Why do people care more about animals?

I could never understand it as I was not conditioned to care for as much for an animal, but yet we cannot sympathize with humans

Reply 1

ODES_PDES

Original post by Blue_Mason

I could never understand it as I was not conditioned to care for as much for an animal, but yet we cannot sympathize with humans

Unconditional Love

Reply 2

Blue_Mason

Original post by ODES_PDES

Unconditional Love

Well it actually depends, as there is a difference between domestic pets and an animal who is not domestic and would not love you back.
People would be more sympathetic towards a stray dog, but yet sneer at a homeless person.

Reply 3

elizahughes

I completely agree and I think humans only sympathise with animals when it benefits them - there was such an uproar about Harambe the gorilla but veganism is so bashed - I think it makes people feel like they have a good moral compass, hence why animal charities receive so much more money than homeless charities. There's the whole perception that animals are helpless and only we can help them, although many were better off when humans didn't exist, and most homeless people also have no control of their situation which is very difficult to get out of (often have mental health problems). It's ridiculous, I think some of it stems from the way capitalism ranks people based on their productivity, and so people who are deprived are seen as lazy and a lot of people don't want to help them :frown:

Reply 4

41b

I've always fancied a taste of some well done Alsatian :eating:

Reply 5

NHM

Probably because we have been hurt more times by humans than animals- so we have a special bond with them.

I was watching a documentary yesterday and the RSPCA was created 50 years earlier than the NSPCC so just goes to show!

Reply 6

xxx-ooo-xxx

Original post by Blue_Mason

I could never understand it as I was not conditioned to care for as much for an animal, but yet we cannot sympathize with humans

Yes, we can sympathise with humans? That's a bizarre conclusion to come to just because some people care for animals.

I think it's all about pets generally always being there for you and some are very in tune to the emotions of their owners. When you don't feel like talking to anyone else, your cat will just come and sit on your lap and there's a sense of mutual love (of course pets aren't rational so don't understand that).

Also, there's an aspect of helplessness with animals. If a human were to be beaten up he'd understand the situation, however, animals are completely unaware of why they're being hurt and for animals like cats, they can not fight back.

Reply 7

elizahughes

Original post by NHM

NSPCC is aimed towards vulnerable children and they hardly hurt people! But the difference between those two charities is that I think the RSPCA process is more simple - it's easier to rehome an animal and bring it back to health, as opposed to saving a child from abusive parents and finding someone who will take them in as well as psychological damage (I know animals can also suffer psychologically but this does generally have less impact and they're less aware of it)

Reply 8

Blue_Mason

Original post by xxx-ooo-xxx

Instinctively on average, people are just more sympathetic, I mean you would avoid contact with a homeless person, but you try and be friendly with a stray cat,I mean how does that make sense?
Animals are just more dependent
Bit of an ignorant statement as a human could be assaulted or suffer some horrible fate and still not be unaware on why , and a cat can fight back.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 9

xxx-ooo-xxx

Original post by Blue_Mason

Bit of an ignorant statement as a human could be assaulted or suffer some horrible fate and still not be unaware on why , and a cat can fight back.

I think it goes without saying that I meant because humans are rational they may not understand the reason for what's happening but they understand what is happening.

Idk about you but I assumed most cats are not fit to fight a 6 foot human stamping on their heads.

There's also the fact that domestic pets are very dependent on us so (obviously to a lesser extent, it's just not quite the same) in a similar way to how a parent wants to protect their child, a person wants to protect their pet. Neither a baby nor a pet are rational and that's why we're compelled to protect both.

Reply 10

xxx-ooo-xxx

Original post by Blue_Mason

That's an awful assumption to make actually, I would never avoid contact with a homeless person and I think those that do need to get their priorities straight.

Reply 11

Absent Agent

Original post by Blue_Mason

I could never understand it as I was not conditioned to care for as much for an animal, but yet we cannot sympathize with humans

It's very unlikely to care for animals but not for humans. Rather, not caring for animals in an indication of conditional love for humans. As Immanuel Kant has put it:

"He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."

Reply 12

Blue_Mason

Original post by xxx-ooo-xxx

I have never owned a pet, but I do understand why people can be protective of their pets, but it is the irrational and biased alliance that we have towards animlas.
Chances may be that a police dog that is wounded would be given more support and even financial aid, but a police officer could only get a fraction as a police officer is as you said aware of being shot