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

91–100 of 162 posts

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

#91

Post by notRobot »

hasmolo wrote: post #74
aphextron wrote: post #14

I 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…

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 know nothing over my own pet? Nope. Not doing that.

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

#92

Post by salmon30salmon »

I wonder how much of this, if any, is due to the fact that a lot of children may have faced the death of an animal, perhaps a dog but maybe a hamster etc. and have yet to live through the death of a close human. If so, animals dying is visceral, real and happening. Whereas human death is this abstract that they can't even really empathize with as it is so unsupported by any lived experience.

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

#93

Post by hairofadog »

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 person with a high IQ objectively more valuable than the life of a person with a lower IQ?

Is it because we think animals aren't capable of feeling fear, pain, anxiety, and love?

Is it a tribalism thing? If we assume that elephants, chimps, or whales are capable of some level of ethical reasoning, are they expected to also value human life higher than their own, or would that be considered immoral because they're "species traitors"? 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?

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

#94

Post by CreepGin »

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)

This was a debate topic I saw on TV once. The 2 teams eventually had to battle it out on the ground of answering "present cry for help" (saving the kitten, self-guilt, life with consciousness) VS answering "future cry for help" (saving the painting, sign of civilization, Noah's Ark, etc...). In the end, the "Save the Painting" team actually won.

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

#95

Post by dylan604 »

centimeter wrote: post #60
dylan604 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all of the Diseny movies that show animals acting like humans && knowing how kids love to watch movies on infinite loop, it's not really hard to imagine why

I often wonder to what degree frequent early exposure to humanoid animals is doing some kind of damage to people's social cognition. I think there's plenty of evidence to be had online that it's doing pretty significant damage to at least some people. But I wonder if it's also behind widespread harmful social effects like the concept of "fur babies".

Now that's a rabbit hole of a theory. Just like with anything, a "stable" person can live in a world with this kind of make believe and enjoy the story telling devices being used. However, someone less "stable" that can be less able to make these distinctions. Does that mean we all can't have it because of a small number of people? If that's the case, then I would apply this same rule to any and all social media. Clearly, some people can't handle it, so nobody can use it.

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

#96

Post by notRobot »

aphextron wrote: post #66
gscott wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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?

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

#97

Post by aphextron »

postalrat wrote: post #82
aphextron wrote: post #66

Earlier 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?

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 fundamentally different things. I would never, ever feel that way about a child.

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

#98

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

amerkhalid wrote: post #40
notRobot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to go for the kitten, but I'm aware that I'm probably in the minority. I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I chose to save an inanimate object over a living creature. And there's the matter that I am of the firm opinion that art being damaged doesn't stop it from being art. It just adds to the story behind the piece. Also, I fucking love cats.

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

Even with empathy (or perhaps it would be better to say, especially with empathy), the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

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

#100

Post by minkowski »

giantg2 wrote: post #80
notRobot wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN