Are animal activist humanitarians?

[Flappycat]

Years back, an acquaintance at work would often spark up conversations with me during coffee breaks. It became a routine thing for us and we would look forward to the new topic of the day. One in particular that stuck with me was a conversation about his involvement with tigers. He helped feed and care for sick tigers. He had my full attention and I was gravitated toward his kindness with these big cats.

Toward the end of our conversation I asked about his cats (I had noticed he had pictures of house cats in his cubicle). He went on talking about their different personalities (he had 3) and how much he cared about them. Soon after this the conversation went south real quick (IMO). He talked to me about a recent fire in the complex where he lived, in which he went back up to grab one of his cats. He said he could hear people yelling for help and all he could think of was saving his cat. He chuckled about it and said “my cats come first”.

I responded by saying “I’m glad I’m not your neighbor.” He responded by saying, “well I know you a little better then my neighbors. I’d probably grab you to help me with my cats.” Conversation ended and I walked away with the creeps.

I bumped into another fellow just recently with a similar outlook (called himself a humanitarian cause of it). Both are animal activist, both equate animals on par with humans (if not higher), both gave me the chills.

Is this downgrading of humans and upgrading of animals common for certain animal activist?

I consider myself a big animal lover but I would much rather save a neighbor I don’t know then my own cat. Am I misunderstanding these two guys?

Why are animal activist like these considered humanitarians?

In general, animal rights activists are moral bean-counters. A person who finds a man creepy simply because he cares more about his beloved cats than about complete strangers is another sort of moral bean-counter. A person who sets more store by cats than by humans may be saying something about how much humans have managed to impress him with their good character. Personally, if I were unfond of my neighbors, I wouldn't leave my cats to their deaths just to save them, particularly if I were a lonely, old man who didn't have anything else left to me. This is, quite simply, the most logical course of action for me. The man just really loved his cats.

 

[Circle_One]

That's sick.
(no offense)

None taken. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and your views, as I am to mine, but I make no apologies for the way I feel.

Count me in the numbers of the sick... my parrot is my baby. I probably wouldn't even be in a state where I was able to think about anyone else but him and Liz if there was a burning building situation. Once I got them out, it would be another story.

Welcome to the club

I'm rather surprised at the number of people that would choose an animal above that of human life. It's rather sad in my opinion. As much as I love my pet and have an annoying neighbor, I'd choose the life of my neighbor any day.
I do in fact think that choosing your pet above that of a human life (assuming circumstances only allowed one or the other) reflects on how people view the worth of human life. That people can look at something, see the worth (if one wishes to quantify it) and make a decision based on that.

Do I elevate human life above that of an animal? ABSOLUTELY!

Do I think animals are special and should be protected? ABSOLUTELY!

I suppose it's this equalization that is the crux of it all. Personally, I just can't see an animal on par with my neighbor.

I'm sitting here thinking of myself being in that situation, and I'm almost having a panic attack while thinking of my animals in a burning building with no way of escape. I wholeheartedly stand by my assertion that I know I would save my pets before anyone else, except, of course, as stated, my family and friends. Though, like Jensa, I know once I knew they were all safe, I absolutely, 100% would be back in that building risking my life to save others.

However, my pets certainly do come before strangers, and as sick as that may seem to you, they always have and they always will.

Not only do I see all animal life on par with human life, I view animals on an even elevated level compared to some humans.

I do understand where you're coming from, Victor and I do see why people would consider my position on this disturbing, but again, I make absolutely no apologies for the way I feel. Nor will I ever.

 

[MaddLlama]

I think it's a normal reaction to want to save family/friends before strangers in a life threatening situation. I feel the same way. My pets are part of my family, so I would absolutely save the three smaller, helpless members of my family before a stranger.

People probably think that a human, no matter how well you know them will always be more important because, after all, you can always get another pet. But, pets are no more replicable than children. Would you save your neighbor before your children?

 

[Faint]

"[SIZE=-1]And some die that [/SIZE]deserve[SIZE=-1] life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
[/SIZE]

Yes, that's the rest of the quote. Your point being? No doubt you googled this. Hopefully you won't try to confuse the actual context in your response.

I feel the same way. My pets are part of my family, so I would absolutely save the three smaller, helpless members of my family before a stranger.

ExACTly. They are family.

 

[PureX]

Years back, an acquaintance at work would often spark up conversations with me during coffee breaks. It became a routine thing for us and we would look forward to the new topic of the day. One in particular that stuck with me was a conversation about his involvement with tigers. He helped feed and care for sick tigers. He had my full attention and I was gravitated toward his kindness with these big cats.

Toward the end of our conversation I asked about his cats (I had noticed he had pictures of house cats in his cubicle). He went on talking about their different personalities (he had 3) and how much he cared about them. Soon after this the conversation went south real quick (IMO). He talked to me about a recent fire in the complex where he lived, in which he went back up to grab one of his cats. He said he could hear people yelling for help and all he could think of was saving his cat. He chuckled about it and said “my cats come first”.

I responded by saying “I’m glad I’m not your neighbor.” He responded by saying, “well I know you a little better then my neighbors. I’d probably grab you to help me with my cats.” Conversation ended and I walked away with the creeps.

I bumped into another fellow just recently with a similar outlook (called himself a humanitarian cause of it). Both are animal activist, both equate animals on par with humans (if not higher), both gave me the chills.

Is this downgrading of humans and upgrading of animals common for certain animal activist?

I consider myself a big animal lover but I would much rather save a neighbor I don’t know then my own cat. Am I misunderstanding these two guys?

Why are animal activist like these considered humanitarians?

I understand your reaction, but I think that fellow has a right to feel as he feels, even if it seems cold-hearted to us. It doesn't make someone a bad person just because they don't feel the same way about people or animals as we do.

 

[GloriaPatri]

I'm sitting here thinking of myself being in that situation, and I'm almost having a panic attack while thinking of my animals in a burning building with no way of escape. I wholeheartedly stand by my assertion that I know I would save my pets before anyone else, except, of course, as stated, my family and friends. Though, like Jensa, I know once I knew they were all safe, I absolutely, 100% would be back in that building risking my life to save others.

However, my pets certainly do come before strangers, and as sick as that may seem to you, they always have and they always will.

Not only do I see all animal life on par with human life, I view animals on an even elevated level compared to some humans.

I do understand where you're coming from, Victor and I do see why people would consider my position on this disturbing, but again, I make absolutely no apologies for the way I feel. Nor will I ever.

A human life is worth infintely more than an animals life. How can you say that you'd rather save your dog than save a child or a baby from a burning building?

 

[kateyes]

My dogs are my family/friends--most days I like them much more than humans I know. In addition--there is the trust factor--as the "parent" or "pack leader" for my dogs they trust me to do what is right by them for thier protection and safety--would I enter a burning building to save them--yes. Would I enter a burning building to save someone I don't know--I would like to think yes as well--but having never been in the situation I don't know. I would also make a distinction between adults and children-- because I think all adults have a moral obligation to protect any child--not just thier own.

I tend to view your point as two separate issues--in the moment I think we would all like to think we would try to help rescue anyone. But No I do not consider most Animal Activists to be humanitarians--the various actions of different animal groups would indicate the opposite is true. Groups like the Animal Liberation Front, The Earth Liberation Front, and even P.E.T.A. have take part in actions like the pipe-bombing of a fur trading supply company and the destruction of an Animal Testing Labs--while thier aims might be good--thier actions can by no means considered "humanitarian".

 

[MaddLlama]

A human life is worth infintely more than an animals life. How can you say that you'd rather save your dog than save a child or a baby from a burning building?

For some of us, there is no difference. Would you save your own children before someone elses children?

 

[Quiddity]

In general, animal rights activists are moral bean-counters. A person who finds a man creepy simply because he cares more about his beloved cats than about complete strangers is another sort of moral bean-counter. A person who sets more store by cats than by humans may be saying something about how much humans have managed to impress him with their good character. Personally, if I were unfond of my neighbors, I wouldn't leave my cats to their deaths just to save them, particularly if I were a lonely, old man who didn't have anything else left to me. This is, quite simply, the most logical course of action for me. The man just really loved his cats.

It’s a logical reaction, not a logical decision. If human feelings alone is what dictates who or what people extract out of a burning building, then it’s a doggy dog world. One in which I doubt if examined very closely people could stomache.

People get attached to all sorts of things, if there is no consensus on what is important (namely human life, which would seem obvious to me), then any Joe Blow should get the same understanding if he chooses to save a particular object.

A likely reaction could be that animals are more important then a VCR or whatever. Then one finds himself in same dilemma that I found myself in with the two guys.

I am still in amazement that I have to sit here and explain that human life is the most important thing.

 

[Quiddity]

For some of us, there is no difference. Would you save your own children before someone elses children?

How is that equivalent to human vs. animal?

 

[Quiddity]

However, my pets certainly do come before strangers, and as sick as that may seem to you, they always have and they always will.

Not only do I see all animal life on par with human life, I view animals on an even elevated level compared to some humans.

I do understand where you're coming from, Victor and I do see why people would consider my position on this disturbing, but again, I make absolutely no apologies for the way I feel. Nor will I ever.

Deffinately disagree. Atleast I know I didn't misunderstand.

 

[GloriaPatri]

For some of us, there is no difference. Would you save your own children before someone elses children?

A pet is not your child. A real human child has a future, a life, a loving family - something that (I know you're going to argue to the contrary) a pet has in a limited way, but not in anyway like a human child.

So, you would let a baby burn to death to save your pet?

 

[Quiddity]

I understand your reaction, but I think that fellow has a right to feel as he feels, even if it seems cold-hearted to us. It doesn't make someone a bad person just because they don't feel the same way about people or animals as we do.

It's a natural reaction to a human need. I do not believe that one should make decisions solely based on this. This is a perfect example why.

 

[MaddLlama]

How is that equivalent to human vs. animal?

Well, first of all humans are animals, we just happen to have thumbs and higher brain functions. We have decided that we're better than animals, that doesn't necessarily make it true.
Second, those of us who would choose our pets, our pets are a part of our family, and just like children for us. If I had to choose between saving my children and someone elses, I would save my own, and my pets would be included in that.

 

[MaddLlama]

A pet is not your child. A real human child has a future, a life, a loving family - something that (I know you're going to argue to the contrary) a pet has in a limited way, but not in anyway like a human child.

So, you would let a baby burn to death to save your pet?

Like I said, I would foremost be concered with my own family. If it was my own child then I would save it before my cats, but I think of my own first. My family, including my pets, come before strangers.
And, my cats are my children. I may not have given birth to them, but I'm still thier mother and I intend to treat them as such.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, first of all humans are animals, we just happen to have thumbs and higher brain functions. We have decided that we're better than animals, that doesn't necessarily make it true.
Second, those of us who would choose our pets, our pets are a part of our family, and just like children for us. If I had to choose between saving my children and someone elses, I would save my own, and my pets would be included in that.

Wow, wow, and wow...
You'd be willing to leave little children (human) in a burning building, to save your children (pets)?

I wan't to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

 

[MaddLlama]

Let's think about this as if it were an actual possible situation, rather than a hypothetical one.

If the strip on condos I live in was on fire, and I were inside my house, I would think of getting myself, my husband and my three cats out of the house before I thought of running next door to get my neighbors kids. If I were not in the house, I would do the same thing. That isn't to say that once my family is accounted for I would not assist my neighbors in helping them get others out of thier homes. But the bottom line is, my family comes first.

 

[Inky]

All the evidence of my own experience, psychology study, and casual biological research has led me to believe that animals feel pain and the purer emotions like fear, anger, happiness and desire on the same level that humans do. The only thing unusual about us is that we're the most intelligent things we've found so far. Since the question here is physical agony and death, not mental anguish or complex social emotions, I'd say that a human and a cat would suffer the same amount by burning to death in a building.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Let's think about this as if it were an actual possible situation, rather than a hypothetical one.

If the strip on condos I live in was on fire, and I were inside my house, I would think of getting myself, my husband and my three cats out of the house before I thought of running next door to get my neighbors kids. If I were not in the house, I would do the same thing. That isn't to say that once my family is accounted for I would not assist my neighbors in helping them get others out of thier homes. But the bottom line is, my family comes first.

What if you were outside of your strip of condos and had the choice of either saving your cats or a baby who was trapped in a condo?

 

[Quiddity]

Let's think about this as if it were an actual possible situation, rather than a hypothetical one.

There really was a fire and I really had that conversation with someone.

If the strip on condos I live in was on fire, and I were inside my house, I would think of getting myself, my husband and my three cats out of the house before I thought of running next door to get my neighbors kids. If I were not in the house, I would do the same thing. That isn't to say that once my family is accounted for I would not assist my neighbors in helping them get others out of thier homes. But the bottom line is, my family comes first.

What if you only had the time to save your 3 cats or an 8 year old boy?