I have two dogs, that we've had for 6 and 7 years. I also have a 2 year old and a baby. I don't love the dogs anywhere near as much as I used to, pre-baby.
I dated a girl a while back whose older sister + her husband had a dog. They loved her, played with her every day, walked her every weekend, etc.
Then they had two kids. Now the dog is locked out in a cage in the yard of which it rarely gets out, and its sole human contact is getting fed twice a day and maybe fetching a ball 20 minutes then and now. It's really sad.
This is interesting, but I wonder what the results would be if you compared the dog, and baby, to your best friend. In other words, I wonder if the dog would have closer matching results to the baby, or the friend.
I always find it interesting when people say "I love my dog/cat as much as people love their children!" This always prompts me to ask them "Would you die for your dog?", in which case the inevitable two second hesitation that follows and horror-struck look on their face answers my question. (Then again, there's a lot of people that wouldn't die for their kids either...)
I think that people can certainly form emotional connections to pets (I like cats myself), but biologically, there's a special attachment to humans. I mean, there's regions of the brain dedicated to specifically differentiating between human faces.
To answer your question, yes! I would say with less reservation then most humans I know but I would not truly know until placed in a life threatening situation if I could follow through on my conviction.
That people care about something that you can't relate to more than their own lives isn't a sign of stupidity, it's a sign of other people having different values than you.
Lack of intelligence and or sensibility has nothing to do with this, it is decision based on the relationship I share with my dogs, I am their 'pack leader', a bond created from their unconditional trust and love. Like any good relationship to survive, their needs to be a strong mutual commitment, in this case, they would unquestionable give their lives to protect their pack and myself. From the comfort of safe reflection, I truly believe I would do the same for them. Besides my immediate family and my dogs, I am not sure I can say I would make that sacrifice for anyone else.
You are equating your own worth to that of your animals, based on a role they've instinctly assigned to you.
Forgive me, but I'd appreciate if you'd spare me any further explanations and attempts at justifications.
Your grandiose sense of self-worth has retarded your capacity for understanding to such a degree that it compels you to criticise someone else's decision to sacrifice themselves for other beings they love, yes, even non human ones. Have you ever loved? But yes, I forgive you.
Your unjust accusation of egotism still presupposes equal worth of humans and pets. This is wrong, regardless of your emotional attachment to yours.
From a purely economical point of view, you may claim that things have only the value you ascribe to them. But I believe in intrinsic, objective worth.
One man's teddy bear is another's broken toy. A person's life, however, is non-negotiable.
To be fair, it's not as if every human would invariably do it in a real life threatening situation for another human (even if it's their child) either. Though they might be devoured by guilt later.
It's really hard to give an honest answer to questions like this if you haven't actually been in the situation. We would like to think we would do what we want ourselves to do in those situations, but we simply don't know.
If you want a reliable answer, you have to put people's houses on fire and observe how they behave. But I don't think you'll find a grant for putting hundreds of babies/pets in mortal danger to see how their parents/owners cope.
That "horror-struck look" doesn't mean "I suddenly realized I don't love my pet as much as I would an actual human child." It means "what the fuck is wrong with this guy, and how can I stop talking to him as quickly as possible?"
Hmm... I hadn't thought of it that way. But I find it much more horrific that people are comparing loving animals to children. You don't agree? That's why my comment is made as a follow-up to theirs.
I mean, we eat cows and pigs, and all sorts of other animals. What makes cats or dogs particularly special, other than being cuter and perhaps a little more social? It seems for these people arguing their animals are to be as revered as human beings are, they would also have to be vegan, which most are not.
No, I don't. You're searching for some total order ranking function where there isn't one. People love who they love and a lot of that is based on proximity and shared experience. I demonstrably care more about my dog than I do any random child in the third world, as demonstrated by the fact that I fed my dog this morning and I haven't donated to a feed-a-child-in-the-third-world charity today. By your logic, since humans rank higher than dogs, am I morally obligated to exhaust my financial resources helping needy humans before I can take care of my dog?
You're missing the point. If someone says they love their pet, you just don't ask that kind of question. It's like showing up at a church with a Dawkins book; who cares if you're "right," you still look like an asshole.
Or, to be more obvious, it'd be like asking a happily married person if they really thought they picked the best person or if they just settled for the best they could get.
More like: "What the fuck is wrong with this guy. He poses a complex ethical dilemma. It makes me think and thinking hurts my brain. I will better pretend he is some sort of creep."
We're talking about real life, not reddit or LessWrong or something. Most people don't want to "debate you" about their affection for pets, they just want to tell you how cute their dog is. And questioning their love for their pets makes you come off as someone that has no empathy for animals, which most people do find pretty creepy.
"I love my mom!"
"Would you die to save her?"
Another potentially interesting moral quandary that is pretty rude to ask some random stranger who is just trying to make conversation.
"I love god!"
"What makes you think god is real?" no no no please stop just smile and nod and let everyone get on with their day
When people say their pets are like their children, I don't think they mean "like" as in "exactly identical to." They mean "like" as in their relationship with their pet fills a similar role in their life.
I have had pets and I have a child. If you don't see similarity in these relationships (mainly for the parent-baby relationship, not so much for older children) I think you are taking statements like these MUCH TOO literally. Taking care of a baby was eerily similar to caring for a puppy for me.
It's like someone tells you they are so hungry they could eat a horse, and then you say "Oh really? That would rupture your internal organs causing you a horribly painful death." You are taking something way too literally, and then replying with an unnecessarily morbid answer. The combination of these two is likely to make people wonder what the easiest way is to excuse themselves from the conversation.
Thank you for actually providing an explanation. I had always assumed people were being literal in how much they liked their pet. I didn't realize it was just a saying.
Depends on what you mean by "die". I would wager that a lot of pet owners who really love their pets would, for example, put themselves into mortal danger to save their pet.
Typical example: the house is on fire, pet owner needs to leave or they'll die, but they try to find their pet.
I have 6 yr old and a dog. Dog i've had for little more than a yr. There is a running joke in the house that - if there is a fire in the house, and I can only save one - I will save dog first and then kid. I think it has to do with innocence..kids have that pure innocence(at least until they are 6/7 yrs old), and dogs the same...there is no hidden motives, no long term agenda...they are just interested in play... interested in whatever is going on in the moment. And this is what attracts us.
The results of the study shouldn't be surprising. The traits which we breed for in our domesticated pets--big eyes, round forehead, pudgy cheeks--these are traits that make them look "cute," but many of them (sans things like fluffiness) ultimately make them resemble babies. That's why we find them cute. To boot, we breed them to be tinier, more docile, and more affectionate towards us.
I believe those features arise as a side-effect of domestication, they're not the actual goal of domestication. In the silver fox experiment, things like floppy ears arose without being specifically selected for.
This is why if you accidentally injure or kill (say with your car) a cat or a dog, you need to treat the situation as though it is a child. The legal ramifications are wildly different but the emotional hurt you have caused a family is at least similar and should be handled with respect and compassion.
33 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 84.7 ms ] threadThen they had two kids. Now the dog is locked out in a cage in the yard of which it rarely gets out, and its sole human contact is getting fed twice a day and maybe fetching a ball 20 minutes then and now. It's really sad.
I think that people can certainly form emotional connections to pets (I like cats myself), but biologically, there's a special attachment to humans. I mean, there's regions of the brain dedicated to specifically differentiating between human faces.
From a purely economical point of view, you may claim that things have only the value you ascribe to them. But I believe in intrinsic, objective worth.
One man's teddy bear is another's broken toy. A person's life, however, is non-negotiable.
It's really hard to give an honest answer to questions like this if you haven't actually been in the situation. We would like to think we would do what we want ourselves to do in those situations, but we simply don't know.
If you want a reliable answer, you have to put people's houses on fire and observe how they behave. But I don't think you'll find a grant for putting hundreds of babies/pets in mortal danger to see how their parents/owners cope.
I mean, we eat cows and pigs, and all sorts of other animals. What makes cats or dogs particularly special, other than being cuter and perhaps a little more social? It seems for these people arguing their animals are to be as revered as human beings are, they would also have to be vegan, which most are not.
No, I don't. You're searching for some total order ranking function where there isn't one. People love who they love and a lot of that is based on proximity and shared experience. I demonstrably care more about my dog than I do any random child in the third world, as demonstrated by the fact that I fed my dog this morning and I haven't donated to a feed-a-child-in-the-third-world charity today. By your logic, since humans rank higher than dogs, am I morally obligated to exhaust my financial resources helping needy humans before I can take care of my dog?
Or, to be more obvious, it'd be like asking a happily married person if they really thought they picked the best person or if they just settled for the best they could get.
"I love my mom!"
"Would you die to save her?"
Another potentially interesting moral quandary that is pretty rude to ask some random stranger who is just trying to make conversation.
"I love god!"
"What makes you think god is real?" no no no please stop just smile and nod and let everyone get on with their day
I have had pets and I have a child. If you don't see similarity in these relationships (mainly for the parent-baby relationship, not so much for older children) I think you are taking statements like these MUCH TOO literally. Taking care of a baby was eerily similar to caring for a puppy for me.
It's like someone tells you they are so hungry they could eat a horse, and then you say "Oh really? That would rupture your internal organs causing you a horribly painful death." You are taking something way too literally, and then replying with an unnecessarily morbid answer. The combination of these two is likely to make people wonder what the easiest way is to excuse themselves from the conversation.
What is this world coming to?
Typical example: the house is on fire, pet owner needs to leave or they'll die, but they try to find their pet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox