Which is worse Animal Suffering or Children suffering? Watch

Poll: Which is worse?
Animal suffering (11)
9.57%
Child suffering (71)
61.74%
Both as bad as each other (33)
28.7%
vendettax
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
I see this question on OKCupid (dating website) and chicks usually put down that they're both as bad as each other.

Pretty scary tbh, how could you not value children's suffering as worse than animal suffering?
1
reply
Aivicore
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
I think the question is so vague it's almost impossible to answer.

The difference between child and animal suffering is often that the child's suffering could have been avoided and was caused by another human's negligence, cruelty, or enormous societal imbalances. The question doesn't specify whether it means suffering caused by humans or suffering in general.
2
reply
vendettax
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Rananagirl)
I think the question is so vague it's almost impossible to answer.

The difference between child and animal suffering is often that the child's suffering could have been avoided and was caused by another human's negligence, cruelty, or enormous societal imbalances. The question doesn't specify whether it means suffering caused by humans or suffering in general.
Hmm does it matter? Suffering is suffering.
1
reply
JindleBrey
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
I put both as bad as each other.

If I were any religion, it would be Buddhism.

All life is equal
9
reply
Muaythaigirl
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Isn't any suffering bad enough? They are both more than likely at the hands of humans.

I'm an atheist so I'm not seeing it from any religious view.
1
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
It's probably as bad as each other, but still, unfortunately animals cant type on student forums to give their opinion.
4
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
They're both as bad as each other. Any very unnecessary inflicted suffering onto a vulnerable living creature is wrong.

But my instinct is animal suffering is worse. My body tenses more at a sight of a cub being hit (for example), than seeing an NSPCC advert with a child crying in the cot. Probably because there is more protection for children and people can get away with harming animals more.
6
reply
King Boo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
Animal suffering. It can't ask for help. Easy. I dislike children anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile
8
reply
vendettax
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#9
Why is religion being brought up? I'm not sure which point it argues as I wasn't brought up religious.

Anyways I think child suffering is miles worse than animal suffering. Anyone who says they are similar or animal suffering is worse, I can't be around.
0
reply
riddlemethis20
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Both animal cruelty and child cruelty are as bad as each other in my opinion, why should any of them have to suffer? In terms of animal cruelty it's vile that they suffer for human vanity I.e animal testing just so people can have cosmetics or walk around in their fur.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by vendettax)
Why is religion being brought up? I'm not sure which point it argues as I wasn't brought up religious.

Anyways I think child suffering is miles worse than animal suffering. Anyone who says they are similar or animal suffering is worse, I can't be around.
Why?
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
I bet most people who put that they're as bad as each other still use the meat, dairy and egg industries!
11
reply
the_chemist
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
imo, humans are designed to feel worse for children suffering rather than animals since all living things' ultimate goal is to let their offspring prosper so their species continues. (not sure how to phrase it correctly but you know what I mean).

I'll probs be negged for this, but anyone that chooses both is most likely just being pretentious. If there was a baby and a puppy drowning, and you can only save one, most will save the baby.
1
reply
vendettax
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by the_chemist)

I'll probs be negged for this, but anyone that chooses both is most likely just being pretentious. If there was a baby and a puppy drowning, and you can only save one, most will save the baby.
At least I hope this is true.
1
reply
Steezy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
I don't see why child suffering is worse than animal suffering?

TBH I don't feel that much of a bond with my fellow man. I prefer animals to people.

But at the same time, I don't want to see anything or anyone suffer so I answered that they're both as bad as each other.
2
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by the_chemist)
imo, humans are designed to feel worse for children suffering rather than animals since all living things' ultimate goal is to let their offspring prosper so their species continues. (not sure how to phrase it correctly but you know what I mean).

I'll probs be negged for this, but anyone that chooses both is most likely just being pretentious. If there was a baby and a puppy drowning, and you can only save one, most will save the baby.
1) Humans weren't designed.
2) It depends on the exact situation. Context is the one thing that is not contextual.
0
reply
xDave-
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by vendettax)
I see this question on OKCupid (dating website) and chicks usually put down that they're both as bad as each other.

Pretty scary tbh, how could you not value children's suffering as worse than animal suffering?
Why is a human worth more than an animal?

(Original post by there's too much love)
I bet most people who put that they're as bad as each other still use the meat, dairy and egg industries!
You say that as if not using them actually contributes to stopping them. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't delude myself into thinking this somehow stops slaughterhouses; it makes no difference, at all.
0
reply
Steezy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by there's too much love)
I bet most people who put that they're as bad as each other still use the meat, dairy and egg industries!
Meat? No.

Free range dairy & eggs? Yes.
0
reply
vendettax
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#19
I mean this is liberalism at it's finest. Taking a fly's life is the same as taking a babies life to them.
0
reply
Steezy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by vendettax)
I mean this is liberalism at it's finest. Taking a fly's life is the same as taking a babies life to them.
But you see the problem here is that there is only one species of child - a child.

There are millions of species of animal, so you could always catch us out with some BS like that.

I would say, for me, there would be a scale of worth which I would give to different animals, based on population, worth, use within the world and (selfishly) beauty.

A fly is obviously not as valuable to me as a child, but an almost extinct tiger? One could argue the Tiger's life is much more valuable than a child's life due to the overpopulation of humans and the under-population of the Tiger.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (150)
24.79%
Pop (146)
24.13%
Jazz (26)
4.3%
Classical (35)
5.79%
Hip-Hop (106)
17.52%
Electronic (42)
6.94%
Indie (100)
16.53%

Watched Threads

View All