the needs of adults, the adults tend to do that for themselves, often out of sight of the child. It's not surprising that the child would lean towards protecting the animals that they see as under their care, or needing more care than adu…
Family dogs also tend to take on a protective role over children, since they're pack animals and correctly identify the tiny humans as fragile/vulnerable. Dogs will offer the kids as much love and attention as they're willing to take without ever getting bored, while adults often have their own limits and need to deal with other Important Business that children don't necessarily understand/appreciate yet.
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you continue to keep the pet? Out of some sense of duty or shame of giving it up? If someone told me they don't love their child but consider it cute I'd also wonder if they should remain the child's guardian.
>If someone told me they don't love their child but consider it cute I'd also wonder if they should remain the child's guardian. This is the problem. Children are not pets, and pets are not children. Children are humans, and human lives are infinitely more valuable than the lives of animals. Children have personalities, consciousness, and intelligence. They have the capacity to give and receive actual love. They are…
Many animals have personalities, consciousness, and intelligence. Dog, cats, pigs and cows included. Who is saying they don't?
Maybe only humans experience human love. But animals have emotions that seem similar.
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Seriously if you feel this way about your pet you should find someone to adopt it from you. You would let a person die to save your pet?
I'm fascinated by your opinion here, aphextron. I have a question for you. Say that you chose a stranger over your dog. Then that stranger went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision? How do you choose to save a stranger's life without knowing anything about them and what they're like?
>Say that you chose a stranger over your dog. Then that stranger went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision?
No. Because I still would have made the best decision possible at the time given all available information. This is the same argument essentially as the death penalty question. Someone else's violent act can never vindicate your own. That's only valid in the case of immediate self defense. Although if you take this argument to it's logical conclusion, which would be "Kill a thousand dogs, or hang Hitler", I'd have to admit it becomes pretty indefensible. So the real moral choice probably lies somewhere in-between.
>How do you choose to save a stranger's life without knowing anything about them and what they're like?
It's faith in the fact that any single given human life has more intrinsic value than any number of any animals. I'm essentially putting myself in that situation. Would I be ok with dying to save a dog? No, never. And so I extend that to every other person. Obviously this only works with animals. Would I feel the same about a person I love instead? Absolutely not.
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Seriously if you feel this way about your pet you should find someone to adopt it from you. You would let a person die to save your pet?
I'm fascinated by your opinion here, aphextron. I have a question for you. Say that you chose a stranger over your dog. Then that stranger went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision? How do you choose to save a stranger's life without knowing anything about them and what they're like?
Let's 100% reverse your argument and see where this takes us, shall we?
Say you choose your dog over a stranger. Then your dog went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision?
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many animals do understand killing and death. Elephants are a prime example of this. Also, what is unethical about eating an animal? If this is really an issue, then we should be out there killing all those murdering predators like wolves, right?
Setting aside the obvious questions about how wild vs farmed animals are raised, wolves don't have a choice about what to eat, while humans do. Even if we wanted to improve the status of wild animals, murdering wolves isn't obviously the best way.
So what if they don't have choice? If a mentally deranged person commits a crime because they didn't have a choice, we still remove them from doing further harm from others. Would you not kill a wolf attacking a person? If we are saying that animals are equal, then we should also be protecting the innocent prey.
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#109I haven't heard a great argument explaining why human life is objectively more valuable than animal life. The most common argument I hear, even from otherwise thoughtful people I know, is something along the lines of "because one is a human and the other is an animal , duh!" but I don't consider that to be a persuasive argument. Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"? If that's the case, is the life of a…
> Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"?
IMO, yes. That, and, I think it's likely that most aren't self-aware, or are at least less self-aware.
> If that's the case, is the life of a person with a high IQ objectively more valuable than the life of a person with a lower IQ?
Possibly—it's just that trying to make that judgement opens up enormous possibilities for horrible outcomes! Just to scratch the surface, IQ tests are very rough measures of intelligence, because they rely heavily on cultural knowledge and are thus biased against certain cultures. You don't want to attempt to make life-and-death decisions based on fuzzy measures like that.
But, I'd posit you should choose to save a dolphin over a dog (and not just because dolphins are endangered).
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#110Are we sure that this isn’t generational values changing? I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a moral change associated with generation / upbringing more than age.