Neurochemical research has shown that the hormone released when people are in love is released in animals in the same intimate circumstances
( Read more... )
As well it should! Because the more we realize that we are them, the less excuse we have to exploit and destroy them and their habitats. A quotation from Samantha Hurn's Humans and Other Animals sums up a discussion I've had so many times with so many people:
"There is an increasing body of ethological material which convincingly argues for the ability of numerous animals to empathize not just with members of their own species, but with members of other species. While there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that many animals do not demonstrate empathy, the same could be said of humans. That they don't always empathize or demonstrate empathetic engagement is a very different issue to whether they are able to empathize. Not all human relationships with others, human or nonhuman, are intersubjective, because even with members of our own species we do not always make the necessary connection, that is, we do not or cannot empathize with that other enough for intersubjectivity to follow. Either that, or we refuse to empathize and employ various distancing devices which allow us to 'objectify' the other in order to carry out actions which would otherwise cause us psychological trauma, such as viewing other humans as animals to justify genocide, or viewing other animals as objects to justify their slaughter."
Exactly, but people get angry and sometimes violent if you challenge their Precious Specialness, a core tenant of not just a lot of worldviews, but religions as well and they'll go to lengths to preserve it.
or they get angry because certain people are more willing to donate to a sick dog than they are to a non-white child. i know animals are a beneficial part of society and the world as a whole, but i'm still aware that there are still humans that are viewed as lesser than animals by certain people in mankind.
Well, I can only speak for myself but when I'm donating to a cause, I'm not thinking "I'm donating to this INSTEAD OF donating to x". I do think, "well, instead of buying stupid shit, I'll give the money to this charity" or "my local Red Cross is organising this thing, I hope I can fit it into to my schedule". For me, the decision process is about whether or not I have the time/money to give, not about whether some cause is more worthy than others. Say, if I'm participating in a reforestation program, it wouldn't make sense to me to worry about whether I should be donating books to children's hospitals instead. I might do that later, it has nothing to do with what I'm currently contributing. If I donate to a program to save a critically endangered animal species I don't think "maybe I should have given the money to some humanitarian cause instead" because the list of charities I'd like to donate to is endless and I personally cannot put them in order of importance. Yeah, it would be nice if we could "help humans first" and once we've fixed all that, then move onto cute animals and ~hugging trees~. But that's not realistic. IDK maybe if I was a millionaire with heaps of spare money to spend I might think differently about choosing some causes over others but as things are, it's more about whether or not I have the opportunity to help at that moment.
"There is an increasing body of ethological material which convincingly argues for the ability of numerous animals to empathize not just with members of their own species, but with members of other species. While there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that many animals do not demonstrate empathy, the same could be said of humans. That they don't always empathize or demonstrate empathetic engagement is a very different issue to whether they are able to empathize. Not all human relationships with others, human or nonhuman, are intersubjective, because even with members of our own species we do not always make the necessary connection, that is, we do not or cannot empathize with that other enough for intersubjectivity to follow. Either that, or we refuse to empathize and employ various distancing devices which allow us to 'objectify' the other in order to carry out actions which would otherwise cause us psychological trauma, such as viewing other humans as animals to justify genocide, or viewing other animals as objects to justify their slaughter."
Reply
Reply
Reply
A good deed is a good deed is a good deed?
Reply
Leave a comment