The moral philosophy of favouring pets over humans

[Cowperson]

Do you agree or disagree with this Assistant Professor of Philosophy quoted today in the Chicago Sun-Times regarding the pet rescue situation in New Orleans and his overall comments of how people value pets more than . . . . people.

"What drives people to help animals in this situation is not the idea that they are helpless, and also not the idea that animals have rights. What motivates people is that animals suffer, and the fundamental moral principle to alleviate suffering applies to animals as well as human beings," said Jason Bridges, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago.

"I think there is a danger of devoting too many resources to animals," Bridges said.

"People do matter more. I read somewhere that more or the same amount of money is given to pet shelters as homeless shelters. There is definitely something disturbing about that, " he said.

There is also an interesting quote from Ghandi in this story:

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/hurricane/c...etrescue08.html

Just stirring up trouble this morning.

Cowperson

[Tron_fdc]

What can I say.....I agree. I know my dog has feelings and a personality, in much the same that I do. He's moody, and if I don't watch how I treat him (daily walks etc) he'll "accidentally" crap in or near my shoes. Would I choose his life over a random stranger? Probably not, but because of the emotional attachment I have to my pets the decision wouldn't be without at least a little trepidation.

I know I wouldn't leave him behind to fend for himself, though. Our chinchilla.....yes. Dog? No way.

[troutman]

Up with people!

[CaramonLS]

I agree 100%, if I had a choice between a random person and a cat, hands down it is my cat that is coming with me.

[Cube Inmate]

I don't agree with this statement at all:

"People do matter more. I read somewhere that more or the same amount of money is given to pet shelters as homeless shelters. There is definitely something disturbing about that, "

People are animals just like any other. We have no more or less "worth" in the grand scheme of things than any other animal. I say this from a purely philosophical perspective...but what about global economics? Well I'd go out on a limb and say that every human, except for the poorest of the poor, uses more of Earth's resources than 99% of dogs. We'd have a healthier world if there were more dogs and fewer people.

Bah...people suck.

[Cowperson]

I posted the same philosophical riddle on a pet board. An interesting reply, in line with Cube Inmates, came from this fellow:

I just heard an interview 2 or 3 days ago on the radio with Canadian author Farley Mowatt.

In that interview he says that the greatest pain he has felt has resulted from the deaths not of people he's loved who have died but of the animals he's loved and have died. That the pain from these deaths have been the hardest to bear.

He freely admitted that he is aware that most people think he is looney for thinking this, and that many are offended by this train of thought.

In his opinion he feels that animals probably suffer more than we do, and feel pain more strongly than we do. He suggested that this is because humans are used to suffering and have conditioned themselves to deal with suffering, where non human animals have not. Their suffering is more raw.

That's quite interesting coming from Farley Mowat, a man who wrote one of the great anti-war books of all time, "And No Birds Sang," telling of his horrific experiences and friends lost in the infantry during WWII.

Cowperson

[jonesy]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Sep 8 2005, 04:12 PM
I don't agree with this statement at all:

"People do matter more. I read somewhere that more or the same amount of money is given to pet shelters as homeless shelters. There is definitely something disturbing about that, "

People are animals just like any other. We have no more or less "worth" in the grand scheme of things than any other animal. I say this from a purely philosophical perspective...but what about global economics? Well I'd go out on a limb and say that every human, except for the poorest of the poor, uses more of Earth's resources than 99% of dogs. We'd have a healthier world if there were more dogs and fewer people.

Bah...people suck.

people ARE worth more then animals. sheesh.

[Mccree]

As stupid as it sounds, I cried more when we put down our dog then when my grandmother died.

And I agree, if it comes down to saving a complete stranger or my dogs I would likely save my dogs first then try to save the stranger.

[Flashpoint]

Originally posted by jonesy+Sep 8 2005, 11:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jonesy @ Sep 8 2005, 11:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cube Inmate@Sep 8 2005, 04:12 PM
I don't agree with this statement at all:

"People do matter more. I read somewhere that more or the same amount of money is given to pet shelters as homeless shelters. There is definitely something disturbing about that, "
Bah...people suck.

people ARE worth more then animals. sheesh. [/b][/quote]
Are they? I have never seen a racist dog, a cat that committed genocide, or a fish that advocated hate in the name of God.

I rather prefer animals to a lot of people.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Mccree@Sep 8 2005, 10:26 AM
As stupid as it sounds, I cried more when we put down our dog then when my grandmother died.

And I agree, if it comes down to saving a complete stranger or my dogs I would likely save my dogs first then try to save the stranger.

Same here, but I have cats.

[Devils'Advocate]

So why are cats and dogs put on equal footing but cows and pigs and sheep and goats are not?

I've heard on other boards that the only reason you can't go kill the neighbors dog is not because the dog has rights, but you have destroyed the property of your neighbor who does have rights.

[jonesy]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 8 2005, 03:55 PM
I agree 100%, if I had a choice between a random person and a cat, hands down it is my cat that is coming with me.

That doesn't sound right to me.

If I see some kid and my dog in a fire both about to die, only time to same one, i go for the HUMAN.


(and I really love my dog)

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 8 2005, 11:10 AM
So why are cats and dogs put on equal footing but cows and pigs and sheep and goats are not?

I've heard on other boards that the only reason you can't go kill the neighbors dog is not because the dog has rights, but you have destroyed the property of your neighbor who does have rights.

For the same reason horses are held in higher regard than cats I guess.....

I dunno. More tame or trainable=more soul, therefore more deserving of "rights"???

[Frank the Tank]

So by most peoples logic here, you would leave my 1 year old son alone on a rooftop in flooded New Orleans (or wherever) to take your cat/dog instead. Thats fata'd up.

We have emotional attachments to our pets. No doubt. I'm as big a sap as anyone when it comes to my pets. But if I found out that somebody saved their dog over my son/grandma/cousin I'd hunt you down and smash your teeth in with a bat.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 8 2005, 11:10 AM
So why are cats and dogs put on equal footing but cows and pigs and sheep and goats are not?

I think you're right about that...

Cats and dogs are put on a pedestal (in your example) because of people's attachment to them. They're cute, so people value them more than fat cows. What this tells me is that what people *really* value is their own emotional opinion...not the dog or cat itself.

"Worth" is purely subjective. None of us is worth anything in the grand scheme of things. We're all going to end up as the building blocks of some future star, planet, or black hole. On those grounds, I say that humans are not worth more or less than animals...we just are what we are.

If you want to start talking about microeconomics, religion, or psychology, then you can start assigning a worth to various animals. The philosophy professor didn't put his opinion in context though, so I have to assume he's saying that humans are *fundamentally* worth more than animals...I disagree.

(I don't mean to argue with anyone who isn't arguing with me...I'm just expanding on my thoughts, using quoted post as a starting point)

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by jonesy+Sep 8 2005, 05:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jonesy @ Sep 8 2005, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Sep 8 2005, 03:55 PM
I agree 100%, if I had a choice between a random person and a cat, hands down it is my cat that is coming with me.

That doesn't sound right to me.

If I see some kid and my dog in a fire both about to die, only time to same one, i go for the HUMAN.


(and I really love my dog) [/b][/quote]
I'm sorry if I sound heartless, I mean I'd try to save both, but my cat gets preferential treatment.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Frank the Tank@Sep 8 2005, 01:32 PM
So by most peoples logic here, you would leave my 1 year old son alone on a rooftop in flooded New Orleans (or wherever) to take your cat/dog instead. Thats fata'd up.

We have emotional attachments to our pets. No doubt. I'm as big a sap as anyone when it comes to my pets. But if I found out that somebody saved their dog over my son/grandma/cousin I'd hunt you down and smash your teeth in with a bat.

Im with you Frank...I love my Cats a lot...but if its a person they are helped first.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Cheese@Sep 8 2005, 11:42 AM
Im with you Frank...I love my Cats a lot...but if its a person they are helped first.

I second that (or third that?) thought. Despite my ramblings on "fundamental" worth, in an emergency, the emotions take over. There isn't a normal human being who could live with the guilt of letting a person die in favour of a cat or dog.

CaramonLS might think he'd favour the cat in an emergency, but I doubt that's the decision that would be made if actually faced with it.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate+Sep 8 2005, 05:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cube Inmate @ Sep 8 2005, 05:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cheese@Sep 8 2005, 11:42 AM
Im with you Frank...I love my Cats a lot...but if its a person they are helped first.

I second that (or third that?) thought. Despite my ramblings on "fundamental" worth, in an emergency, the emotions take over. There isn't a normal human being who could live with the guilt of letting a person die in favour of a cat or dog.

CaramonLS might think he'd favour the cat in an emergency, but I doubt that's the decision that would be made if actually faced with it. [/b][/quote]
You are right, never know until it happens.

[Frank the Tank]

Wow. This is the first time ever where I've had to stop reading a thread because I am getting so angry. The fact that people have the nerve to say they'd rescue a cat/dog over a human froma burning building or what not is fataed beyond beleif.

You'd have to stand there and listen to that person scream while they burned to death, all the while holding your precious kitty/doggy. Jesus fataing christ I weep for humanity.

Flame away on me, I can't read this anymore.