When a bee is stuck flying against the window desperately trying to get free, I help it. When a spider is in some place where I know it will starve to death or get crushed, I put it outside. When an injured bird needs some time to pull itself together and avoid being eaten by the cat, I’ll spend hours babying it.
As a human, I feel empathy for other beings, and I project a conscious sentient being on them. Even though I know that there is no such conscious being, it still gets constructed and empathized with, whether I like it or not. Faced with this, I have a choice:
Act on my feelings of empathy, thereby practicing the habit of doing the right thing, and using a bit of time.
Put on my murder face and ignore the imaginary suffering, thereby practicing moral indifference, to save a bit of time.
From a purely instrumental perspective, I think choosing #1 is a good idea. Practicing morality seems much better than practicing indifference, even if the practice situation is imaginary.
That’s how I like to think about animal suffering.
As a human, I feel empathy for other beings, and I project a conscious sentient being on them
Couldn’t agree more. It’s one of those “subjective objectivity” questions: there probably isn’t any objective definition of animal pain that feels right except for “they are in pain if they look like they are”, using humans::looks_like, of course, but the fact that their pain is not an objective bad thing about the world doesn’t make its existence better or less of a thing to avoid.
By the way, is there anyone else here inclined to also help stuck electric motors and fans? OK, that’s really not pain (you can’t really empathize with them), but still… somehow feels bad to just leave them there. Otherwise they would be… just… sad.
I doubt there’s any objective definition of pain if you simply assume the subject in question isn’t a reliable narrator (they could be a p-zombie, or faking it, or it could be entirely programmed behavior...), so yeah, at some point you have to go with the affect—they look like they’re in pain, they act like they’re in pain, and sure, my judgement of that is biased by my own perspective as a human with certain brainbits that make that call, but they’re making that call and that’s got a direct impact on my own perceptions of the situation.
I often sympathize with machines and objects as well, BTW. >> But I’m like that.
I feel obligated to point out that a lot of help that people give to animals isn’t helpful. It’s even illegal in many places to take in wild animals without a specific license, despite your best intentions. If you’re really worried about them, call the local authorities on the subject. Or donate to a wildlife charity. (are there any GiveWell-esque meta-giving sites for wildlife funds?)
I’ll keep an injured bird warm and away from the cat (it was the cat that injured it), but calling animal control for a terrorized sparrow seems like a waste of everyone’s resources.
Everything I do is illegal in some way or another so I’ve stopped taking that into account.
Donating to a wildlife charity misses the point. It’s not about producing utilons, it’s about maintaining empathy. Putting on my murder face to watch a bird get torn apart by the cat while planning to donate to a charity falls in the second category (from parent) of things I could do, except that it doesn’t even save me time.
If it was a larger animal like a coyote or raccoon, then calling the animal people would make sense, but not for little birds.
I’ll keep an injured bird warm and away from the cat (it was the cat that injured it), but calling animal control for a terrorized sparrow seems like a waste of everyone’s resources.
The bird is probably gong to die anyway. It’s probably better just to kill it.
If it was a larger animal like a coyote or raccoon, then calling the animal people would make sense, but not for little birds.
They’ll probably just euthanize it anyway. But yes, it can make you feel good if you don’t know or think about what’ll end up happening.
The bird seemed happy enough to be safe and recovering, and happy enough to be out again once it was released, but I think it did end up being eaten by the cat once it was back in the real world.
It’s probably better just to kill it.
No! That meme feels terribly wrong to me, tho I have not worked out entirely why. It’s probably a combination of the implication that you should kill someone who is being tortured, even if you had a chance of rescuing them, and the effects on your personality of killing something you have empathy for.
I’ve heard that murder only gets easier. I don’t think I want that.
EDIT:
They’ll probably just euthanize it anyway. But yes, it can make you feel good if you don’t know or think about what’ll end up happening.
Good point. I actually don’t know what I would do for a larger injured animal. Helping it may be better than calling the death-squad. If there were a chance that it could live.
When I received a briefing from an Air Force pilot, he talked about how he “applied kinetic force” to “prosecute the target” rather than “shot missiles” to “kill people”. I immediately noticed how useful that sort of language would be for psychological health when performing such actions.
This was long before the use of “kinetic military action” to describe our little war in Libya.
It’s worth putting an appropriately strong word on death.
An appropriately strong word on the death of an already mauled sparrow? Euthanize is already giving the matter sombre dignity. It’s a step up from ‘squilch’.
The bird is probably gong to die anyway. It’s probably better just to kill it.
Depends on the injury, actually. A broken wing—yeah, that bird’s not gonna last in the wild. A bite from a cat that misses vital organs and doesn’t bleed out, or some scratching? It may well survive that if it can recuperate, clot up, and retain the ability to fly after. Living systems have this weird ability to, y’know, heal from damage inflicted as long as it’s not too severe.
Everything’s going to die eventually. So are all the people you might ever help. Should you just not help because in the long run everything’s doomed to be recycled?
They’ll probably just euthanize it anyway. But yes, it can make you feel good if you don’t know or think about what’ll end up happening.
I take it you’re not a wildlife rehabilitator and don’t know anyone who is? Because that’s not the standard response to injured animals...
I take it you’re not a wildlife rehabilitator and don’t know anyone who is?
If you must know my cynicism was given to me from my veterinarian sister who spends a surprising amount of her time killing wildlife that well intentioned but naive individuals have brought in to her or to wildlife nuts. At times she even has to bite her tongue and not tell them that if they had left the poor creature alone it probably would have lived but now that they caught it it is going to die!
Because that’s not the standard response to injured animals...
Injured animals like sparrows? I beg to differ. (I’m sorry, they don’t get sent ‘to the farm’ or ‘go to sparrow heaven’ either!)
At times she even has to bite her tongue and not tell them that if they had left the poor creature alone it probably would have lived but now that they caught it it is going to die!
Sure. And she’s a veterinarian, not a wildlife rehabilitator (person whose job it is to, oddly enough, rehabilitate injured wildlife for re-release).
Injured animals like sparrows?
In the bit that’s a response to, you were talking about coyotes and raccoons, not sparrows.
No it isn’t. The context is ambiguous. Not that it matters either way since I do maintain a substantial disagreement regarding the most common outcome for larger-than-sparrow-but-still-not-important creatures that token do-gooders try to intervene to rescue.
It would not seem controversial to suggest that neither of us are likely to learn anything from this conversation so I’m going to leave it at that.
I’ve heard it said that animal cruelty should be avoided for what it does to us as the perpetrator more than for what it is actually doing to the animal.
I’ve heard it said that animal cruelty should be avoided for what it does to us as the perpetrator more than for what it is actually doing to the animal.
For instance it gives people around us strong evidence that we may be sociopaths!
When a bee is stuck flying against the window desperately trying to get free, I help it.
When a spider is in some place where I know it will starve to death or get crushed, I put it outside.
When an injured bird needs some time to pull itself together and avoid being eaten by the cat, I’ll spend hours babying it.
As a human, I feel empathy for other beings, and I project a conscious sentient being on them. Even though I know that there is no such conscious being, it still gets constructed and empathized with, whether I like it or not. Faced with this, I have a choice:
Act on my feelings of empathy, thereby practicing the habit of doing the right thing, and using a bit of time.
Put on my murder face and ignore the imaginary suffering, thereby practicing moral indifference, to save a bit of time.
From a purely instrumental perspective, I think choosing #1 is a good idea. Practicing morality seems much better than practicing indifference, even if the practice situation is imaginary.
That’s how I like to think about animal suffering.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s one of those “subjective objectivity” questions: there probably isn’t any objective definition of animal pain that feels right except for “they are in pain if they look like they are”, using humans::looks_like, of course, but the fact that their pain is not an objective bad thing about the world doesn’t make its existence better or less of a thing to avoid.
By the way, is there anyone else here inclined to also help stuck electric motors and fans? OK, that’s really not pain (you can’t really empathize with them), but still… somehow feels bad to just leave them there. Otherwise they would be… just… sad.
I doubt there’s any objective definition of pain if you simply assume the subject in question isn’t a reliable narrator (they could be a p-zombie, or faking it, or it could be entirely programmed behavior...), so yeah, at some point you have to go with the affect—they look like they’re in pain, they act like they’re in pain, and sure, my judgement of that is biased by my own perspective as a human with certain brainbits that make that call, but they’re making that call and that’s got a direct impact on my own perceptions of the situation.
I often sympathize with machines and objects as well, BTW. >> But I’m like that.
I feel obligated to point out that a lot of help that people give to animals isn’t helpful. It’s even illegal in many places to take in wild animals without a specific license, despite your best intentions. If you’re really worried about them, call the local authorities on the subject. Or donate to a wildlife charity. (are there any GiveWell-esque meta-giving sites for wildlife funds?)
I’ll keep an injured bird warm and away from the cat (it was the cat that injured it), but calling animal control for a terrorized sparrow seems like a waste of everyone’s resources.
Everything I do is illegal in some way or another so I’ve stopped taking that into account.
Donating to a wildlife charity misses the point. It’s not about producing utilons, it’s about maintaining empathy. Putting on my murder face to watch a bird get torn apart by the cat while planning to donate to a charity falls in the second category (from parent) of things I could do, except that it doesn’t even save me time.
If it was a larger animal like a coyote or raccoon, then calling the animal people would make sense, but not for little birds.
The bird is probably gong to die anyway. It’s probably better just to kill it.
They’ll probably just euthanize it anyway. But yes, it can make you feel good if you don’t know or think about what’ll end up happening.
The bird seemed happy enough to be safe and recovering, and happy enough to be out again once it was released, but I think it did end up being eaten by the cat once it was back in the real world.
No! That meme feels terribly wrong to me, tho I have not worked out entirely why. It’s probably a combination of the implication that you should kill someone who is being tortured, even if you had a chance of rescuing them, and the effects on your personality of killing something you have empathy for.
I’ve heard that murder only gets easier. I don’t think I want that.
EDIT:
Good point. I actually don’t know what I would do for a larger injured animal. Helping it may be better than calling the death-squad. If there were a chance that it could live.
“Euthanize” sounds slightly better.
I agree let’s euphemise them.
It’s worth putting an appropriately strong word on death.
When I received a briefing from an Air Force pilot, he talked about how he “applied kinetic force” to “prosecute the target” rather than “shot missiles” to “kill people”. I immediately noticed how useful that sort of language would be for psychological health when performing such actions.
This was long before the use of “kinetic military action” to describe our little war in Libya.
An appropriately strong word on the death of an already mauled sparrow? Euthanize is already giving the matter sombre dignity. It’s a step up from ‘squilch’.
To clarify, it was not mauled. It was missing feathers, and had some cuts, but no bones broken or mortal wounds.
Depends on the injury, actually. A broken wing—yeah, that bird’s not gonna last in the wild. A bite from a cat that misses vital organs and doesn’t bleed out, or some scratching? It may well survive that if it can recuperate, clot up, and retain the ability to fly after. Living systems have this weird ability to, y’know, heal from damage inflicted as long as it’s not too severe.
Everything’s going to die eventually. So are all the people you might ever help. Should you just not help because in the long run everything’s doomed to be recycled?
I take it you’re not a wildlife rehabilitator and don’t know anyone who is? Because that’s not the standard response to injured animals...
If you must know my cynicism was given to me from my veterinarian sister who spends a surprising amount of her time killing wildlife that well intentioned but naive individuals have brought in to her or to wildlife nuts. At times she even has to bite her tongue and not tell them that if they had left the poor creature alone it probably would have lived but now that they caught it it is going to die!
Injured animals like sparrows? I beg to differ. (I’m sorry, they don’t get sent ‘to the farm’ or ‘go to sparrow heaven’ either!)
Sure. And she’s a veterinarian, not a wildlife rehabilitator (person whose job it is to, oddly enough, rehabilitate injured wildlife for re-release).
In the bit that’s a response to, you were talking about coyotes and raccoons, not sparrows.
Not actually true.
Someone said:
You said:
I said:
So yes, actually true.
No it isn’t. The context is ambiguous. Not that it matters either way since I do maintain a substantial disagreement regarding the most common outcome for larger-than-sparrow-but-still-not-important creatures that token do-gooders try to intervene to rescue.
It would not seem controversial to suggest that neither of us are likely to learn anything from this conversation so I’m going to leave it at that.
I’ve heard it said that animal cruelty should be avoided for what it does to us as the perpetrator more than for what it is actually doing to the animal.
For instance it gives people around us strong evidence that we may be sociopaths!