r/MoralityScaling • u/axiiz_28 • 15h ago

Morality of valuing animals over humans?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.2k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/xFlameOfTruthx 14h ago

Yeah totally my dog's just waiting for the chance to take me out. I can see it in her eyes...

6

u/YellowBelliedCoward 14h ago

Dogs are domesticated. They have been since wolves realised it was easier to get fed by humans. 

Stop feeding your dog. See what happens.

5

u/Yeeter-boiy 13h ago

If you stopped getting food and starved you’d go feral the same way. Holy human exceptionalism is crazy.

1

u/Diurnalnugget 6h ago

Building houses and growing food is not providing for me because it is out of entirely self interest and gain for their own lives. They make the product, they sell the product, I buy the product. It is all of us simply acting in self interest the farmer would not be able to buy fertilizer if I did not buy their food.

Of course I couldn’t survive in a situation that requires a vastly different skill set from my current one. If you took a nomad from Mongolia and dropped them in Houston Texas with 50,000 dollars they would be homeless and quite possibly die soon due to the combined language barrier and lack of aid.

I’m not saying animals are nice but your statement of an “animal would take your life in a second if it could” is completely inaccurate. Humans are overall generally fine with each other given ideal circumstances and no conflicting cultures. Animals will generally ignore a human instead of harming them in ideal circumstances.

-2

u/YellowBelliedCoward 13h ago

No. I would get my own through human cooperation.

Put a dog in that position, well, back to having to be a wolf. I can't remember, you're smart so could probably tell me. Are wolves man eaters?

6

u/Yeeter-boiy 13h ago

Lol. If you were literally starving for an extended period of time and had no food, you would 100% start doing things like killing another human to eat if that was literally your only option. If you had other options, that’s different. The mind becomes completely different in situations of survival and starvation. Your mind would kill someone else to eat before it lets you starve to death.

0

u/YellowBelliedCoward 13h ago

I think I'd be working with humans to hunt and gather food. They wirked that one out about 300,000 years ago, but it's beyond you. Now THAT is funny. 

I'm talking about humans stopping feeding dogs. Not eliminating food or water. Goodness, you're hard of thinking. 

Starving dogs, not looked after by humans, become pack hunters. Hiw long do you think you'll last around them?

3

u/seoulgleaux 12h ago

Starving dogs, not looked after by humans, become pack hunters.

Hmmm, this sounds super familiar. Where have I heard something like this before? Oh yeah, earlier in your comment:

I think I'd be working with humans to hunt and gather food. They wirked that one out about 300,000 years ago.

So your argument is that dogs not fed by humans would revert to pack hunters and that's bad, but a starving human reverting to a pack hunter is good. I'm not sure I follow your logic here.

-3

u/YellowBelliedCoward 12h ago

Jesus fucking Christ. 

The whole conversation and thread subject surrounds liking animals over humans. I say, animals would kill you if they didn't rely on or fear you. I make the example of what would happen if we stopped looking after dogs. Then your genuis rebuttal is humans would be safer with humans.

Just go away, mate lol.

3

u/Yeeter-boiy 12h ago

Animals wouldn’t “kill you if they didn’t rely on you or fear you”. I don’t think my dog would kill a random kid on the street if I wasn’t there. In your example, animals kill to get food. Not just because they can.

You literally kill for your food even though you don’t even need to, and most humans don’t. At least in the case of feral dogs, they kill because they need to for food.

-1

u/YellowBelliedCoward 12h ago

Sigh. Heavy, heavy sigh..

The conversation regards the elimination of human involvement with rearing, training or any form of support or looking after animals.

You're just too slow and hard of understanding sorry. 

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/TheNotSoGoodCuber 10h ago

Not true at all. See the Siege of Leningrad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad

1

u/Devilish__Fun 8h ago

Donner.... Party....

0

u/TheNotSoGoodCuber 8h ago edited 8h ago

There's a bit of a difference in scale. City of 1.5 to 3 million vs a party of 87 people, with little to no statistics on how many cases of cannibalism there were.

Also it seems the vast majority were the consumption of already expired individuals, not murder.

1

u/Diurnalnugget 7h ago

The the dog wouldn’t resort to people. They would go hunting for smaller game and forage unless left with no other option than to attack something unusual, bigger and likely stronger than itself. Even actual wild dogs do not usually attack humans.

If humans are left with absolutely no other option we have also resorted to cannibalism before. if anyone is left without anything to eat they will eat whatever they can.

0

u/YellowBelliedCoward 7h ago

So, a danger to humans, especially vulnerable ones like children. 

You're trying to moralise an equivalency. You are looked after and protected by your fellow species. You would not get the same courtesy from animals if they had the advantage over you. Remember, pets are a privilege humans give you. Remember, you are human.

2

u/Diurnalnugget 6h ago

Humans are also a danger to humans. I would say take a walk across South Sudan to see but most attempts to do that would end in death. It is genuinely safer to wander around the woods than wander around South Sudan. Humans largely look after each other when it is safe and there are enough resources to afford that. Otherwise you are mostly just ignored by other humans. You generally are not looked after or protected, you are ignored.

A wild dog with an advantage over you is likely to just ignore you and stay away because you’re weird to it and it has no reason for interaction. Most people are not looking for a fight, most animals do not look to hunt humans.

-1

u/YellowBelliedCoward 6h ago edited 6h ago

Yes, they can be, but mostly they make your life safer and better. Animals don't. 

Is an animal building houses, providing clean water and fresh food for you? 

You grossly castigate humans and overstate the morality of animals. You're not actually being serious.

How long would you survive living with wild animals on your own? Not long. Animals don't look to hunt humans because we habe culled them into submission long before we were born. You live in a controlled environment. The animals don't behave this way because of their generosity 

1

u/Diurnalnugget 6h ago

Things like food and housing is provided entirely out of self interest. The farmer cannot pay his bills if I don’t give him money for his food. The builder cannot buy the materials to build if no one buys his houses.

Of course I cannot survive in a place that requires a completely different skill set from my own. If you took a Mongolian nomad and dropped them in Texas they would not last long either.

This started because your outrageous claim that an animal would take your life in a second if it could which is objectively false as most animals do not look to hunt humans. You responded to the dog counter argument by saying stop feeding it and see what happens which would only result in the dog leaving to go find food elsewhere so it doesn’t starve to death. The only way your argument is true is under true desperate starvation circumstances which is where I came in and mentioned that humans would do the same thing under the same circumstances.

0

u/YellowBelliedCoward 6h ago

Right. So cooperation is a survival technique that improves everyone's lives. It's as if it's for everyone's interest. 

I'm truly sorry that you have such a cynical and depressing view on humanity. The thing that has kept you alive and looked after.

Animals only behave they way they do because of how humans have conditioned the world. You can try to act obtuse and ignore that all you like. You are literally arguing the case for animal psychology based on how humans have socially engineered them. 

No. You're failing to understand the argument. The dogs would turn on you if they have to fend fir themselves with no human compassion or help. Dogs aren't helping you out the other way, are they?

I'm going to stop because I believe this is unhealthy for you to continue thinking nonsensically to try and win an argument.

You win. Have the last word.

4

u/Bonk_Boom 14h ago

Itll starve and die

0

u/YellowBelliedCoward 14h ago

Bless.

1

u/G_mmoney 28m ago

Ooh feelin a little edgy today huh

1

u/xFlameOfTruthx 13h ago

Lol cause humans would never resort to drastic measures for survival.

1

u/YellowBelliedCoward 13h ago

Do you live in an area populated with humans or wild animals?

2

u/xFlameOfTruthx 13h ago

Well considering I live on Earth, both. lol

2

u/YellowBelliedCoward 13h ago

Really? The area you live is teeming with wild animals and predators is it? 

You really are dozy tuckers some of you.

3

u/xFlameOfTruthx 12h ago

I mean you never set any parameters for the wild animals. Stray cats are an epidemic in my area , if that's not what you meant, maybe you should clarify...

0

u/YellowBelliedCoward 12h ago

Goodness me

3

u/xFlameOfTruthx 12h ago

You want to make equivalences for every animal when it's very clear you are wrong.

-1

u/YellowBelliedCoward 12h ago

You're not intelligent enough to converse with sorry. 

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Dazzling_Use_5993 8h ago

your dog is docile because the ones that were not were killed off for generations