Who would you save between your cat and your worst enemy?
I’ve been discussing with my sister (a big fan of her cats) about what lives we would save in an emergency. I think a human live is worth more than an animal’s no question asked but she thinks otherwhise. So to end this discussion I’m writing here.
Who would you save between your cat and your worst enemy?
Who is more likely to be able to save themselves? Like, if it’s a fire I’m getting the people out, the cats will get themselves out. If someone is getting pushed off a 3 story building? The cat, more likely to survive.
Water rising? I am grabbing the cat, the person can figure out something for themselves.
Neither because I don’t have a cat, and a stranger first, because they are human too. Saving both is the goal, but first I’d save the stranger, then the cat, and depending on how bad they are, the worst enemy. If that enemy did only a bit of bullying, save. If that enemy is likely to not do anything good back, and has caused suffering, no saving.
So, you mean something like, would I save my cat or Putin? The answer is - my cat. When it comes to strangers, I feel it’s more difficult and depends on many factors.
Society has deemed that a human life is more valuable than another animal, but that doesn’t mean that this applies to everyone. I’d save my dogs over a stranger sure, but I’d sure make an effort to save both. The value of a life on a personal basis is primarily driven by how connected you are with them.
I dislike the belief that human life is worth more than any other animal.
Even if we’re going to argue that, because of intellect or the ability to grasp out own existence or whatever arbitrary philosophical reason we’fe going to come up it, a human life is in general more valuable than that of a cats life, my “worst enemy” would have to be someone so morally corrupt that removing them from the world would make it a better place. This makes is a very pointless question.
A stranger is more of a real discussion. The stranger is enough of an unknown factor that I think I could assume that allowing them to die is likely to have a worse impact on the world, so it makes sense to save them. I certainly wouldn’t be able to say so with enough certainty to fault anyone for disagreeing with me, though.
Well, to play devil’s advocate - and species eating it’s own on the regular would be a failure - but much more so for one whose primary strength is working together.
I feel like the idea that an animal life is worth less than a human life is demonstrably true at a societal level though, right?
Society will make all sorts of fucked up (and some not-so-fucked up) decisions about what’s acceptable and what’s not, “true” is not the right word here.
Like, we don’t sell human parts at a grocery store to eat, and I feel like people would call it a moral tragedy if we did.
Selling cat parts would be seen as a moral tragedy too, at least in my society.
If an animals life is equivalent to a humans, then meat is in fact murder, no?
Life eats life, an organism that kills for biological need isn’t a murderer (though our diet + modern factory farming system arguably is). Killing a conscious being of any species unnecessarily can be considered murder I’d say. If there was an animal that (still existed anyways) evolved to eat humans, it would not be murder for it to eat.
Ultimately, humans are not inherently more entitled to anything, including life, more than any other species, though society is likely to disagree.
I’d choose
1 - cat
2 - human cat
3 - because the fallout from the human death will be more than from the cat, and could itself include a pet death or cat in a cage for years (people tend to not care much about a deceased person’s cat).
3 - I’m changing my answer after reading a few others. They’re right, I am responsible for my cats, they are my family and I promised to care for them.
I feel like you’re taking a bit of a dissonant position here, no?
If it would be a moral tragedy to kill a cat and eat it, why is that not true for a cow? If life eats life, it’s not murder for me to kill and eat the cat, correct? So why is it a moral evil if killing and eating the cow is not?
I think you’re saying that this is just one of the “fucked up” stances that society has taken? But then why participate in it?
I’m fine with either answer. Either “eating meat is fine because animal life is less valuable than people’s dietary needs/preferences,” or “vegetarianism is the only moral option, as all life is equally valuable,” but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?
If it would be a moral tragedy to kill a cat and eat it, why is that not true for a cow? If life eats life, it’s not murder for me to kill and eat the cat, correct? So why is it a moral evil if killing and eating the cow is not?
You may have misunderstood, or maybe I didn’t word it clearly. There is no moral difference between killing and eating a cow or a cat, or even another human if need be but our society doesn’t see it that way, and that’s probably a good thing.
I think you’re saying that this is just one of the “fucked up” stances that society has taken? But then why participate in it?
It’s quite difficult for one born in a society and living within a society’s geographical bounds to just “not participate in it”. I choose to not participate in parts as I am able. I am able to afford meat that is not produced in the factory farm system (i.e. crowdcow), and so that is one way.
but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?
Yes, it’s really nearly impossible to participate as a normal member of modern liberal society without being a major hypocrite. The more you try to not be a hypocrite, the more people think you’re a weirdo.
Either “eating meat is fine because animal life is less valuable than people’s dietary needs/preferences,” or “vegetarianism is the only moral option, as all life is equally valuable,” but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?
I dug into this more deeply in another response, but no. Life can be equally valuable and we can accept that evolution and history has led us to a place where we end life without feeling a sense of superiority over that life.
Imagine a poker game. You have been dealt a winning hand. You are incredibly confident of this and are correct to feel so. Are you a better person for winning that hand? Is this a signal that you’re not only expected to take the money of the others at the table, but permitted to do so because you are a better person?
We are the species that was dealt a better hand. This puts us in a position of power. This does not make us “better”, nor does it negate the value of those other lives, despite the position we find ourselves in. Yet we do, ultimately, get to collect as a result of that hand.
Yes and no. For one, many vegetarians and vegans would agree, so on some level, sure, that’s a very defensible opinion. Secondly, North American sensibilities would call it a moral tragedy to sell cat or dog parts, so at some point we have to accept that what is and isn’t okay to kill and consume is a question of cultural bias as opposed to moral truth.
Lastly, you can accept the state of the food chain without holding the belief that those at the top of it are “better” or “worth more”. I don’t eat beef because I am, in some universal truth way, worth more than a cow. I eat beef because I accept that in the chaos of existence, this is where the chips fell. I do not feel a sense of superiority for being able to do so. If you’re going to get really strict about it, I’d define “murder” as the act of killing for the sake of killing, and say that killing for consumption and in some cases survival is different. But even then, I recognize that this is bias. If you want to call murder the act of taking a life, I’ve murdered a lot in my life, and I don’t intend on stopping any time soon. Mosquitos won’t squish themselves.
The question of intellect and understanding and the weight of these qualities in the value of a life is a dangerous road to wander down, so I like to keep in perspective that we’re all meaningless specks in the grand scheme of the universe. Otherwise, the questions get even more challenging: to say a truly reprehensible thing, what happens when we replace the human or the animal in question with an exceptionally low functioning human being? Do we now say their life has little value because they can’t contribute to society, they can’t understand the state of their own existence, and in many cases they’re not even capable of verbal communication? Does it become okay to choose to let them die, as in the original question? Are they suddenly fit for consumption as cattle? Or does the responsibility fall on the more capable to protect them?
Appraising and tiering life is an incredibly dangerous road to go down. You can choose any example of historical racism to see just how dangerous it gets. Life is life, and the strange differences between what’s “okay” and what’s not is luck more than anything else. Even as I consume a steak while my dog begs for the scraps, I believe it’s important to keep an understanding of how we got here, else hubris allows us to justify basically any atrocity.
Add comment