Animals vs humans round 2

[livingzuid]

I was enjoying our previous debate started by Fifi. Not sure if we were done!

AIBU to think if faced with choosing a pet over a human (even if a stranger), you should choose the human?

The idea was brought up in another thread and put in life or death situation. Building on fire contains your pet and a stranger. You could only save one, who would it be?

I had a dog, Ralph, I cried my heart out when he died 3 years ago. The only dog I wasn't scared of! But I can't imagine leaving a person to die instead, no matter how my heart would break.

Yes also to the person who said it is also unhealthy for the animal to be treated as a human. Particularly in the case of dogs re: pecking order. They like to know where they stand, and a badly trained dog is normally one whose owner has let it rule the roost and become aggressive towards anyone who say, sits in its "special" place on the sofa.

That doesn't make a happy animal despite the owner thinking it is spoiled and treated well, it can make the dog very confused.

No, Outraged, they love the feelings the animal engenders in them. The relationship with the animal is a completely safe and unconditional one. That is what they value. The animal supplies an ego need for them. It is a creature of their own construction.

supplies = fulfills [whoops]

'Choosing to save an animal over a human in a fire because you think as a family member the animal deserves your heroism more than a human does means you have confused an animal's instincts with feelings you have projected onto them'

May well be true, but that's not evil is it?

It is evil if the human then suffers dies.

It is profoundly selfish.

'No, Outraged, they love the feelings the animal engenders in them. The relationship with the animal is a completely safe and unconditional one. That is what they value. The animal supplies an ego need for them. It is a creature of their own construction.'

Again, maybe true. That explains the feelings. Doesn't change them though does it? For whatever reason, they love the animal.

*suffers or dies

'It is evil if the human then suffers dies.

It is profoundly selfish'

but they're not choosing to feel that way are they? They're not deliberately mistaking the animals instincts/behaviour for emotions?

You have a right to feelings, but you do not have a right to act on them in any way if doing so hurts another person or jeopardises them.

'You have a right to feelings, but you do not have a right to act on them in any way if doing so hurts another person or jeopardises them'

Can you act on fear? Not going into the fire at all, for example?

if someone would prioritise their animal over their DC's, clearly they love that animal an awful lot. More than someone who would prioritise a stranger.

I don't think it comes down to having a higher of degree of love for the animal. I think it is the continued escalation of an unhealthy thought process.

You choose how you act. You should choose based on morality and not sentimentality. They are different even if sentimentality sometimes has a positive result (a nice, mutually beneficial relationship between a human and a pet for instance).

That is a poor argument Outraged.

By that rule, I could argue that psychopathic murderers are 'not evil' because their lack of empathy and conscience is innate and uncontrollable. They don't 'choose' to feel that way either.

'I don't think it comes down to having a higher of degree of love for the animal. I think it is the continued escalation of an unhealthy thought process'

Love is a thought process!

Well said FestiveEdition and KeepingUp. I love my pets dearly, but in an emergency situation I would always save the human, whether related or unrelated to me.

I would obviously be devastated for the loss of my pet, but I don't 'humanise' the relationship and ascribe human emotions, feelings and intentions to their relationship with me.

My DS and DH will always come first.

I don't think it comes down to having a higher of degree of love for the animal. I think it is the continued escalation of an unhealthy thought process.

This.

Many people are paralysed by fear. It is a normal physiological reaction (within the range of a normal response to a fire). Some people otoh are galvanised into action in an emergency and do things they normally wouldn't see themselves doing.

Love is not a thought process. Love is an emotion and it is one that is hard to define. Love (whatever it is) comes from all sorts of parts of your psyche. It is often mistaken for sentimentality.

'By that rule, I could argue that psychopathic murderers are 'not evil' because their lack of empathy and conscience is innate and uncontrollable. They don't 'choose' to feel that way either'

I would totally agree with that. If they don't intend harm i.e. they can't understand that what they're doing is harmful, I don't think they're evil.

For it to be evil there must be intent to harm.

I love my animals and would be very upset should anything happen to them. I have lost a cat to a rta and I was devastated at the time.

However I do not for one minute think that they feel the same about me - they are not even capable of feeling the same. Should I disappear they may pine for a short while due to the change and disruption before getting on with things just as happily as before.

Anyone who fails to realise this about an animal is engendering an unhealthy relationship IMO.

'It is a normal physiological reaction (within the range of a normal response to a fire). '

and so is saving something that you love. That's why we'd risk our lives for DC's and other close family members.

'Love is not a thought process. Love is an emotion'

Emotions are thought processes. Without the brain there is no, what we would term, 'love'. Without those thoughts we're just animals doing what we need to survive, like dogs.

Outraged - psychopaths are completely compos mentis (or as likely to be as the next person anyway). They have full understanding of what they do. They can (and do, frequently) kill with intent.

They simply cannot control the fact that they have no empathy or conscience.

Psychopaths can be pitied, for sure. It does not mean that (some) psychopaths are not evil though.

'Love' for an animal that places it on an equal footing with people is all about what the animal does for you. The animal is a blank slate upon which you can draw your own perfect companion. It can't object to your projection except in ways you can always choose to ignore, and you can ignore its objections for its entire life because its intellect will never develop, its physical size will be limited, and its verbal ability will never match that of a human. You will never be pilloried in your dog's first novel. No therapist will ever hear stories of how you screwed up your dog. No teacher will ever call you in for a conference about your dog's horrible behaviour or lack of effort.

Neighbours or relatives or people you encounter out on walks may curse you silently every time they see you with the dog but for the most part you will get away with a lot of sins when it comes to your treatment of the dog.

'They simply cannot control the fact that they have no empathy or conscience.'

If they have no empathy they can't understand that what they're doing hurts other people.

They kill intentionally, but not with intention to hurt, just because they like chopping people up I guess?!

They're ill, not evil.