The debate "Human being should promote more sympathy over other human beings than other living beings" was started by
October 16, 2018, 3:59 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 18 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Matthew354 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Brynn posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Matthew354, t3sla, wth64828, NitinTher, crispsandchips and 8 visitors agree.
Brynn, tenyiyi and 16 visitors disagree.
It doesn't matter how you reason preserving the environment. People have different motivations. Also I would find the comparison of bacteria and animals fallacious since bacteria don't have nervous systems and cannot suffer and animals do have nervous systems and can suffer.
Perhaps there is a communication error, mostly on my fault. So let me clear things up for you, I support the protection and sustainability of the environment just like you. But here is the difference between us: I don't want to sustain the environment based on sympathy, I want to sustain and preserve it through pragmatism alone. Sympathy (family members, pets, and friends) and pragmatism are things that should be both reserved for other human beings, on the other hand.
I find sympathy of other animals or the environment as ridiculous as feeling sympathy of killing bacteria forming on my hands by washing it down a sink, or feeling bad about being human because I live by consuming life such as plants and animals alike. I sustain and conserve the environment because it's best for me and other human beings because it is pragmatic, not because I have sympathy for it.
Nem you completely missed my point but okay. I was hinting at the fact of how badly fish get over exploited.
except fish is extremely healthy and delicious. omega 3 fatty acids prevent heart disease, the number 1 killer in the united states. medieval peasantry who ate rice or gruel to simply "sustain" themselves is a sad, and unhealthy reality.
although the way treat shellfish in kitchens (live boiling and dismemberment), or the force feeding of foie gra seems utterly unnecessary and horrifying. killing to eat is not inhumane imo, live torture is a completely different story.
I understand you will find my first paragraph revolting, however this wont be an issue for long. soon we will master growing 100% real meat in a petri dish with no nervous system attached... although to the farm animals I feel that will be more apocalypse then liberation. they will not survive in the wild and even those adapt to the wild are quickly facing extinction. they wont make it a single generation with a few exceptions (the ones in zoos)
Say people didn't need to fish to sustain their populations food resource. I'd advocate for the end of fishing because at that point the suffering of the fish is greater than the humans.
I absolutely agree, just like your family members often deserve more sympathy then neighbors, and neighbors deserve more sympathy then strangers. I call it the proximity effect.
however, less sympathy doesnt mean no sympathy.
Please elaborate, perhaps with an example?
To me it depends on the suffering of humans vs the suffering of other animals and how they correlate.