psychiatric term for concern for animals over humans?

In My Humble Opinion
61

I just love it when people get all sanctimonious about who’s lovin’ whom. Or what.

I’m not psychologist, but I’m betting that people who exhibit more feelings for animals than humans fall into two groups: People who are extraordinarily empathic. And people who are empathy-impaired (though, of course, not completely).

The first group feels everything intensely. They are the people you see bawling on TV whenever there’s a mass shooting a thousand miles away. They don’t necessarily grieve more over individual animals than individual humans. But because animal abuse and death is much more common than human abuse and death (or at least more visible), it just looks like they care more. If you’re one of these extremely compassionate people, you’re going to be hurt just seeing someone eating a hamburger. See someone tug just a little too hard on their dog’s leash? You’re gonna feel anger. You can’t help it. It’s just how you are.

Then there’s the other side of the coin. The people who don’t feel as much. People perplex them with their complex emotions and reactions. It’s hard for these folks to relate and to empathize with others. But they aren’t total robots. They can still feel pain and happiness and love. Animals, especially domesticated ones, not only feel these things too, but they exhibit them in a simple way unadulterated by ulterior motives and deceit. A low-empath can understand a cat or a dog, so they gravitate towards them because they fill that emotional void that would otherwise be occupied by loneliness and hopelessness. Their social difficulties almost guarantee that bond will be closer than the one they form with humans. They can’t help it. It’s just how they are.

I don’t know why the existence of either of these groups should engender feelings of concern or disgust, though I understand how individuals could be annoying. Personally, I can’t fault anyone for feeling how they feel. I can’t help how I feel, so how in the world could I expect someone else to? The only thing people can help is how they verbalize their preferences. If you hear me talking about my cat, I don’t wanna hear how much you hate cats. And I’d prefer you not tell me how much you love your dog over people, because I’m “people” and I don’t think I’m that bad. But I can’t possibly see how it helps anyone or anything to judge someone because they didn’t cry loud enough for your liking. I’ve heard of the thought police. Feeling police is worse, IMHO.

62

Well said, Monstro!

Who is to tell anyone else what they should feel?

I used to be concerned about people who rescued animals in a zoo while human beings were in need of help. You follow your instincts (and feelings) to help that which is in need of help. Your instincts are there for a reason.

I certainly won’t argue that the life on an animal is more valuable than the life of a child. But more likely than not, there will be people who will try their best to rescue the child. Meanwhile, you are fulfilling your obligation (and instinct) to rescue the animal – which also deserves life.

Let it be.

63

But do you really want to argue that either animal did what it did out of moral concerns? Because they reflected it was the right thing to do? And if so, would you think that such reasoning in animals can overcome their natural instincts—i.e. would you believe the hungry lion would abstain from eating you because he could be made to understand that such was wrong? And even if, would you say that that’s typical behavior—that doing so is characteristic of lions, or any other animals?

Because that’s what I believe makes humans moral animals: that they can typically reflect on their actions, and overcome their natural instincts in favor of doing what is morally justified, given by the contract they enter into with one another and with society. And frankly, this ability to enter into contracts—to give informed consent—is not something I think animals are capable of. It’s like agreeing towards performing sexual acts: something I consider (adult, mentally competent i.e. typical) humans to be capable of, but which doesn’t even apply in the case of animals, because the necessary faculties for informed consent aren’t present.

64

No, not all. I don’t think that’s necessary.

I think that’s where I differ: I’m not sure that what we describe as morality in ourselves really relies that much on reflection. People react to stimuli, and those stimuli tend to be related to things that will enable us to pass on our genes. If we run into a burning house to save a baby, we do that because we feel better doing that than not doing that. All the post hoc pondering of actions is just that: pondering, not morality in a way that is particularly different from animals. Perhaps related to the myth of our free will: we just act.

Here is what Professor Rowlands says about that in the article:

[QUOTE=Professor Mark Rowlands]

When humans act morally, what is it we are doing? Traditionally, the philosopher’s answer has been an intellectualist one: acting morally requires the ability to think about what we are doing, to evaluate our reasons in the light of moral principles. But there is another tradition, associated with the philosopher David Hume and developed later by Charles Darwin, that understands morality as a far more basic part of our nature — a part of us that is as much animal as it is intellectual. On this ‘sentimentalist’ account of morality, our natural sentiments — the empathy and sympathy we have for those around us — are basic components of our biological nature. Our morality is rooted in our biology rather than our intellect.

If this is true, then the reasons for thinking that animals cannot act morally dissolve before our eyes.
[/QUOTE]

65

But if that’s all there’s to it, then there can be no question of acting ‘more moral’ towards animals: whatever way we act will be the moral way, because we’re wired to act that way, and morals are just what we’re wired to do. There’s then no further question regarding whether it’s right to, for example, mass-farm chickens: if we do, it is; if we don’t, it’s not. That way, the bottom falls right out of the debate.

I should also say that I didn’t really want to give the impression that I believe moral judgements are based on careful reflection in the sense that they are the result of some actual deliberation over how to act in a given situation (in fact, when asked to come to a moral judgement based on reflecting abstractly about a certain problem, people will often profess preferences at variance with those they show in action, as e.g. in the famous trolley problems). But it’s part and parcel of the capacities that I think are needed in order to generate something I would consider a morality.

What Rowlands is saying sounds a little like those ‘universal moral grammar’ theories: the idea that each of us has an ingrained sense of right and wrong, much as (if we believe Chomsky) we have an ingrained sense of what’s grammatical and ungrammatical; something that is not learned, but a part of our evolutionary makeup. And then, morals are just that: a judgment ultimately as arbitrary as whatever counts as ‘grammatical’. But then, as I said, animal rights activism just falls flat on its face, as there’s no further standard to evaluate whether or not harming animals is wrong other than whether or not we do it.

I think, although the overall narrative is compelling, there’s something left out of the story: morals aren’t just a product of our biological, but also of our cultural and social evolution. They’re not just what happened to be selected environmentally for maximum fitness, but, going beyond that, what made us thrive socially and culturally (or perhaps, what made our societies and cultures thrive). Now there’s probably some backreaction between that and our biological evolution; however, on an evolutionary timescale, we came up with this whole culture thing too short a while ago to make for a major driving force. But the brunt of it works through how we interact socially, how each generation passes down to the next certain sets of values, often not even deliberately, but simply through living a certain way (passing on the appropriate memes, if you want to talk that way). For instance, most of us don’t just go around raping every available female, even though this might be a biologically feasible strategy (which certainly has its adherents in the animal kingdom), and most of us have no desire to; but at least part of this is because in our society, that kind of behavior just isn’t tolerable.

And this is something we can trust on, simply by being part of this mutual contract we call a society; but I don’t see how to extend this to animals. As I said, I can’t trust the hungry lion not eating me, because he lacks the appropriate facilities to enter into the social context which makes this a bad thing; on the contrary, for the lion, the reduction of hunger is a good thing (and that’s just as it should be).

66

Don’t really disagree with you too much there, Half! My only point really would be: in all of that, I would not immediately assume that anything would be different for animals. It might be, but if we are observing the same behaviour in animals it would be a mistake to try too hard to attribute it to anything different than that to which we attribute it in ourselves.

The chimp who tried to save the bird (from the article) also has culture and society. We would really need to tie ourselves in knots to attribute her behaviour to something entirely different.

67

Well, but it’s not a shared (or shareable) culture. I can’t partake of social grooming, the chimp can’t, I don’t know, be my facebook friend. But well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

68

I think for some people, animals are easier to deal with. People are complicated, but animals are simple. Someone obsessed with animals vs people has the reassurances that their companion will not cheat on them, never tell them to put on deodorant and take a shower, and never suggest they be more ambitious in community college. They are divorced from criticism and fulfilling an animals basic needs are simply easier.

Then there’s the cost effectiveness of it. If I adopted an animal, it will take comparatively less effort to ensure it is happy and healthy vs raising a child that will require more care and yet still potentially have issues even being the best of parents. I think owning animals is the lazy route, because you can feel full of yourself for raising a tiny mute thrall operating on mostly instinct vs raising a child with a developing will of its own.

People fret about poor animals being abused but I think human abuse is far worse, and for people to prefer the suffering of innocent humans over animals shows they have less empathy and social skills.

69

Prefer is the wrong word. The needless suffering of innocents is always bad, no matter the species. I happen to relate well with animals, so I see their suffering as equal to - not greater - than that of a human. And as I said above, tragedies that happen to children and animals are harder to take I think (as compared with an adult in the same situation) because kids and animals cannot understand why, or be told when it will end, or that things will be better soon.

70

Hell no, I said Animals, not demons! :stuck_out_tongue:

71

This is not True. Some animals are malicious such as the Grey Wolf that has recently been implanted into the Northwestern US region. There have been countless reports and videos of grey wolves brutally attacking farm cows but leaving them in a maimed alive state in order to preserve the meat for multiple days while the cow lies there in torture and misery. The wolves have also been recognized to strictly target and attack pregnant cows when available and chew through stomach to get the calf but then leave the mother there alive in misery for days. What’s worse is that these wolves were implanted by the Fed Govnmt. and are protected which is aggrevated farm stock slaughter on behalf of the govnmt.
Also, people are cruel or wicked due to nurture, not nature, but some animals are innately and naturally mean or evil.
For instance, there are many alpha male or alpha female dogs that love picking fights with other dogs and would gladly kill any other dogs if given the chance.
How do I know this is true?
Because I’ve known personally some families that love animals and got bad luck in choosing their dog thinking it was going to be sweet and spending 100s of dollars on training to make them sweet but the trainers said, “it’s not possible, you got an alpha. They are how they are.”
I know an alpha male golden doodle with a sweet family that shook a mini poodle till it ripped through its flesh.
So don’t make a statement that isn’t backed up by research about animals being perfectly good and sweet cuz it’s not true.
Some elephants in the wild who don’t like humans would purposely trample you to get rid of you and monkeys that know sign language lie to get their way.
Dogs are the only animal known as a man’s best friend because they have been genetically groomed to take aggression out but not with 100% success as I’ve shown.
So once again fact is people are only nurtured to be mean or evil, but some animals are naturally mean. Also some animals that are mean we’re nurtured that way also.
So there is a similarity in the development of cruel people and animals through nurture and there is a difference between cruel animals and people in light of nature.
In light of this research it is mental, evil, sick, and twisted to prefer animal life to human life.

72

Zombie zombie zombie ei ei
What’s in your head
In your head.

73

I have God kids and while I love them dearly, I love my Dog Einstein more, does this make me a bad person? Not to me and I’m not the type of person who actually cares if people think I am. I do not care what people think of me only that my dogs tail wags, that he loves me and that he’s happy.

I’m not a fan of cats, but it would break my heart if I saw one hurt, but it wouldn’t if it was a person I saw. I’m not saying animals lives are worth more than humans, I’m not but to me they are the same.

If you feel the same about animals, do not feel bad there’s nothing wrong with you.

74

You went through the trouble of putting yourself out in front of us by responding to this old thread just to tell us you don’t care what we think of you? That’s a lot of effort to put into something you don’t care about-wouldn’t it have been far easier not to respond at all, so that we wouldn’t have the ability to think about you one way or the other?
edited to add: Calling yourself “Damaged goods”-not a very good way to show that you don’t care how others think about you, is it?

75

Most kids only think they’re omnipotent and omniscient.

76

Surgeons in the making. :stuck_out_tongue:

77

(bolding mine)Actually, everything you say implies exactly that. You have good kids but you love your dog more, and hurt animals get more of a reaction from you than hurt humans-this shows us that you put animals over humans, without a doubt.

78

Pet owner?

79

Dogs are easier to like than people, because they wag their tails, not their tongues.

(I saw that on a coffee mug)

80

He didn’t say good kids, he said he has god kids. You know, the children of people you’re close to who have chosen you to teach their kids religious instruction if they can’t, and are often called upon to raise those children if their parents died.