Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

journals.sagepub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 162 posts

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#111

Post by smegcicle »

cortesoft wrote: post #13
donatj wrote: post #5

I think the true nature of death is far less well known the younger you are.

Yeah, my five year old is both weirdly obsessed with the idea of death but also weirdly not bothered by the concept. She is always asking if some person she learns about is dead, and always says we are "trying to die her" whenever we stop her from doing something she wants to do, but is never too distraught.

Sounds like her true form encompasses the entire universe of possibilities, so any time you limit her choices you are effectively killing off a part of her consciousness, for no reason but your own convenience or some vain attempt to prepare her for some vague 'real world'. By preventing her action you are literally denying her right to fully exist.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#112

Post by BearOso »

emerged wrote: post #62

Children would also choose to save a bowl of ice cream over a bowl of gold nuggets. They aren't making abstract rational/moral choices, they're choosing the thing which will make them feel good. It's effectively the same question as asking them "Do you want to play with that dog, or with that person?"

Interesting that you would choose gold, when its value is mostly manufactured.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#113

Post by CreepGin »

optimiz3 wrote: post #53
CreepGin wrote: post #10

Scenario: You are at the Louvre Museum, suddenly there's a big fire. You are standing next to the painting of Mona Lisa that is about to catch on fire. From the corner of your eyes you also see a small kitten collapsed under fallen rubbles and desperately and hopelessly trying to get out. Which one do you rescue first?

The painting. Cats are one of the most invasive species in the world, accounting for countless loss of bird populations and other species (toxoplasma infections in seals for example). Mona Lisa is irreplaceable. The world won't miss one more cat. Losing an irreplaceable piece of history makes the whole of humanity poorer. Cats have the evolutionary benefit of being cute to humans. Would you even consider saving say a…

Also human affection to pets are flawed. We say we love them but yet we mass neuter them, feed them the same food everyday, put them on leashes, and confine them in small spaces.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#114

Post by goodcanadian »

haunter wrote: post #48
amerkhalid wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this was a trick question, wouldn't anyone with empathy save the kitten?

>I thought this was a trick question No it's a pandering to the audience question. Ofc everyone would say the kitten to feel better and to show off (especially when the whole GP is about that)

Interesting. My gut reaction is the opposite. I would expect most people would say the painting.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#116

Post by ohazi »

dwaltrip wrote: post #103
hairofadog wrote: post #93

I 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 t…

> 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.

This is obviously true, and if it ever came down to making a split-second decision about saving your own life, you would expect this trait to drive the show.

However, moral puzzlers like the trolley problem don't work the same way. You might know that "save the humans, let the dogs die" is the rational HN-approved answer, but you might also know that it's the cold, calculating, heartless answer that will land you a spot in hell if you don't feel at least a little bit bad about it.

You can simultaneously be hard-wired to save yourself and your human peers in a split-second decision, while also being disgusted by humanity as a whole, while also also feeling empathy for dogs as Good and Pure beings of endless affection that we adults clearly don't deserve.

At least the kids know what's what.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#118

Post by giantg2 »

alwaysdoit wrote: post #67

Children 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…

Yep. I could see choosing to save a dog over a person on similar lines. A person should be able to take care of themself and would (generally as an adult) not be the responsibility of another person. A domestic dog may not be equipped to take care of itself and as an owner you feel a moral responsibility for their wellbeing.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#119

Post by serenloss »

BearOso wrote: post #112
emerged wrote: post #62

Children would also choose to save a bowl of ice cream over a bowl of gold nuggets. They aren't making abstract rational/moral choices, they're choosing the thing which will make them feel good. It's effectively the same question as asking them "Do you want to play with that dog, or with that person?"

Interesting that you would choose gold, when its value is mostly manufactured.

What an odd way to respond. Manufactured in what way? Gold’s value is no more manufactured than that of ice cream. It has no bearing on the comparison.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#120

Post by hh3k0 »

bigbubba wrote: post #32
notRobot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but the question is "is valuing all lives regardless of species ethically immature?"

The answer is yes.

If only more people would be immature. There would be no COVID-19 and we would have much more time to tackle climate change.
Post reply on HN