Compassion for Animal Suffering VS Compassion for Humans

[Radrook]

There seems to be a big discrepancy among some humans between what they consider to be merciful behavior towards animals and compassionate behavior towards humans. They seem to feel that being human disqualifies a person from the same empathetic consideration which they readily express toward a suffering beast.

When asked why they euthanize an animal in severe pain, they readily respond that it is an obligatory act of mercy. When asked why they refuse to do the same with a human-they say that a human is not an animal. Weird!

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

She cut off all communications until her dog was found.

As a dog owner I can totally understand. For me, the dog is like my child, since I don't have any children of my own.
Dogs seem to have the ability to love unconditionally. Not many humans can do that, in my experience.

 

[Radrook]

As a dog owner I can totally understand. For me, the dog is like my child, since I don't have any children of my own.
Dogs seem to have the ability to love unconditionally. Not many humans can do that, in my experience.

I was also a dog owner and understand the sentiments involved. However, that sentiment would not make me view human need for equal compassion as any less urgent.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

However, that sentiment would not make me view human need for equal compassion as any less urgent.

Ideally, as Christians we should love our neighbours, our family, our partners. But for me, my dog is naturally loveable. There is no conscious effort required. They have a pure heart it seems, free of sin. Ok well, my dog would eat all day if I let him. So I guess he is guilty of gluttony. But even that I find blameless.

 

[SkyWriting]

There seems to be a big discrepancy among some humans between what they consider to be merciful behavior towards animals and compassionate behavior towards humans. They seem to feel that being human disqualifies a person from the same empathetic consideration which they readily express toward a suffering beast.

When asked why they euthanize an animal in severe pain, they readily respond that it is an obligatory act of mercy. When asked why they refuse to do the same with a human-they say that a human is not an animal. Weird!

Just recently this woman I met on the Internet and have been in an amorous relationship with for the last three years and who effusively keeps claiming to love me more than she loves life itself expressed great anxiety when she thought that her female dog was missing, was lost without shelter. She cut off all communications until her dog was found. However, when I mentioned that I was about to get evicted with nowhere to go, nary a white hair on her supposedly loving head was moved. Maybe if I had been a canine?

Humans are not animals. They do get treated differently.

However, humans do have the capacity for choosing their
priorities. Often "the helpless" with be given priority over
those that "can help themselves."

In a similar circumstance I have evicted a tenant and neighbor.
But I would not leave a dog on the street.

 

[Radrook]

Humans are not animals. They do get treated differently.

However, humans do have the capacity for choosing their
priorities. Often "the helpless" with be given priority over
those that "can help themselves."

In a similar circumstance I have evicted a tenant and neighbor.
But I would not leave a dog on the street.

I am not proposing that animals be treated in the exact identical way under all circumstances.
But under a circumstance which demands an equal extension of compassion-I see no reason why an animal should be favored over a human. There are those kinds of easily-imaginable situations-you know?


BTW
The situations you mention are not similar for the very reasons that you yourself describe.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am not proposing that animals be treated in the exact identical way under all circumstances.
But under a circumstance which demands an equal extension of compassion-I see no reason why an animal should be favored over a human. There are those kinds of easily-imaginable situations-you know?


BTW
The situations you mention are not similar for the very reasons that you yourself describe.

Right. I evicted my neighbor becasue she was not helpless.
I would save a dog from the street, but would have one killed
that attacked my chickens.

 

[Radrook]

Ideally, as Christians we should love our neighbours, our family, our partners. But for me, my dog is naturally loveable. There is no conscious effort required. They have a pure heart it seems, free of sin. Ok well, my dog would eat all day if I let him. So I guess he is guilty of gluttony. But even that I find blameless.

Animals cannot sin because they are incapable of reasoning and not because they are inherently virtuous. There are animals such as lions and hyenas who begin to eat their prey alive and are not sinning because there is no malice involved. A snake who swallows a baby whole isn't sinning because it has no capacity to differentiate between good and evil. The Chimpanzee which deformed a woman by ripping off her face isn't guilty of sin because it does know any better. The same applies throughout the animal kingdom. They follow their feelings but cannot provide a specific reason why they feel that way except that they simply feel that way. A dog which like's people will savage a human if the master orders him to without asking why. They cannot sin.

 

[Radrook]

Right. I evicted my neighbor becasue she was not helpless.
I would save a dog from the street, but would have one killed
that attacked my chickens.

I am not advocating the non-eviction of people who deserve it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Justification for eviction is irrelevant to the situation I described.
If a loved one tells you that he or she is about to be evicted and has nowhere to go, then the loving thing to do is to offer assistance. If not, then it is best to desist from declaring that you love the person lest your claims come across as hypocritical. Especially when you are far more concerned about your mangy dog.

You can't decide for other people how to love. You can only decide for yourself.
You are suggesting hate for "a loved one" as well as her pet. I disagree.

 

[High Fidelity]

As a dog owner I can totally understand. For me, the dog is like my child, since I don't have any children of my own.
Dogs seem to have the ability to love unconditionally. Not many humans can do that, in my experience.

Indeed. Some dogs develop the same mental capacity as a young child.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Some empathy on my part required. Take me back to dating the girl of my dreams. She shows more affection to her dog than me. I'm envious. I'm jealous. But I'm going to choose a strategy. I'm going to learn to love her dog as much as she does. I'm starting to score points already because she can see how much I love her dog. It's gonna be Marley and me and her! A happy ending!

 

[Radrook]

You can't decide for other people how to love. You can only decide for yourself.
You are suggesting hate for "a loved one" as well as her pet. I disagree.

I am not suggesting hatred for anyone.

 

[Radrook]

Some empathy on my part required. Take me back to dating the girl of my dreams. She shows more affection to her dog than me. I'm envious. I'm jealous. But I'm going to choose a strategy. I'm going to learn to love her dog as much as she does. I'm starting to score points already because she can see how much I love her dog. It's gonna be Marley and me and her! A happy ending!

Actually, I love all her pets and have written poetry dedicated to her pets. Even pets of hers that have died. To her great elation of course. I refer to them as royalty because she is my queen. I also constantly praise her for her caring ways and express appreciation from her pets to her via my poetry. I have them calling her mommy in my poems because that is the way she describes herself in relation to them-as their mommy. So there definitely isn't any ill will or animosity here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I've always thought more kindly toward animals than people. Maybe that's because animals aren't jerks (a euphemism for the east end of westbound horse, with apologies to the horse).

 

[durangodawood]

...A snake who swallows a baby whole isn't sinning because it has no capacity to differentiate between good and evil......

Is the baby-eating snake doing an evil act, but just doesnt know it?

 

[Radrook]

Is the baby-eating snake doing an evil act, but just doesnt know it?

The fact that it doesn't perceive the horrendous nature of what it is doing exonerates it from being tagged a sinner. The reason provided for animal death via sickness or old age despite innocence of willful sinning is because only creatures capable of rendering God reasoning, totally self-aware, loving obedience, which is the manifestation of being created in God's image, are considered worthy of eternal life. In short, eternal life is a reward incapable of being earned by animals. Not my idea. It was the explanation I received.

 

[Radrook]

I've always thought more kindly toward animals than people. Maybe that's because animals aren't jerks (a euphemism for the east end of westbound horse, with apologies to the horse).

Well, a human can evaluate what is in front of him. In contrast, an animal tends to go along with whatever the flow might be whether evil or righteous as long as it is getting fed, sheltered and generally treated decently. Fir example, dogs which displayed affection towards Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler didn't know who these monsters were. In fact,


I have seen cats being snuggled as pets by a gorilla and they seemed quite contented. True, we as humans are very appreciative of this non-judgmental reaction because we don't like to be judged. But the value of the behavior cannot be separated from the ability of the creature who behaves in a friendly way to reason and evaluate the object of its affection. One is inherently more valuable than the other.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, a human can evaluate what is in front of him. In contrast, an animal tends to go along with whatever the flow might be whether evil or righteous as long as it is getting fed, sheltered and generally treated decently. Fir example, dogs which displayed affection towards Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler didn't know who these monsters were. In fact,


I have seen cats being snuggled as pets by a gorilla and they seemed quite contented. True, we as humans are very appreciative of this non-judgmental reaction because we don't like to be judged. But the value of the behavior cannot be separated from the ability of the creature who behaves in a friendly way to reason and evaluate the object of its affection. One is inherently more valuable than the other.

But pets rarely disqualify themselves from being worthy of affection as people often do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There seems to be a big discrepancy among some humans between what they consider to be merciful behavior towards animals and compassionate behavior towards humans. They seem to feel that being human disqualifies a person from the same empathetic consideration which they readily express toward a suffering beast.

When asked why they euthanize an animal in severe pain, they readily respond that it is an obligatory act of mercy. When asked why they refuse to do the same with a human-they say that a human is not an animal. Weird!

I totally agree...there are usually inconsistencies between people's empathy for animals and their empathy for humans.

I don't think it's necessarily wrong though.