Are animal activist humanitarians?

[Quiddity]

Define "will."

I'll cut it short and get to the point. Animal affection, where it exists, operates at the level of sense perception. Animals cannot think about love and commit themselves to it by an act of will. There is just no comparing.

 

[Inky]

I get the feeling this discussion isn't going to get anywhere; it's become a matter of personal belief, religion, whatever you want to call it. Some of us believe that there's something fundamentally different about humans which gives them greater value, and some don't. Since that's not something proven or disproven, we can probably leave it at that.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

I doubt I will.

 

[Quiddity]

Some of us believe that there's something fundamentally different about humans which gives them greater value, and some don't.

That's essentially the crux of it all. How someone can equate my cat to my 2 year old son is beyond me. It's deffinately a different psychological state that seperates us.

 

[Flappycat]

There's an answer, though, Victor. You just haven't thought of it. You see, one of the founding ideals behind this forum is sowing understanding between people of different religious backgrounds. Understanding why the atheist might choose the two-year-old over the cat is essential to you understanding how it is possible for an atheist to be an ethical person and that it is simple enough for anyone to grasp. Tell us the plain and simple reason that a two-year-old means more to most people than a cat.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

When we change the situation to a child or a older adult, though, I would probably save the human first. My main reason for wishing to save an animal before a human would be that the animal has less of a chance of getting out without help (at least in an event like a fire, where the critters would be locked in an enclosed space, without hope of escape). In the event where the human would be helpless, too, I would be more likely to pick the human, especially in a situation where I didn'[t know either the animal or the human.

 

[Quiddity]

There's an answer, though, Victor. You just haven't thought of it. You see, one of the founding ideals behind this forum is sowing understanding between people of different religious backgrounds. Understanding why the atheist might choose the two-year-old over the cat is essential to you understanding how it is possible for an atheist to be an ethical person and that it is simple enough for anyone to grasp. Tell us the plain and simple reason that a two-year-old means more to most people than a cat.

Does my answer really matter to you? You chose not to address post# 30 and the answer to your question is already in a post above you. So what exactly are you trying to understand?

 

[Circle_One]

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?

If you'd actually read my first post, you would have noted that I specifically said I'd choose to save my family, friends or a young child first, however my animals are on par with all of those and if I were in my apartment, I would go about making sure my family was out, then my pets, and THEN I would leave my apartment to search the building for others.

And for the record, simply because it is your opinion that a human life is worth more than an animals, doesn't make it an inherent reality. Just as simply because I think human life and animal life are on par with one another, doesn't make THAT an inherent reality either. They simply are what they are: Our opinions.

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.

Just because I have a different outlook on certain things than you do, doesn't make me immoral and I take offense to the idea that it does.

Loud and clear. So the answer would be yes. Off to the drawing board....*whistles in sanity*.....

This is extremely uncalled for Victor. Just because someone has an opinion that you don't agree with, absolutely does not make you more sane than them. We are all entitled to our own opinions and those opinions and those who have them, though you may disagree with them, should be treated with respect.

It's unfair of you to take a superior role and make jokes about your sanity compared to others' just because you don't agree with said persons' beliefs.

 

[kreeden]

It may not be that this man considers his cats more important on account of them being cats, but rather, on account of them being 'family,' as it were. I don't know about you, but my first instinct in said situation would be to rescue my family/loved ones first.

I agree with Tigress on this . I believe that it is instictive . Not only for humans , but for most animals .

Everything else being equal , I believe that I would help those that need help the most first . A two year old cat is much better at looking after it's self then a six year old human for excample . And humans are of the same species as I am { kinda .... most of them ... } , so I would likely place the human first on that account alone .

 

[Quiddity]

This is extremely uncalled for Victor. Just because someone has an opinion that you don't agree with, absolutely does not make you more sane than them.

I suggest you read it again. I specifically seperated "in sanity" vs. "insanity" on purpose.

 

[Circle_One]

I suggest you read it again. I specifically seperated "in sanity" vs. "insanity" on purpose.

I can read, and I read it perfectly. And I got the jist of it perfectly, Vic, and I think the way you put it is actually more offensive than had you written "insanity".

Don't tell me you weren't trying to make light of how you were "whistling in sanity", as in YOU were the sane one, while the one who's post you quoted happened to be discussing something you disagree with. I don't believe it. And I think it was an offensive thing to say.

 

[Quiddity]

I can read, and I read it perfectly. And I got the jist of it perfectly, Vic, and I think the way you put it is actually more offensive than had you written "insanity".

Don't tell me you weren't trying to make light of how you were "whistling in sanity", as in YOU were the sane one, while the one who's post you quoted happened to be discussing something you disagree with. I don't believe it. And I think it was an offensive thing to say.

I am the author of those words, and meant no offense. I described my state as "sane" without making a comparison at all. But if that is how you took it, my deepest apologies.

 

[Circle_One]

If I misunderstood, which I aparently did, then I apologize, but it was the way it was put that I found offensive. I took it to mean that since you quoted Maddlama's post and responded it to it in that same reply, that you were, infact, comparing your sanity to hers, simply because you disagreed what she was saying.

But if you say you didn't intend any offense, then I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

 

[Quiddity]

If I misunderstood, which I aparently did, then I apologize, but it was the way it was put that I found offensive. I took it to mean that since you quoted Maddlama's post and responded it to it in that same reply, that you were, infact, comparing your sanity to hers, simply because you disagreed what she was saying.

But if you say you didn't intend any offense, then I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

Have you ever gotten frustrated and bitten your tongue or sighed in the middle of a conversation?

It was the same exact thing with the whistle.

 

[Circle_One]

Have you ever gotten frustrated and bitten your tongue or sighed in the middle of a conversation?

It was the same exact thing with the whistle.

I have (often ), and I understand completely. It was just the whole "in sanity" bit that lead me to think it was intended as a comparison, and therefore offensive.

 

[Quiddity]

I have (often ), and I understand completely. It was just the whole "in sanity" bit that lead me to think it was intended as a comparison, and therefore offensive.

Yeah, I noticed that is how you had taken it, and didn't even notice it until you brought it up. I think I might go back and edit it.

 

[Circle_One]

Thank you for clarifying that you didn't mean any offense though. I appreciate it muchly.

 

[MaddLlama]

To be honest Vic, I read it the same way Circle did, I just didn't say anything. Glad to know that's not what you meant.

 

[kreeden]

I'll cut it short and get to the point. Animal affection, where it exists, operates at the level of sense perception. Animals cannot think about love and commit themselves to it by an act of will. There is just no comparing.

We can't act on will ? Have you ever met a Cat , Victor ?

The thing is that under stress , most of us don't act on will . We react to a more instinctive impulse . As such , most of us really can not say how we will react , until the time comes .

I also think that it may be a mistake to put too narrow a defination upon something like Love . If we do , then we may have to admit that a large part of the human population may not know how to Love ? Perhaps none of us ? Not " selfless love " at least ????

 

[Quiddity]

To be honest Vic, I read it the same way Circle did, I just didn't say anything. Glad to know that's not what you meant.

I adjusted it. It's important that you speak up. Otherwise, how am I supposed to grow?