3 ms·

> Are you missing the fundamental fact that animals are sentient creatures with feelings, etc? So if a cat kills a bird, what should we do to the cat? A bear k

by qiskit 4y ago

> Are you missing the fundamental fact that animals are sentient creatures with feelings, etc? So if a cat kills a bird, what should we do to the cat? A bear kills a deer. What should we do to the bear? > Do you only refrain from harming other humans because of the potential social and legal consequences attendant thereto? It's why social and legal consequences exist. If humans weren't harming each other, we wouldn't have such social customs and laws. Drunk driving laws exist because people were drinking and driving and harming others. The customs and laws are a reaction to reality. > TBH, your post comes across as rather a bit...robotic, to put it generously. Would it be better if he were uncontrollably emotional?

necovek 4y ago
Well, like most "solutions" in the civilized world, laws simply come in to prevent the worst outcome. Which is that humans would revenge any harm done to their peers. This would lead to disproportionallity and constant "turf wars". Because of this human nature, we introduce laws to let you know in advance what the rules are, and establish an entire system of people determining the fairness of it all. So while I am saying that laws are a simple formalization of the general retaliation, risk of retaliation is an inherent incentive for humans not to harm another (laws or no laws). Compassion and development of empathy are another matter, and evolutionary, they help in getting more people (and animals) on your side, though having animals on your side is not as important as it may have been a few millenia ago. Empathy towards other beings is an extrapolation of civilisational developments. Basically, showing empathy towards animals signals you would be empathetic to people too, which makes you a more desireable peer today. So, stretching it, it's logical you'd want that for participation in the society. Another logical explanation is that without developing empathy for animals, majority of the people would not care for the disruption to the ecosystem (since many people are emotional more than rational). But while there is a logical component to empathy, it's not all logical, just like most of the feelings are. We don't discount love or happiness on rationality grounds either.
- ss108 4y ago
  "Basically, showing empathy towards animals signals you would be empathetic to people too, which makes you a more desireable peer today." Pointing this out not against you (because I know this is rhetorical on your part), but to highlight the issue for those who scoff at using anything other than "logic" to decide things: There's also no logical reason why empathy to humans is desirable. People might say "but what about an orderly society" or something, but then you can always keep asking the basic question of why x is desirable. If you follow it down the chain, it will always come down to subjective normative judgments. "Logically", human society need not exist. Logically, the earth is harmed by humans. Logically, the earth doesn't matter either. Logically, neither the happiness or safety of any individual human nor of human societies as a whole matter. Logically, maybe only math exists, but if nothing else existed, would math even really be said to exist? Is there any "logical" argument for that math and logic matter even though they are logical?
- qiskit 4y ago
  > Basically, showing empathy towards animals signals you would be empathetic to people too, which makes you a more desireable peer today. My experience has been that those who "show" empathy towards animals are masking or overcompensating for their nastiness. It's a form of privileged virtue signaling. Adolf Hitler, a vegetarian, was renowned the world over for his empathy to animals. Not to nice to humans though. > Empathy towards other beings is an extrapolation of civilisational developments. No civilization was built on empathy. All civilizations are built of brutality - conquest, extermination, forced expulsions, destruction of environment, farming, etc. Civilization isn't a natural state of human affairs. No more than industrial farms are a natural state of affairs for bovine. If you can provide an example of any civilization that was built on empathy, I'd be interested. > Another logical explanation is that without developing empathy for animals, majority of the people would not care for the disruption to the ecosystem (since many people are emotional more than rational). You do realize that we destroy animals to prevent the destruction of the ecosystem. Look at the damage that invasive wild boars, cats, snakes, insects, fish, etc do. There are even campaigns to exterminate these animals. Where do they factor in your empathy? Not to mention disease spreading mosquitos who are just doing what they are naturally programmed to do. Should they be exterminated?

by qiskit 4y ago

necovek 4y ago

Well, like most "solutions" in the civilized world, laws simply come in to prevent the worst outcome. Which is that humans would revenge any harm done to their peers. This would lead to disproportionallity and constant "turf wars". Because of this human nature, we introduce laws to let you know in advance what the rules are, and establish an entire system of people determining the fairness of it all. So while I am saying that laws are a simple formalization of the general retaliation, risk of retaliation is an inherent incentive for humans not to harm another (laws or no laws). Compassion and development of empathy are another matter, and evolutionary, they help in getting more people (and animals) on your side, though having animals on your side is not as important as it may have been a few millenia ago. Empathy towards other beings is an extrapolation of civilisational developments. Basically, showing empathy towards animals signals you would be empathetic to people too, which makes you a more desireable peer today. So, stretching it, it's logical you'd want that for participation in the society. Another logical explanation is that without developing empathy for animals, majority of the people would not care for the disruption to the ecosystem (since many people are emotional more than rational). But while there is a logical component to empathy, it's not all logical, just like most of the feelings are. We don't discount love or happiness on rationality grounds either.

ss108 4y ago
"Basically, showing empathy towards animals signals you would be empathetic to people too, which makes you a more desireable peer today." Pointing this out not against you (because I know this is rhetorical on your part), but to highlight the issue for those who scoff at using anything other than "logic" to decide things: There's also no logical reason why empathy to humans is desirable. People might say "but what about an orderly society" or something, but then you can always keep asking the basic question of why x is desirable. If you follow it down the chain, it will always come down to subjective normative judgments. "Logically", human society need not exist. Logically, the earth is harmed by humans. Logically, the earth doesn't matter either. Logically, neither the happiness or safety of any individual human nor of human societies as a whole matter. Logically, maybe only math exists, but if nothing else existed, would math even really be said to exist? Is there any "logical" argument for that math and logic matter even though they are logical?
qiskit 4y ago
> Basically, showing empathy towards animals signals you would be empathetic to people too, which makes you a more desireable peer today. My experience has been that those who "show" empathy towards animals are masking or overcompensating for their nastiness. It's a form of privileged virtue signaling. Adolf Hitler, a vegetarian, was renowned the world over for his empathy to animals. Not to nice to humans though. > Empathy towards other beings is an extrapolation of civilisational developments. No civilization was built on empathy. All civilizations are built of brutality - conquest, extermination, forced expulsions, destruction of environment, farming, etc. Civilization isn't a natural state of human affairs. No more than industrial farms are a natural state of affairs for bovine. If you can provide an example of any civilization that was built on empathy, I'd be interested. > Another logical explanation is that without developing empathy for animals, majority of the people would not care for the disruption to the ecosystem (since many people are emotional more than rational). You do realize that we destroy animals to prevent the destruction of the ecosystem. Look at the damage that invasive wild boars, cats, snakes, insects, fish, etc do. There are even campaigns to exterminate these animals. Where do they factor in your empathy? Not to mention disease spreading mosquitos who are just doing what they are naturally programmed to do. Should they be exterminated?