The moral philosophy of favouring pets over humans

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by FireFly@Sep 8 2005, 08:53 PM
And what if the person you save turns out to be a rapist, murderer, or drug dealer?

Chances are pretty good that the person would be a good human being though, aren't they? There are more good people in the world than there are rapists and murderers.

In light of recent OT threads that you've been involved in and the things you've said, I gotta ask... WWJD?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Sep 8 2005, 10:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Sep 8 2005, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 8 2005, 06:42 PM
Going back to the premise as outlined in the post starting this thread, do you object to people giving money to animal charities instead of charities for, say, the human homeless, effectively prioritizing animals over humans?

Cowperson

I do object.
If people give to both charities, that's great, but humans should be first priority. Especially since this scenario eliminates the personal/family variable that many posters have used as reason to save their pets first.
In this case, it would likely be stranger animals, and stranger people, so people should definately be first.

Even if viewed from a completely selfish standpoint that some posters here seem to have, the human charity would be a better bet.
By eliminating, homelessness, poverty, diseases etc. you also elimate burdens on our social welfare systems and help prevent the rising of other issues such as violence stemed from poverty.
In the end this results in less taxes and safer, healthier lives for everyone.
Saving a dog, does little more than save a dog. [/b][/quote]
Well, when Mrs. Cowperson and I kick the bucket - hopefully later rather than sooner - the entire she-bang estate will be going to animal charities and zero to human charities.

Although we are probably 50/50 right now on what we donate.

Cowperson

[FireFly]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 9 2005, 01:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 9 2005, 01:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FireFly@Sep 8 2005, 08:53 PM
And what if the person you save turns out to be a rapist, murderer, or drug dealer?

Chances are pretty good that the person would be a good human being though, aren't they? There are more good people in the world than there are rapists and murderers.

In light of recent OT threads that you've been involved in and the things you've said, I gotta ask... WWJD? [/b][/quote]
There you have it. I've also said I'd try to help out the people, but I'm a girl, and not that tough, so if you expect me to carry someone out, it's probably not going to happen. I'll carry out what I can... kids and pets. I'd have to even leave big dogs behind. This is my reality. Would I feel bad, yes I would.

[habernac]

Still laughing about the "raptors smarter than humans" statement. That's gold.

As for the part about whether its wrong to give to animal charities rather than human ones, no bloody way. I can give my money to anything I choose, who gives a flying fata what anyone else thinks? The WWE and others get money from me. Animals need a hell of a lot more help than we destructive humans do.

[Reaper]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 8 2005, 02:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 8 2005, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I wasn't really going for the "animals that work" angle as much as I was going for the "companion animal" angle.

We eat chickens because we as humans don't socialize with them like we do with dogs.

It's the same as with cows. If people kept them in their houses as we do other domesticated animals we would probably never eat them.

As nasty as it sounds, lots of people eat lots of dogs. I don't socialize with dogs, so is it okay that I eat one?

Not being a pet-person, I maybe can't appreciate it fully, but it is my learned opinion that people are considerably more valuable. Judging by the spay/neuter campaign and what goes on in animal shelters, I think the decision has already been made.

Anyone who would save their cat over another human being is, IMO, screwy in the head. How could you live the rest of your life knowing that you let a person die so you could have a few more years with a pet? Talk about selfish. [/b][/quote]
I never said that animals should take priority over humans.

I was trying to show why most people make the seperation between animals meant for food and companion animals - How people can love their aquarium filled with all kinds of different schools while chowing down on Fish & Chips, How people can enjoy a big juicy hamburger after a long ride on a horse, etc.

By people choosing to have companion animals and caring for the animal almost as if it were a dependent child it creates a sense of familiarity and compassion for the animal. This familiarity and compassion is easily transferrable when speaking in relational terms to other dogs, cats and pets.

People see pictures of other dogs in societies where dog is consumed and they think "that's a dog, like my dog. I could never eat my dog because he's my buddy. I'll bet that dog could be someone's buddy if he wasn't going to be raised for meat and eaten." That way, they draw lines between the animals of the world.

"All the cute, cuddly animals that we like to hang out with or coo at like they are babies - come to the right side of the room. Everyone else go to the left side. Now, everyone on the left - you will be killed and eaten because we don't have to see you guys around most of the time so we won't relate to you in any other way than being our dinner."

It's a lot easier to eat meat if you don't have to think about where it came from - easier if you don't have to think about the animal having a face or sometimes showing characteristics that allow humans to amorphize them. Once you amorphize an animal enough it becomes more "human-ish" and you start to put the values we hold for humans on said animals. This leads to second thoughts about consuming the now "humanish" animal for sustinence.

I'd rather not think about market animals and how they relate to my dinner because I'm kind of a softy. I'm also a bit of a deep thinker so I'd rather not think about eating the cute animals. It's part of the reason why I can't eat market rabbit. I have a rabbit and to eat market rabbit would give me some sort of guilt complex as if Rufus (my rabbit) would have any idea what I've done or if he had an inkling of the betrayal of eating one of his cousins. I know, it's complicated and messed up - but I think we've already established the fact that humans often do irrational or emotionally guided things.

[troutman]

Originally posted by habernac@Sep 9 2005, 05:18 PM
Still laughing about the "raptors smarter than humans" statement. That's gold.

As for the part about whether its wrong to give to animal charities rather than human ones, no bloody way. I can give my money to anything I choose, who gives a flying fata what anyone else thinks? The WWE and others get money from me. Animals need a hell of a lot more help than we destructive humans do.

It's absolutely your right to do what you want with your estate. I do a lot of wills for people, and you might be suprised to know how frequently people make gifts to animal charities as opposed to human charities. I never encourage clients towards any particular direction.

I find all the gifts to animal charities a little troubling though. Spend a day at the Children's Hospital or cancer ward. Spend a month in Africa. A day in New Orleans or Baghdad. Then think about whether animals are more deserving of your support.

[Reaper]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Sep 8 2005, 07:05 PM
Now would you kill, eat or wear the skin of a human?
(Legalities aside)

"It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again."

[Reaper]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 9 2005, 08:22 AM
Using that logic Bertuzzi lives in Vancouver which makes all people living in Vancouver murderous ######bags.

Well, maybe they're not murderous.. :P

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 9 2005, 08:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 9 2005, 08:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I do object.
If people give to both charities, that's great, but humans should be first priority. Especially since this scenario eliminates the personal/family variable that many posters have used as reason to save their pets first.
In this case, it would likely be stranger animals, and stranger people, so people should definately be first.

Even if viewed from a completely selfish standpoint that some posters here seem to have, the human charity would be a better bet.
By eliminating, homelessness, poverty, diseases etc. you also elimate burdens on our social welfare systems and help prevent the rising of other issues such as violence stemed from poverty.
In the end this results in less taxes and safer, healthier lives for everyone.
Saving a dog, does little more than save a dog.

Well, when Mrs. Cowperson and I kick the bucket - hopefully later rather than sooner - the entire she-bang estate will be going to animal charities and zero to human charities.

Although we are probably 50/50 right now on what we donate.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Giving to any charity is good, IMO. It's your money so you get to do with it what you want. It's better than giving it to you grandkids or nephew to blow on gin and hookers.

We've sort of gone off on two tangents here. Giving to an animal charity is good, even if it means you won't be giving to a human-benefiting charity (come to think of it, donating to an animal charity does benefit humans anyway).

Believing a pet is more "valuable" than a human being is bad.

[habernac]

Originally posted by troutman+Sep 9 2005, 11:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (troutman @ Sep 9 2005, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-habernac@Sep 9 2005, 05:18 PM
Still laughing about the "raptors smarter than humans" statement. That's gold.

As for the part about whether its wrong to give to animal charities rather than human ones, no bloody way. I can give my money to anything I choose, who gives a flying fata what anyone else thinks? The WWE and others get money from me. Animals need a hell of a lot more help than we destructive humans do.

It's absolutely your right to do what you want with your estate. I do a lot of wills for people, and you might be suprised to know how frequently people make gifts to animal charities as opposed to human charities. I never encourage clients towards any particular direction.

I find all the gifts to animal charities a little troubling though. Spend a day at the Children's Hospital or cancer ward. Spend a month in Africa. A day in New Orleans or Baghdad. Then think about whether animals are more deserving of your support. [/b][/quote]
I didn't say they were more deserving. But they certainly are deserving. I also do the head shave for cancer every year. And a few other charities. But think about this for a moment: how much wild habitat, etc would be left if there weren't charities for them (WWE, etc)? They'd all be frickin oilfields or something else.

[CaramonLS]

I'm not going to go into much detail with my situation, but I will say that my cat saved my life.

No, he didn't pull me from a burning building, but you can probably figure it out.

The least I can do for it is return the favor, and if I was forced to go into a burning building to get him, I'm not coming out without him in my arms.

[jam26]

The other day on the CNN home page there was a picture of a dog lying by his dead owner. The cutline said the dog had laid there by his side for four days.
I was more saddened by the sight of the dog lying at his owner's side than the dead body poking out from under the blanket.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 9 2005, 12:04 PM
I'm not going to go into much detail with my situation, but I will say that my cat saved my life.

No, he didn't pull me from a burning building, but you can probably figure it out.

"What's wrong, Kitty?"

"Meow, meow!"

"What's that? Caramon fell down the well??"

)

[Patek23]

Originally posted by habernac@Sep 9 2005, 10:18 AM
Still laughing about the "raptors smarter than humans" statement. That's gold.

As for the part about whether its wrong to give to animal charities rather than human ones, no bloody way. I can give my money to anything I choose, who gives a flying fata what anyone else thinks? The WWE and others get money from me. Animals need a hell of a lot more help than we destructive humans do.

How would you know they weren't? were you back there, have you met a raptor? consorted thoughts and then felt you were more intelligent than him? I'm not saying communicationally or tecnology or other shinguard like that (because that stuff makes us so smart even though it's rotting our brains, well except for communication). They hunted is specific groups judging each others pro's and cons fast ones would rus ha herd of whatever they were hunting big ones would take down the animal etc. They also worked in groups for everything and even if they weren't smarter we would be fataed because I'd really like to see a human take on a raptor.




As for all the people (not directed at you habernac) who say a life is more important than a dogs? how come you chose to buy a pet rather than donate that to charity. The average person spends 1-3 grand on their pet every year how come you aren't giving that 3 grand away instead? Could it be because you care more about your dog than some homeless dude!?!?!?

[habernac]

How would you know they weren't? were you back there, have you met a raptor?

Have you? WTF are you basing your statement on, Dr Gellar?

[Patek23]

Originally posted by habernac@Sep 9 2005, 03:34 PM
How would you know they weren't? were you back there, have you met a raptor?

Have you? WTF are you basing your statement on, Dr Gellar?

Articles and Scientific therioes, what are you basing yours on? Human ignorance?

[Cube Inmate]

*Other people's* articles and scientific theories?

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Sep 9 2005, 04:51 PM
*Other people's* articles and scientific theories?

But those people lived with the raptors...

Seriously though, they may have been intelligent, as far as hunting techniques go, and for a dinosaur, but they weren't intelligent to human standards. However, I doubt we'll ever really know if they questioned their existance, or pondered the stars.

[Patek23]

Whatever the point I was trying to get across was that Raptors would be the superior species since they were more adapt than us at the time of our evolution where we were as intelligent as a pack of apes, we would have been plucked off like chickens.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer@Sep 9 2005, 05:19 PM
Whatever the point I was trying to get across was that Raptors would be the superior species since they were more adapt than us at the time of our evolution where we were as intelligent as a pack of apes, we would have been plucked off like chickens.

Humans have opposable thumbs, giving them the ability to create and use tools. Raptors do not. For the same reason lions, sharks, or other great predatory animals are not the dominant species today, raptors would not be either. I'm shocked we're even having this debate.