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

141–150 of 162 posts

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

#141

Post by mewpmewp2 »

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…

I think it's mainly because of how we feel about losing human lives vs animal lives. So it's emotion based. I think all other reasoning/justification comes after our emotions. Anyone can think of reasons that differentiate humans from animals, but ultimately it is just how we feel about it. And for emotions, yes this is for evolutionary reasons.

If we were to consider human lives equal with animal life we would have to change so much it would not be practical so at current state it is not even something ww would consider so many of us simply try to ignore the issue.

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

#142

Post by eatingCake »

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.

Are you sure? I was under the impression that, for instance, diamond's value is mostly manufactured, but gold is actually useful for various electronic and chemical properties.

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

#143

Post by bitcharmer »

antisthenes wrote: post #138
bitcharmer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's no need to engage in hypotheticals here. Statistically speaking, dogs are much less likely per capita to injure/kill a human, than a human doing the same to another human. Humans are violent apes, whereas dogs (with very few breeds being exceptions) have been bred for 5,000 years for docility/companionship.

> There's no need to engage in hypotheticals here

Yet here we are, hypothesising.

Also, statistically speaking dogs are less likely to come up with new methods of improving life on earth or even simply helping out other creatures in need.

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

#144

Post by mewpmewp2 »

infofarmer wrote: post #59
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #6

I wonder how many dog lives compared to human lives median adult chose.

Would be a highly theoretical question, but let's hope it would still be «infinite». In practice, killing all the dogs (somehow) would almost certainly result in a significant number of human deaths, widespread suffering, and general chaos.

But we could go deeper to find some place where we can draw the line.

E.g would you save 10000 family pet dogs or an old person in pain who will die within a month for sure?

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

#145

Post by Viliam1234 »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #41
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or... Adults become so overly conditioned to accept that killing animals for our daily lives is normal, that we no longer register animal death as an ethical issue.

> killing animals for our daily lives is normal It is normal. Historically speaking, not doing so is what’s not normal. The nature of this planet is that every living thing lives off eating other living things.

Also, for warriors, killing humans is normal.

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

#146

Post by BearOso »

eatingCake wrote: post #142
BearOso wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you sure? I was under the impression that, for instance, diamond's value is mostly manufactured, but gold is actually useful for various electronic and chemical properties.

Yeah, I looked it up before posting. And "superficial" would be better a better word than "manufactured." Only like 10% of gold production goes towards industrial purposes. The rest is used for jewelry or as currency backing.

edit And gold is actually a rare element that's actually useful, like you described, just not rare enough that most of it can't be siphoned off to sit idly in someone's vault. Diamonds are also somewhat useful, but not really rare.

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

#147

Post by mewpmewp2 »

wgjordan wrote: post #136
mcny wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets not be too hasty on this. There are over seven (over eight?) billion (with a B) humans. There are fewer than a billion dogs. Pretty sure the answer is clear: prefer saving dog lives over human lives. Now, if it was chicken vs humans, of course, save human lives. Now take this to another extreme, would you rather save the life of ONE giant panda or one hundred humans? I think all reasonable people will press the…

If your argument is that it's clear we should prefer species preservation over all else, then let's take the giant panda example to its logical extreme. Human population (estimated 7,800,000,000) / giant panda population (1,864) = 4,184,549. So all 'reasonable people' would kill 4 million humans before a single giant panda. Is that really the argument here?

What if there was just a single panda left? Should we in this case terminate the whole human population down to one last person before killing the panda?

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

#148

Post by rasz »

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?

First? You want me to go back into the fire for a kitten? :o)

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

#149

Post by dylan604 »

BearOso wrote: post #146
eatingCake wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? I was under the impression that, for instance, diamond's value is mostly manufactured, but gold is actually useful for various electronic and chemical properties.

Yeah, I looked it up before posting. And "superficial" would be better a better word than "manufactured." Only like 10% of gold production goes towards industrial purposes. The rest is used for jewelry or as currency backing. edit And gold is actually a rare element that's actually useful, like you described, just not rare enough that most of it can't be siphoned off to sit idly in someone's vault. Diamonds are also…

We can also produce diamonds in a lab, yet the alchemists still can't turn lead into gold.

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

#150

Post by anigbrowl »

bigbubba wrote: post #69
notRobot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is the opposite of what HN is supposed to be. You've taken up a stance, please explain your reasoning instead of stating it as fact. Lots of reasonable points could be made to counter that opinion.

The question is inane, anybody who doesn't earnestly value the life of a human more than the life of a dog is morally bankrupt. And frankly, I think most who claim otherwise earnestly do not feel that way when put on the spot. Given the choice of dying young or receiving a porcine heart valve transplant, I am quite sure what damn near everybody except a handful of nutjobs would chose.

Repetition is no substitute for argument.
Post reply on HN