Are animal activist humanitarians?

[MaddLlama]

I'm really not sure how many times I have to repeat myself:

But the bottom line is, my family comes first.

 

[Quiddity]

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?

Ha! beat me to it.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm really not sure how many times I have to repeat myself:

But the bottom line is, my family comes first.

Loud and clear. So the answer would be yes. Off to the drawing board....*bangs head*.....:areyoucra

 

[Inky]

Cat or baby? Whichever is closer.

Which would you rather save, a parrot with a mental capacity around that of a human four-year-old, or a mentally impaired human with the permanent mental capacity of a two-year-old?

 

[Quiddity]

Cat or baby? Whichever is closer.

Which would you rather save, a parrot with a mental capacity around that of a human four-year-old, or a mentally impaired human with the permanent mental capacity of a two-year-old?

Now intelligence determines who you save?

Holy chicken little batman!

 

[kateyes]

I think you are getting away from the original idea here--in the original scenario Victor is asking if these animal activists are correct to consider themselves humanitarians when they would put thier animals first. Clearly they would not be considered great humanitarians.

Next--I think your local fire department would tell you that no-one except trained professionals should be entering a burning building-so the truth is none of us should be going in after anything or any-one. Finally--frankly I don't think any of us really know what we would do in the circumstances described. We would all like to think we would have the courage to save our own, or a fellow human--the truth frequently falls short of that expectation.

 

[Revasser]

Now intelligence determines who you save?

Holy chicken little batman!

If it is not intelligence and potential for consciousness, then precisely what criteria are you using to measure the relative value of different animal life here?

 

[Inky]

Now intelligence determines who you save?

As I said in a previous post, it isn't a factor for me; again, the answer would be whichever's closer. I posed this question because I was curious whether the favoring of humans over animals was supposed to be because we're smarter, or because we're the same species. If we're going to understand each other, we need an explanation of why you believe what you do.

 

[GloriaPatri]

As I said in a previous post, it isn't a factor for me; again, the answer would be whichever's closer. I posed this question because I was curious whether the favoring of humans over animals was supposed to be because we're smarter, or because we're the same species. If we're going to understand each other, we need an explanation of why you believe what you do.

Because a human's life is more valuable than that of an animal's.

Anyway, we're just taking your views to their logical conclusion. So, would you choose the life of a parrot over the life of a human child?

 

[Inky]

Because a human's life is more valuable than that of an animal's.

Thanks, but...why do you believe that? It is because of the differences between humans and other animals, or because you're a human and should defend your own, or for religious reasons? Sorry if I'm being a little pushy, I just can't properly respond to people's points unless I know what's behind them.

As for the child and parrot, it'd be whichever's easier again. Since the situation involves saving a living thing from pain, terror and death, I'd put them on equal footing since they experience those things on the same level. In real life it'd be much easier to save a child, since parrots panic easily and can take your fingers off with their beaks, so I'd go for the kid if they were both free in the house.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

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.

My apologies. I was quoting from the movie. (While I've read the books, I tend to remember the lines from the movies more.) I try to not take personal comments to heart here on RF, but I'm afraid I've been caught on a day where I'm unable to do so.

I wish you the best in life and hope that you find and continue to find happiness.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Thanks, but...why do you believe that? It is because of the differences between humans and other animals, or because you're a human and should defend your own, or for religious reasons? Sorry if I'm being a little pushy, I just can't properly respond to people's points unless I know what's behind them.

Because people are inherently worth more than an animal. We are intelligent, sentient beings. Animals are not. It is a moral issue - choosing a human life over a animal life is moral, choosing an animal life over a human life is immoral.

I'll give you a religious reason, also. God made us in His image - he did not make animals in his image. He also commanded us not to kill and I think this can be applied to the hypothetical situation I proposed earlier. If you choose to save, say, a parrot over a human being you are prescribing death to the aforementioned human. While it is not as bad as murdering someone in cold blood, you are still willfully neglecting the situation the burning child is in and basically sentencing him/her to death.

 

[Quiddity]

If it is not intelligence and potential for consciousness, then precisely what criteria are you using to measure the relative value of different animal life here?

A will. Which in turn might cause you ask another question.

 

[Revasser]

A will. Which in turn might cause you ask another question.

Define "will."

 

[Flappycat]

Because a human's life is more valuable than that of an animal's.

By what unit of measure? By what quantifier do you hold the human to have more value?

Anyway, we're just taking your views to their logical conclusion.

I consider this quite uncontested. Under some circumstances, I consider it a very probable way for a person to behave.

So, would you choose the life of a parrot over the life of a human child?

This would depend upon how strong my emotional attachment to the parrot and how strongly I sympathized with it.

What I think you have missed, Gloria, is what is really at stake: what really makes us human? If you can only look to your religion for this, then you do not have an argument that is useful to an atheist or a member of a different group of religions. What argument really besieges any question that humans are to be held above all others? Is there an argument that this should universally and without exception be the case? Let us know if you come up with any ideas.

 

[Inky]

Because people are inherently worth more than an animal.

If that's your opinion, that's fine. However, you should remember that since there's no way to objectively judge moral worth, it does come down to simple opinion.

We are intelligent, sentient beings. Animals are not.

As a former psychology major and someone who's studied consciousness, I'd have to disagree--the mental differences between humans and animals are of degree, not kind. From a scientific standpoint, we don't have anything they don't, even if we have more of some things. Of course this doesn't include spiritual issues which are everyone's right to believe in or not. Even if we did, it'd still be an unanswerable question whether it gives us higher moral worth.

 

[Flappycat]

A will.

Cats have it. Your friend probably believes as much, anyway, and it's not a wholly irrational belief. Also, you're unlikely to dissuade either of us of it. You still haven't given me a single reason to hold his judgement suspect, and you aren't apt to convince him. Keep trying, though.

 

[GloriaPatri]

As a former psychology major and someone who's studied consciousness, I'd have to disagree--the mental differences between humans and animals are of degree, not kind. From a scientific standpoint, we don't have anything they don't, even if we have more of some things. Of course this doesn't include spiritual issues which are everyone's right to believe in or not. Even if we did, it'd still be an unanswerable question whether it gives us higher moral worth.

As someone who is studying to be a biochemist I would have to disagree with you. We have many things animals don't. This, of course, deals mostly with our mental capacity. A human brain is much more complex than any animal's brain. It's true we all have brains, it's just that our brains are more complex and evolved.

 

[GloriaPatri]

By what unit of measure? By what quantifier do you hold the human to have more value?

Because of our brain power. Because we are sentient beings that are aware of our own existance.

What I think you have missed, Gloria, is what is really at stake: what really makes us human? If you can only look to your religion for this, then you do not have an argument that is useful to an atheist or a member of a different group of religions. What argument really besieges any question that humans are to be held above all others? Is there an argument that this should universally and without exception be the case? Let us know if you come up with any ideas.

I haven't really used my religion as an argument. I just told someone who asked what my religious views on this subject were. You can look through my post's to answer your other questions.

 

[Inky]

As someone who is studying to be a biochemist I would have to disagree with you. We have many things animals don't. This, of course, deals mostly with our mental capacity's. A human brain is much more complex than any animal's brain. It's true we all have brains, it's just that ours are more complex and evolved.

It's true that we have more space devoted to complex thought and planning, but things are built and behave the same way. That's what I meant by degree and not kind--maybe a dog is a Windows '98 and a human is an XP. Also, the emotional centers (amygdala and hypothalamus) in a dog are just as complex as ours; the big differences are in language and the ability to analyze situations.

On what grounds do you believe that animals aren't aware in the same ways humans are?