Earlier quoted context omitted.
A truly amoral rational agent would save the kitten, because they can't keep the painting.
Only if they valued the continued existence of the Mona Lisa, absent owning it, at zero.
[deleted]
Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
61–70 of 162 posts
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#62Children 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?"
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#63I think the true nature of death is far less well known the younger you are.
Or perhaps the exact opposite.[?]
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#64Earlier 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.
It is normal for animals who don't think the same way that we do. They don't understand the concepts of "killing" or "life" and don't value life in the same manner as humans.
It's always struck me as odd when unethical treatment of animals is justified by saying "animals eat/kill/hurt other animals too!". We're different from animals. Our standards should be higher.
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#65[deleted]
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#66I got a puppy when the pandemic hit, since I live alone and figured it'd help me cope with the isolation. This is the first pet I've ever owned. I thought that I would be able to "love" it the way other people seem to. But I can't, and until seeing this article I almost felt like that meant I was sociopathic or something. Sure it's cute, but I would also have no hesitation whatsoever in killing it to save the life of…
Seriously if you feel this way about your pet you should find someone to adopt it from you.
>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?
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#67Children 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 adults.
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#68But what would Lassie do?
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is yes.
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.
Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs
#70Earlier 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.
I don't buy this either. No-kill shelters wouldn't exist if that were true.
Maybe. Perhaps some killing is ethical. PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals) has shelters and I hear they have very high kill rates, like >95%.