posted
The snake's having been young makes more sense than anything I've been able to think of to explain the fact that it ate the frog legs first.
I'm relatively sure that it wasn't poisonous; this took place in the woods in Yellow Springs, Ohio, and there are only three species of venomous snake native to the region--the copperhead and two varieties of rattler. I'm familiar enough with all three of those to be able to recognize them when I come across them in the wild, and this snake wasn't any of them. Given that, I'd say that the jaw motions that I observed were some form of the "walking jaw" thing you're describing.
I didn't know that most snakes were given to constricting their prey, by the way; that's really interesting!
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I didn't know that most snakes were given to constricting their prey, by the way; that's really interesting! [/QB]
Well, most snakes in North America, anyhow! We have more colubrids here (constrictors) than venomous snakes.
Although, my corn snakes are constrictors, and they never constrict. Maybe it's all about personal snakely preference.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: People who say "it's life" would you try to save a human from a predator? If so, how is that different? Humans are a species whose population is out of control, they're damaging the ecosystems they inhabit, by every good game management policy, we should be trying to limit their population. Would you try to rescue a human child from a mountain lion?
Of course I would try to save a human life. Why? Because I value a human life more than any animal. That's part of nature too, looking out for your own kind. Do I really need to justify that?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's different because it's your own species?
I have this thing about animals, I always have since I can remember, that I see them as individuals, as people. It's not that I don't see people as people. I do. It's just that I see animals as people too.
Humans are animals. Is it just sentiment that causes us to value each other's lives more highly than we do the lives of other species? Some of my favorite people are cats. All cats are people to me, and my cats are my children. I think people who feel there is any sort of difference in kind (rather than degree) between humans and our kindred animals are mistaken.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, but if you had to choose between saving the life of a random human child and a random kitten, you would save the human, right?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Here's a site that lists all the snake species of Ohio, btw...if you still remember what he looked like, maybe you can identify him!
Mystery snake revealed after two years...? Heehee.
Thanks Libbie, what a great resource! I'm browsing through that (now bookmarked) site, and will let you know what I come up with.
By the way, I can't remember whether I posted in your welcome thread or not, but I'm awfully glad that you've decided to become a member here.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
neo-dragon, that's a false dichotomy, I believe. All such situations admit of solutions that go beyond "choose A or B".
I would save the kitten (being uniquely suited to that, due to my understanding of cat behavior and instincts) and send someone else simultaneously to save the child.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that the animals generally have no warm, fuzzy feelings toward you. Animals aren't people. Given the opportunity, they will eat you, eat your food, invade your territory, spoil your water, and pass on any number of diseases. Nature is all about survival.
I think if I saw the snake eating the frog, I'd bite the snake. Let him see how he likes it!
Edit: Tatiana, I hope you never get a job as a babysitter. It worries me that anyone would save the life of an animal before a person, unless it were a particularly special case (i.e. the person is trying to kill you).
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana I am not bothered by your way of viewing things, but I am interested in understanding it.
Do you hold all animals on equal footing? Or all sentient entities? I understand that you said you feel you are more capable of saving a kitten as opposed to a human being, and that you would delegate the responsibility to somebody else in regards to the human baby.
Do you feel its wrong to hold ones own species survival as more important than another species?
Are their species you classify as more important than others? If a cat will starve to death if it does not eat a mouse, do you consider the cat or the mouse your primary responsibility?
I'd just like some clarification, I'd rather not just attack your beliefs because they are so far removed from my own.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: neo-dragon, that's a false dichotomy, I believe. All such situations admit of solutions that go beyond "choose A or B".
I would save the kitten (being uniquely suited to that, due to my understanding of cat behavior and instincts) and send someone else simultaneously to save the child.
That's a cop-out answer and I think you know that it's not answering the question that I'm really asking. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where you have equal ability to save either and the one that you don't save will surely die. Say, they're both trapped in a burning building and you have exactly enough time to grab one and escape before the ceiling collapses. Or a psycho with a gun forces you to choose or something.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question is a cop-out question. All such questions are totally false. There are always better solutions in the real world than "either-or".
For instance, if you're stuck on a lifeboat with 20 people and no food and no chance of being rescued, do you kill the weakest and eat them to stay alive? Or all starve together? That's another example of a false dichotomy. I would find a way to catch fish, and keep us all alive.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Blade, I hold animals to be people, and I try to act morally toward them. I try to treat them as I would want to be treated by a large creature of another species who had me in its power.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suppose there is a burning plane with, oh, say, 50 people on it. You have your chance to grab a random person or one of the terrified animals that is out of its carrier before the plane burns up. They are both right there by the window. Who do you reach for first?
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people are the responsiblity of the flight crew. They are better trained and better able to help the people. I would probably kill someone while trying to help them, and I doubt I could really pick them up.
However, the animals are clearly my first responsibility, because most likely nobody else will be helping them. I want you to understand that every creature on earth is my personal responsibility. This includes the ones who are humans, too. It will be my job to save everyone on board. If I am smart enough I will succeed. Perhaps I will have forseen the possibility of fire, and made sure a huge tanker truck with that breathable type of fire extinguisher is very close. Then it will extinguish all the flames and all the people on board will be saved.
Today I spent half an hour writing a letter to bring to the attention of someone who is in a position to do something about it a possible oversight I see in our pandemic planning at the Nuclear Plant sites. The most intelligent way to save people is to forsee the dangers that they will be exposed to, and fix them before they kill anyone.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're talking hypothetical, not real life. You're just dancing around the issue of if you would sacrifice an animal life to save a human, or vice versa, which is somewhat disappointing since I've enjoyed the open and honest responses that have been provided in this thread. Of course you'll always look for a way to make it a win/win scenario, but if you want to talk about reality you should realize that that's not always possible, and it does sometimes come down to which sacrifice are we more willing to make. So I'm asking, which sacrifice would you be more willing to make?
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: For instance, if you're stuck on a lifeboat with 20 people and no food and no chance of being rescued, do you kill the weakest and eat them to stay alive? Or all starve together? That's another example of a false dichotomy. I would find a way to catch fish, and keep us all alive.
Actually, that's something of an answer right there, since that means you value human life over that of a fish at least. But how do cute furry animals rank?
posted
It's not just their cuteness that matters, but the level of internal life they have. I would like to be able to live without killing anything at all ever, but I haven't worked out how yet.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How are you able to judge the internal life of an animal? Why is a cat equal value to a person. Obviously they don't have anywhere near the same "internal life."
I'm curious why you feel that animals are your first responsibility.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I judge the internal life of an animal the same way I do that of a human, by watching their behavior over time. It's certainly true that the better I know a given species, the more I see their individual personalities, and the more I notice the mental connections they make.
For instance, cats are extremely smart about anything they care about. They will learn from one occurence anything about some tasty food or something they fear or something they love. They seem a lot less aware than humans, in many cases, mainly because we care about different things.
They are exceedingly playful, but in a cat way and not a "monkey" way, as humans are playful. That is, our playfulness overlaps some but not entirely. They have a keen sense of their own dignity, but are very benevolent in overlooking the fact that we act in such an undignified manner so often. They have no sense of humor whatsoever, but again, they're very patient with ours, politely ignoring our unseemly behavior when we laugh or cut up.
Most cats treat their humans very well. Occasionally you get some who don't understand that affection is a better trainer than claw-pricks, and those you have to train in the proper techniques of training you.
Like the Little Prince's fox said, "You are responsible for everything you tame". My cats and I take good care of each other.
The more I know cats, the more internal life I see that they actually have. This is true for birds, chipmunks, squirrels, possums, racoons, and dogs as well. That's why I believe the "ramen, varelse, framling" distinction is one that we make in our own brains, primarily. That is, it changes more with OUR changing experience of other creatures including humans, than it does from the differences inherent in the species themselves.
It's interesting to me that humans typically don't eat their companion species. We don't eat cats, dogs, or horses here in the west because we keep close association with them, and so we tend to see them more as people. I believe if we associated closely on a personal level with pigs, cows, and chickens, that we would feel the same way about them, that they are simply not food animals.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's the story of an anglo father selling his daughter's Shetland Pony to a Tongan father, for the Tongan son's birthday. The Tongan father then promptly bashed the pony over the head and threw its corpse in the bed of his pickup, to be barbequed for his son's birthday party feast. To the utter horror of the anglo family.
Why was this seen as horrible? Examine that situation closely and tell me what conclusions you draw from it.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Animals, apart from the very intelligent like apes and whales, simply don't have a lot of complex thought processes going on. Cats do what they do, but I think it's a stretch to say that they overlook our undignified acts. Dignity and humor are things we might attribute to a cat. Cats don't tell each other jokes.
Be that as it may, I am still trying to analyze why it bothers me so much that anyone would save a cat or other animal over a person. I don't know if it's survival instinct, morality, common sense, or something else within me that is telling me that it's absolutely wrong. I'll have to think about it a little more, but I'm still kind of horrified.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mighty Cow, upon what do you base your assurance about what is going on in a cat's subjective experience? Are you a cat, perhaps?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm horrified too, because you are so sure based on no evidence that animals don't have much in the way of subjective experiences. That idea leads to the idea that it's perfectly okay for us to take no thought of their fear, pain, suffering, etc. and to treat them as industrial machinery. This idea is, in my view, perhaps the most evil mistake that our species routinely makes, and will lead (due to environmental degradation and the rape of the earth) to our extinction if it's not corrected. Our lives depend on our symbiotic species. If we don't treat them well, it will definitely have a direct effect on our own well-being. (I mention that fact to get you to give it some more thought. If not for moral reasons then for self-interest, we have to learn better.) Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Mighty Cow, upon what do you base your assurance about what is going on in a cat's subjective experience? Are you a cat, perhaps?
Conversely, one could ask how you know that you aren't anthropomorphizing feline behaviour? After all, you're not a cat either, no matter how much time you spend observing them.
Funny trivia: Did you know that if you were to drop dead for any reason your cats would simply eat you like you're any old piece of meat? Dogs, at least, won't eat their master until they're near starvation. I actually like cats more than dogs, but I enjoy telling that fact to cat owners. Many refuse to believe it. I learned about it in a forensics class.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with MightyCow. Animals don't have the same higher level brain functions that we do. That does NOT mean that I think it's okay for them to be made to suffer wantonly though. They do feel pain and fear, and no creature should be subjected to such feelings without good reason. I'm not certain what Tatiana means when she refers to "internal life", but I don't see how any rational person can assign it the same value in a cat and a human.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't bother me if my cats would eat my body, if they rightly conclude that I no longer need it. Particularly if they are hungry and need food.
neo-dragon, you're making exactly the point I intended to make, that it's not possible to know with absolute certainty what the internal life of another creature is like. I do think that by close association and sympathetic observation, we come to know them as closely as it's possible to know them. As for "anthromorphizing", I've only heard that said by people who aren't animal people. We have no need to *make* them humanlike. They ARE humanlike, just as we're catlike, because we are both mammals and are close cousins. (Perhaps about 60 million years ago, our common ancestors lived on earth. That's not very long in paleontological terms, or geologic terms. We are alike because we are kin. There's no need for any psychological games to *make* it seem true to us. It seems true because it *is* true.) Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love dogs, and I think most animals are pretty cool. I seriously considered becoming a vet for a while in college. It's not that I don't appreciate or care for animals. I've lived with them, studied them, and eaten them most of my life.
I simply regard the life of a person over the life of an animal. If given the choice, in a life or death situation, I would save a person over an animal. If one of my pets and a person I didn't know were drowning at opposite ends of a lake, and I had only one boat, I would go after the person, as much as it would pain me to lose my pet.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We had this horrible infestation of mice at my house; we hold the record with Treminix for the worst case they've ever dealt with. We had about five hundred mice in our basement before we realized it. We never went down there, so when we started cleaning it out the mice freaked and invaded the upstairs. When the guy came to investigate a mouse had just ran up my sister and was on her head. The guy walks in and asks what the problem is and she's spinning in circles screaming "get it off me!". Was hilarious.
While logically I know that we needed to quickly dispense of the mice cause our pets kept playing with them, I was trying desperatly to convince my parents to do so in a humane way. They appeared to aquience, buying several catch and release traps that I personally emptied a mile from the house. But I knew their dirty secret; I found the traps laid with rodenticide. They never found the tortured looking mice in the crawl space. Gives me nightmares.
Silly adults, I was doing a good job of saving the mice, I got at least 20 away from the cats and dogs and another 30 from the traps. If they were patient they wouldn't have commited mousicide.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mighty Cow, for me it would be a complicated equation that I can't know ahead of time. I value the lives of my family members (my cats) very highly. I would try to save everyone, but given a split second to choose, I would probably save my own children (my cats) first, then go back for the people who are someone else's responsibility. My children are clearly mine, probably the most important responsibility I have here on Earth. If I fail in that, how can I ask for a husband and human children of my own to look after?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karmen, I'm so sorry about the mice. It is painful to me too. You're not crazy, or alone, in these feelings.
I've had people try to bully me into killing animals who are sick. I've had people tell me that I'm insane for spending thousands to try to heal a wounded kitten. According to their logic, I should kill the wounded kitten and get a healthy one from the pound. They do not view kittens as individual beings with their own personalities and internal lives. They think kittens are fungible, like suitcases or half-gallons of milk. Toss one out and get a fresh one. That seems sick to me and twisted and horrible. Yet I do not try to force them to conduct their activities according to my views. I just reserve the right to so conduct my own, and know that it's not crazy at all, that it's (on the contrary) the only sane and true way to treat our fellow beings.
I only use persuasion. Mainly, I validate fellow animal people who feel just as I do, but who have been brainwashed by others into thinking it's silly sentiment, and that they are anthropomorphizing. I think we animal people should join together and articulate our views.
I'm convinced that the ones who would tell us we are crazy are the same sort of people who argued in the end of the 19th century that women are not sentient beings with thier own mental processes like men, and should under no circumstances get the vote. They're also the ones who, in the middle of the 19th century, thought abolitionists were silly idealists with no real concept of how life works. I remember reading, too, from the 18th century and before, that Native Americans don't feel pain as Europeans do, which is why they are so brave and stoical when burned at the stake. Not to worry about that being inhumane, in other words, because they can't feel as we do, and don't have any real internal life the way a civilized European has.
Science teaches me that my nervous system, limbic system, and pain circuits work exactly the way those of other mammals work. Science teaches me that those other creatures are my close kin. I am in a position of power over them, at the moment. So I try to treat them as I would want to be treated by a species that had power over me. That's all. It's pretty simple.
posted
Also, one of the people in my life who has tried many times to persuade me to kill my animals, and who feels no compunction about killing his for his convenience, is also a Peter. That is, he is abusive to the humans into whom he comes in close contact, as well. (I understand Peter has been rehabilitated a lot in the Shadow series, so think Peter from the original Ender's Game, here.) That's another reason I fail to be persuaded by their logic, I suppose. I would *not* want to be one of his animals, nor one of his children.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Mighty Cow, for me it would be a complicated equation that I can't know ahead of time. I value the lives of my family members (my cats) very highly. I would try to save everyone, but given a split second to choose, I would probably save my own children (my cats) first, then go back for the people who are someone else's responsibility. My children are clearly mine, probably the most important responsibility I have here on Earth. If I fail in that, how can I ask for a husband and human children of my own to look after?
I suppose that is where we disagree. I say that protecting human life is everyone's responsibility over that of protecting any animal, be it wild or a pet. I can't say that I would think too highly of the person who made a split second decision to save his or her cat over a child. That's the person who I wouldn't trust to have their own human family to look after.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Here's another scenario. Last year in the aftermath of Katrina, they tried to get people to evacuate without taking their animals. Would you have stayed with your animal? Or left them to fend for themselves, and probably die, without you?
I guess I feel that anyone who would leave them should not have an animal. I can't stop them from having animals, but I really think they oughtn't to get them. It would make me question, too, whether they should have any vulnerable living creature under their care. I doubt I would want to leave my kids for them to babysit, for instance. Maybe, in a pinch, they would save their own children and leave mine to die. Who knows? I certainly wouldn't want to marry someone who felt that way.
I'm not saying this to be rude, but just to make it clear that the situation with respect to mutual trust between us is fully reciprocal. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just really can't grasp this concept, Tatiana. Human children and animal children are both cute, cuddly, loving, and may be part of a family but they are not the same. I can't imagine that God has placed you on this earth to take care of animals because the other humans all have other people to be responsible for them. That's a nice thought but...
I admit, when I was a kid I had this recurring feeling that some night we were going to have a big house fire and that I would have to grab someone and stagger out. Then the firemen would prevent me from going back in. Would I pick my brother or my parakeet first? I prayed about it a lot. I dreamed about it, even. Eventually I had to admit that saving my brother would be more important. Also, that an almost suicidal mission to save an animal is not allowed whereas a similar mission to save a human being would be.
I also have to admit that if I were stuck in a house in Katrina with my animal, I'd probably choose to stay if it were up to me. However, my refusal to leave might put other humans at risk. If that appeared to be the case, I'd morally be obligated to leave. Furthermore, as a physician I would feel I HAD to leave, if they needed my services. Which they would have, unless I were too sick by then. I'd have to help humans over animals. No matter how much it hurts.
Come to think of it, if I were stuck in a Katrina house without food or water in 100 degrees heat, I don't know that my being there would save the animal. We'd perish together. That might be my choice and it might not but I don't think you can expect anyone besides yourself to choose that death.
I think we ALL have responsibility for human life AND for humane treatment for animals, but those responsibilities aren't on the same level because the human lives have to come first.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, if you had four cats and one human child of your own, would you value them all equally?
Edit: I thought of another question. If you and your cats were in a burning building, would you ask the firemen to rescue your cats first, and come back for you later? Assuming that you're all equally trapped and equally unable to help yourselves. Would you allow yourself to be horribly burned and disfigured to save your cats?
posted
Tatiana I really think you are missing an important point when it comes to this whole discussion.
Most human beings can respect animals as a fellow "Sentient" being. Meaning they can feel pain and pleasure and their goal like ours is to limit pain and increase pleasure. Break a cat's leg, it feels the pain just as surely as any of us. We can empathize with that, many of us feel for the cat in that situation. Obviously some people feel that the responsibility for preventing pain and suffering and promoting pleasure and happiness is the responsibility of every human being. That every "Sentient" creature deserves equal treatment. Some people take this view to such extremes that they refuse to eat anything that came from an animal or in some cases any animal products (milk, butter, cheese, chicken broth), since animals are at best inconvenienced for these commodities and at worst treated in a horrible manner.
Of course there are those who are on the opposite end of the spectrum and care little for the suffering of others if it means limiting their own pleasure. These people care little for other human beings much less animals.
We often "Dehumanize" those who we want to feel better about hating, harming, molesting. We feel that if they are some how beneath us we are justified in not treating them as we would be treated.
Animals are sentient like us, it is true, and so for many that gives them the right to not be maltreated. What "Maltreatment" entails clearly is a point of debate, as this thread demonstrates.
What some of us see as your flaw is that not only do you give animals equal footing by virtue of the sentient nature, but you also go as far as to close the gap between the inteligence and self awareness of animals in comparison to human beings.
Correct me if I am wrong but it appears that you believe human beings are just another animal, not more inteligent enough to deserve special treatment and just as sentient, therefore no more important than any animal.
Animals are not less inteligent, they simply do things their own way, and human beings do ours. Their (animals) seemingly less inteligent nature is purely a perception issue that is our (humans) fault.
There seems like there is a paradox in your thinking considering your statement that you are more qualified to save a mouse than a human being. It feels like you are saying human beings are more complex and therefore more difficult to save then say a kitten. Because a kitten so willingly puts itself into your care that its easier to save.
The natural response of many of the people in this forum is to try to setup situations where a human being and a kitten have equal chance for survival but only one could be saved, who then would you save. They are trying to establish that you in fact consider the lives of animals to be more valuable than a human being. Pushing you into admitting such a position (one that is definately in the minority) leaves you in a much more difficult to defend position.
If I am incorrect in any of my assertions concerning your opinion PLEASE let me know.
IN SHORT: Being sentient makes animals MORE qualified to receive fair treatment than say perhaps a tree. Trees are just as alive as we are but cannot feel pain (as far as science has been able to prove, most are confident plants cannot). But most people are not willing to give animals equal credit for Inteligence, Self Awareness, or even codes of Ethics. Therefor they do not have the same rights as other human beings, just like a child does not carry the same worth as an adult.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here's another scenario. Last year in the aftermath of Katrina, they tried to get people to evacuate without taking their animals. Would you have stayed with your animal? Or left them to fend for themselves, and probably die, without you?
I guess I feel that anyone who would leave them should not have an animal. I can't stop them from having animals, but I really think they oughtn't to get them. It would make me question, too, whether they should have any vulnerable living creature under their care. I doubt I would want to leave my kids for them to babysit, for instance. Maybe, in a pinch, they would save their own children and leave mine to die. Who knows? I certainly wouldn't want to marry someone who felt that way.
I'm not saying this to be rude, but just to make it clear that the situation with respect to mutual trust between us is fully reciprocal.
It would make me sad but I'd leave the animal(s). There's simply not a scenario where I will choose the life of an animal over that of a human. Okay, maybe if the human in question was a convicted child molester or serial killer or something, but that's a whole different issue. For the good of myself and my family I couldn't stay.
As for the babysitting thing, I fully expect that most people will save their own kids over anyone else's if they have to make a choice. That's actually quite understandable. Honestly, who are you going to look in the face and say, "you should have let your son die and saved mine instead"? What would you say to someone who said that to you? There's only so much altruism you can ask of people. No offense, but I'm far more troubled by the idea that you might save your cats instead of my (hypothetical) children in a pinch.
Let's face it, everyone has an order or priorities in an emergency. For me (and I think most people) that order would be: 1) My own kids/loved ones. (I don't have actually have kids, but someday...) 2) Other people in my care. 3) Myself. 4) Other people who are not in my care. 5) Animals in my care. 6) Other animals that are not in my care. 7) Possessions.
The only acceptable variation in my opinion is that in the moment of truth some people might put themselves higher on the list, but I can't judge them since none of us really knows how brave we will be until our lives are actually in danger.
Like I said, I don't have children, so I can only guess what it feels like to be a parent, but I suspect that if/when you ever have children you'll understand how much more you care about them than a pet.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you had two children, and one was handicapped and the other was not, which would you save from the burning building?
Understand that I believe all such questions to be false dichotomies. Also understand that none of us is competent to judge the rights and wrongs of the others' choices. I have very strong feelings that the only moral thing to do is what I would do, and it seems that some of you have very strong feelings that are the opposite of that. Realize that we both are put in charge of deciding our own actions, but not those of others.
You are not bringing any rational arguments against my point of view. You're just saying "no, you're wrong". This comes from your feelings, just as my view comes from my feelings, but I think your feelings could stand to be expanded and enlightened. Similar to those of the people in history I mentioned relative to the abolition of slavery, the sentience of women, and the ability of Native Americans to feel pain. I believe you are being similarly blind to the limits of "us-ness" as those people in history, who (you will notice) held the solid majority view for long periods of time. In other words, just because most people agree with you does not mean you are right.
Starways Congress feels completely justified in their genocide of the piggies, and I feel sure you would agree with Starways Congress that no piggy is worth risking the life of a human. They may be cute and all, but they're not us.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm convinced that the ones who would tell us we are crazy are the same sort of people who argued in the end of the 19th century that women are not sentient beings with thier own mental processes like men, and should under no circumstances get the vote.
I'm wondering how you'd react if I were to post this sentence, with "ones who would tell us we are crazy" (or, say, ignorant of biology) referring to those who oppose granting the protection of the law to fertilized human eggs.
quote:I feel sure you would agree with Starways Congress that no piggy is worth risking the life of a human.
Speaking of false dichotomies, you seem to enjoy making them. There's nothing to suggest that people who don't think animals and people have equivalent moral standing and worth are incapable of distinguishing sentient and non-sentient life (or animal and hnau, to use Lewis's distinction, or ramen and animal to use Card's).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here's another scenario. Last year in the aftermath of Katrina, they tried to get people to evacuate without taking their animals. Would you have stayed with your animal? Or left them to fend for themselves, and probably die, without you?
If my only responsibility was me and my animals, I undoubtedly would have stayed. Suppose I had a child with me, though - there is no way I would ever consider staying behind and putting that child at risk for the sake of my pets.
I love my animals very much, much more than I love most people and even a few of my family members, but human life is intrinsically more valuable than that of an animal, and I would never place the life of an animal above the life of my child. My boyfriend and I have had this discussion before, since we both have dogs that have shown wariness around children. My boyfriend loves his dog immensely, his life revolves around that dog, he even has his name tattooed on his stomach. But he says, and I completely agree, that if his dog ever bit his child, that dog would be dead in a matter of minutes. It doesn't matter how much you care for your animals, or how much you love them, the fact remains that human life should be prioritized over that of an animal.
I just don't understand how any human being can consider saving the life of an animal over another human being (unless, as previously mentioned, the human in question happens to be a truly evil, scum-of-the-earth person - but in some cases, how would you know?)
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, enough with the animals as slaves analogies. I think it's insulting to the people who have actually gone through hardships to equate their suffering with that of a food animal being eaten or a pet being misunderstood.
Here is one unique distinction. When a person is harmed, that pain touches everyone around him. We're still talking about the effects of slavery, still feeling the effects of it, all these years later.
Cows around the world don't discuss the horrible crimes of people eating them. Cats don't protest living with humans because an owner didn't respect the cat's dignity.
Even if you want to insist that animals have a complex and meaningful internal life, it seems obvious that the internal life of humans is orders of magnitude more full, rich, and valuable.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Funny trivia: Did you know that if you were to drop dead for any reason your cats would simply eat you like you're any old piece of meat? Dogs, at least, won't eat their master until they're near starvation. I actually like cats more than dogs, but I enjoy telling that fact to cat owners. Many refuse to believe it. I learned about it in a forensics class.
I'm not sure it's that simple, neo-dragon. I've seen this distinction between cat and dog behavior debunked at several places (e.g., a CityPages interview with the medical examiner of Minneapolis), though I haven't seen the topic come up at Snopes yet. Might be an interesting thing for them to look into.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Starways Congress feels completely justified in their genocide of the piggies, and I feel sure you would agree with Starways Congress that no piggy is worth risking the life of a human. They may be cute and all, but they're not us.
I'm afraid that you've misunderstood my position, and probably that of others here as well. Piggies are self-aware and capable of higher order reason and thought. That puts them pretty much on the same level as humans in terms of the value of their lives.
If you want rational and practical arguments for choosing a human life over an animal life I can think of at least one. It boils down to the potential of that life. No animal has the potential to become a doctor who save lives, or a teacher who educates our youth, or a writer who writes a masterpiece, or a diplomat who stops a war. etc. Similarly, I don't believe that any animal is capable of having hopes, dreams, or ambition beyond survival necessities like food and mating. No animal aspires to make the world a better place. Sure, most humans may never make a huge positive impact on the world at large, but we all have the potential to. Any creature that is capable of thought and long term planning has a far greater potential to contribute to this world than any animal ever could. That alone makes our lives more valuable from a purely practical standpoint.
That's part of the reason why I am so troubled by this mental image of a person choosing to save a cat rather than a child from a burning building. It's completely disregarding the potential of a human life in favour of a creature that is incapable of accomplishing more than being cute and pooping in a box. What possible justification is there for that? When a person dies before their time we grieve not only because we miss that person, but because of the experiences that they never got to have, and the goals that they never got to achieve. "Poor Johny never got to fall in love, take his first born son to a baseball game, or finish writing that book he was working on..." What do you say when a pet dies beyond stating what you're going to miss about it?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its pretty dismissive Tatiana to simply say everyone who is arguing against you speaks only from emotion. I had a wonderful dog in Malaysia and she loved our huge yard and swimming pool.
She would rush to her gate to wait for me come home from school every single day, and SOMETIMES she would sleep through it, so I would try to get as close to the gate as I could without waking her up and then call for her. I had a special whistle that I only used to call her.
One day my dad was given a transfer and our whole family had to move from Malaysia to Hong Kong. We looked into animal quarintine law and they had VERY dated laws still on the books in Hong Kong. The rundown was that my beautiful dog would have to languish in a cage for 3 months before she could be cleared to leave the shelter and live at our house. The idea of taking my dog out of our huge yard and putting her in a cage without any contact from us for 3 months would have been intensily cruel.
So we did the only thing we could think to do. We found another wonderful family with children who were looking for a dog and we gave her to them. I to this day have no idea how Pepper took that move, but we called once in awhile and the family assured us Pepper was doing just fine and loved playing with their children.
Was it cruel of us to simply give up our dog? I think it would have been far worse to lock her up for 3 months.
So Tatiana don't assume that everyone who is initially shocked by your belief that there are scenarios where humans are not worth an animals life that we all think with our feelings and do not use rationality as our basis.
I would have greatly appreciated if you had addressed my points specifically, but apparently you feel I was just blurbing out my emoitions and I was not worth addressing.
I am sorry you got the vibe.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's completely disregarding the potential of a human life in favour of a creature that is incapable of accomplishing more than being cute and pooping in a box.
Although I've already stated my opinion that I believe human life should always come before an animal, I think your above statement is very unfair and inaccurate. Many people have no human family and their animals are the world to them. A cat might not be able to write a novel or cure cancer, but it could certainly bring joy and love to a lonely person's life, which is a lot more of an accomplishment than many people can claim.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. I'm not saying that pets are worthless, but humans can do that too, and a whole lot more! And isn't it saying something about the inherent value of each creature's life when perhaps the highest purpose an animal can serve is to enhance the quality of a human's life?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Black Blade, I hold animals to be people, and I try to act morally toward them. I try to treat them as I would want to be treated by a large creature of another species who had me in its power.
If a large creature of another species had me in its power, I'd want more than anything else to be released.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
