What's worst: Animal- or human cruelty?

[SmileyMan]

I personally think animal cruelty is worst. I just can't stand seeing an animal being abused in one way or another, it really hurts deep inside and makes me want to torture the person who did it to death. Cruelty against humans (Above 14-15 years of age) is entirely the opposite. I feel absolutely nothing when I see a human suffering.

What about you?

[DeadSpace]

Cruelty in any form against any living creature raises my ire.
I personally think animal cruelty is worst. I just can't stand seeing an animal being abused in one way or another, it really hurts deep inside and makes me want to torture the person who did it to death. Cruelty against humans is entirely the opposite. I feel absolutely nothing when I see a human suffering.

What about you?

So...seeing a child being beaten you would feel nothing? Or a woman being slapped around? a man being dragged through the streets?

[SmileyMan]

Cruelty in any form against any living creature raises my ire.


So...seeing a child being beaten you would feel nothing? Or a woman being slapped around? a man being dragged through the streets?

Of course I'd feel something if it was a child, because there's a connection between a child and an animal; they're both helpless. A woman/man being slapped around disgusts me, but I do not feel empathy, same goes for the man being dragged through the streets.

[Nausved]

Intellectually, I see them no differently. Suffering is suffering, regardless of who experiences it.

That being said, I am dramatically less approving of the suffering of those with little means of defending themselves. The suffering of a child is much more abhorrent to me than the suffering of an adult. The same goes for animals, where I am particularly disapproving of harm to relatively defenseless animals—especially where that harm is without necessity.

I can't vote in this poll because humans and animals occur on the same scale for me, where the suffering of some animals is worse than the suffering of some people and vice versa.

[Jgib5328]

Humans have a much > mind than animals. They will understand their pain and suffering. They just won't be physically tortured, but mentally also. Humans have a mind to understand their pain, animals don't.

[DeadSpace]

Of course I'd feel something if it was a child, because there's a connection between a child and an animal; they're both helpless. A woman/man being slapped around disgusts me, but I do not feel empathy, same goes for the man being dragged through the streets.

I was just attempting to clarify, you said humans with no distinctions.

[SmileyMan]

I was just attempting to clarify, you said humans with no distinctions.

Yeah, sorry for that. Just edited my post.

[errrzarrr]

they both are horrible. In both cases there is a unrational, wild, abusive cruel humanbeing being mean with another being. Is just that a human being cruel with another human is worst for me. So I voted Human.

[Circe]

Both are abhorrent- particularly attacks on the defenseless- children, animals, mentally ill. . .

Things like this are just sick.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[lordrrr]

I'm not answering this becuase I think all creatures should never ever be treated cruelly.

[Nausved]

Humans have a much > mind than animals. They will understand their pain and suffering. They just won't be physically tortured, but mentally also. Humans have a mind to understand their pain, animals don't.

Do you think it is better to hurt a baby (since they cannot understand or rationalize their pain) than an adult?

[Victoria Silver]

Do you think it is better to hurt a baby (since they cannot understand or rationalize their pain) than an adult?


That's a very good question, and makes me think hard about why certain forms of cruelty are worse than others.

The critical factor, I think, it not the victim's ability to understand or rationalize, but its ability to suffer. All normal human beings have a profound ability to suffer, so cruelty to them is always very evil. In a similar way, it is clear to me that cruelty to a mammal is much more evil than cruelty to an insect (if such a thing is even possible.)

As I say, this is the critical factor, but it is not the only factor. Given than a normal human infant and a normal human adult have about the same ability to suffer (and the adult may actually have a bit more, given its greater intellectual capacity), why does it seem more evil to be cruel to an infant? The helplessness factor explains this, I think. This would also explain why it seems more evil to be cruel to someone with a disability, or someone physically weaker or very elderly, and so on. Even if all such persons can suffer to the same extent, at least a healthy, strong, young adult has some chance to fight back if necessary.

[Jgib5328]

Do you think it is better to hurt a baby (since they cannot understand or rationalize their pain) than an adult?

You can think of it on two levels. It could be either more humane to kill the baby or more humane to kill the adult. A baby is pretty much like an animal, it can't really comprehend it's pain or much of anything, it doesn't really matter whether it suffers or not since it doesn't have a developed mind, plus an adult is much more valuable to society than the baby is at the current moment, the baby could potentially become valuable though.

On the other side, the baby is innocent and helpless and it's be pretty bad to kill something that was defenseless.

I'd kill the baby though.

[TheLastMohican]

I personally think animal cruelty is worst. I just can't stand seeing an animal being abused in one way or another, it really hurts deep inside and makes me want to torture the person who did it to death. Cruelty against humans (Above 14-15 years of age) is entirely the opposite. I feel absolutely nothing when I see a human suffering.

What about you?

I think this question is more loaded than Ahmadinejad's nuclear warhead arsenal. If you touch it, it will blow up in your face.

I find any kind of cruelty abhorrent. (I consider cruelty to be an unjust act of torment. Therefore what counts as cruelty depends on who the "victim" is, and the purpose of the act that might be considered cruel.)

I am surprised that a person would feel absolutely no emotion when observing cruelty against humans. I tend to feel anger about such occurrences, and I consider that to be a "logical emotion" that is valid for basing certain decisions upon. It is based in a rational and instinctual understanding of human rights and moral acceptibility.

[ethsar46]

I find that seeing an animal hurt effects me more, ie something on a tv shows that then i change the channel cos i just cant watch it. Human doesnt effect me that badly, but its not as if i dont feel anything.

[outrider]

Humans have a much > mind than animals. They will understand their pain and suffering. They just won't be physically tortured, but mentally also. Humans have a mind to understand their pain, animals don't.

Well, turn this around: animals, as well as young children, older people with dementia, and some retarded or mentally ill people, don't understand pain and discomfort, even when it's "for their own good" (e.g., medical procedures). So I personally think it's inhumane to use physical restraint vs. sedation, anesthesia, pre-operative pain control when performing procedures on animals (I am a veterinarian). And though I know it's sometimes done, I can't imagine causing unnecessary pain to a human who doesn't understand.

I can tell you that surprisingly, some animals do seem to understand pain when you're trying to help. Not all, but some.

Though I think torture, pain and suffering are horrible in any species, I do find it easier to have 100% sympathy for animals - no matter if they are dangerous or unpleasant - than for adult people with their wits about them. Animals are innocent and can't help their circumstances; this is also true for helpless humans.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

The reason we feel more horrified by animal cruelty (and young children) is because these creatures are usually helpless and unable to defend themselves. This seems especially heinous to most adult humans.

[sriv]

I do not care about how much they are helpless or unable to defend themselves. If there is cruelty without reason, then it is equally wrong. I feel disappointment more than anger in these circumstances. Disappointment with the human race if it is a human being cruel.

However, I will lessen my view of cruelty if it is justified. If a person that killed 5 other people purposely was killed, then it is justified. If an animal killed your father and then ran off to eat a deer, then killing it would be justifiable. Torture is almost never justifiable, threats are easier to justify.

[Bluestocking]

It depends on why the human is suffering. An animal or a small child is innocent and helpless and should never be hurt for the fun of it. It's evil to inflict pain unless you're trying to save yourself or help the poor thing. I'd feel the same way about most other human beings, unless of course they have done something to deserve it. I don't enjoy physical violence.

[Jgib5328]

It depends on why the human is suffering. An animal or a small child is innocent and helpless and should never be hurt for the fun of it. It's evil to inflict pain unless you're trying to save yourself or help the poor thing. I'd feel the same way about most other human beings, unless of course they have done something to deserve it. I don't enjoy physical violence.

What if the adult human being was completely innocent and his/her suffering was unwarranted? Wouldn't it be worse for them to suffer since they have a much higher understanding of suffering? An animal lacks the capacity to understand. It doesn't recognize the significance of its own life, it doesn't understand why it should be upset, or why it should want to live. Animals walk around with little or no consciousness, while being led by their instincts. They don't comprehend the surrounding world, all that matters is their own survival and maybe a few base pleasures, depending on how well developed the animal is. If a bug suffered, would it matter? The bug doesn't have the ability to comprehend it's suffering, all it knows is that it feels pain and should try to prevent it.

[Darkmist]

Since I am not in any animal's mind except the human animal and that is restricted to my limited experience, I can't say how much or how little an animal feels. But humans have this huge network of help one another that other animals do not possess, therefore I sympathize with the animals more than the people.

If a dog bites someone, it is often put to death. (a rather severe punishment I'd say, compared to human punishments. Anyway . . .) If a child bites someone, it is scolded and that's that. Unfair. I cry foul.

(and yes I know that humans protect fellow humans and that this is why the species survived argument, which there are holes in, but I'm not going there because it's off topic.)

[sriv]

Since I am not in any animal's mind except the human animal and that is restricted to my limited experience, I can't say how much or how little an animal feels. But humans have this huge network of help one another that other animals do not possess, therefore I sympathize with the animals more than the people.

If a dog bites someone, it is often put to death. (a rather severe punishment I'd say, compared to human punishments. Anyway . . .) If a child bites someone, it is scolded and that's that. Unfair. I cry foul.

(and yes I know that humans protect fellow humans and that this is why the species survived argument, which there are holes in, but I'm not going there because it's off topic.)

If the dog bites someone, it will bite someone else. A child learns not to bite someone through memory rather than animal habituation.

Anyway, this is about comparing human cruelty to animal cruelty. Let us apply in equal terms. The question you should be answering is would you feel worse if the dog was put to death or if the child was put to death from the same sin?

[vkut79]

I personally think animal cruelty is worst. I just can't stand seeing an animal being abused in one way or another, it really hurts deep inside and makes me want to torture the person who did it to death. Cruelty against humans (Above 14-15 years of age) is entirely the opposite. I feel absolutely nothing when I see a human suffering.

What about you?

Naturally you ought to feel more discomfort at the sight of human suffering than that of animal suffering, because humans are of our own species and you so you should be able to sympathize with them more easily, to feel their apparent suffering as your own. I strongly believe that this is what nature intended, but it may play out differently in modern life.

How much cruelty against humans have you seen, in real life, in front of your very eyes? Human suffering on television is very different. I would not be surprised if the sight of human suffering on television did not evoke a great deal of your sympathy, because this phenomenon is seen so commonly on television and in movies that people become desensitized to it from an early age. Animal cruelty is portrayed less often on television (its not very dramatic) and also is seen less often in real life (less animals than people by far). So quite possibly your reaction to animal suffering might be more heightened due to lack of exposure, but this is just a hypothesis.

To really answer that question you need to be way more specific. What kind of suffering? What circumstances - real life, television, etc.? Have you seen this suffering before? How much have you seen it? What is your relationship to the sufferer? What is your mood at the time? Etc.

[Jack]

Whats worse?...Deliberately chopping down a tree, or deliberately gutting a fish?

..Now I'll just sit and wait!

[Victoria Silver]

Whats worse?...Deliberately chopping down a tree, or deliberately gutting a fish?

..Now I'll just sit and wait!


Assuming your action does not cause either harm or benefit to any feeling being (chopping down your neighbor's tree, for example), I would say that chopping down a tree is ethically neutral. Given the same lack of "outside" harm or benefit (gutting a fish with no intention of feeding it to anyone, for example) I would say that killing an animal is ethically wrong. (Whether the potential benefits to others of the animal's death, which we have assumed here are absent, justify its killing is a matter for debate.)

(I'm assuming that by "gutting" you mean killing, and not just cleaning a fish which is already dead, which would be ethically neutral.)

[sriv]

I would only chop down a tree if I use it to the maximum benefit and if I plant one or two more. Gutting a fish is sort of vague.

[Nausved]

If the dog bites someone, it will bite someone else. A child learns not to bite someone through memory rather than animal habituation.

Actually, dogs learn through memory, too. We usually call it "training"—unless we're specifically referring to children, in which case we call it "discipline".

[sriv]

Animals have a lesser memory function for sure. You can only gaurentee that they have learned if it is through habituation. Habituation is the process of giving repeated rewards if they do the right thing and repeated severe discipline if they do the wrong thing. Children learn a lot faster than dogs.

[Jack]

They have a lesser memory function. You can only gaurentee that they have learned if it is through habituation. Habituation is the process of giving repeated rewards if they do the right thing and repeated severe discipline if they do the wrong thing.

In your mind, what does "severe discipline" mean to you?...just wondering...

A lesser memory function?..Explain!

[Ace1337]

I think I'd be embarrassed if I asked such a question, not to mention if I voted animals on this. The problem with you people is that you never experienced real human suffering. I call that PETA syndrome, prioritizing animals before humans. I've been through a war(the war in Bosnia), at a very young age, but that doesn't change the fact that I've seen dead people covered in their own blood, and to say that animal suffering is worse than human, and that human suffering doesn't cause any emotions in you. What the hell? I think you people need therapy.
I look at it this way. A man slaughters a calf to eat it. Another man slaughters a man to eat him. Which is worse? Here's another one. A shark bites of a seal's fin, and a shark bites of a girl's leg while she was surfing. Which is worse? If you feel more sorry for the seal and the calf, then you've got some serious problems.

[Jack]

Assuming your action does not cause either harm or benefit to any feeling being (chopping down your neighbor's tree, for example), I would say that chopping down a tree is ethically neutral. Given the same lack of "outside" harm or benefit (gutting a fish with no intention of feeding it to anyone, for example) I would say that killing an animal is ethically wrong. (Whether the potential benefits to others of the animal's death, which we have assumed here are absent, justify its killing is a matter for debate.)

(I'm assuming that by "gutting" you mean killing, and not just cleaning a fish which is already dead, which would be ethically neutral.)

Yes.

But, morality becomes a "fugue" like state when your gutting a fish(do it while they are alive if you need an a visual understanding that they possibly could feel pain, not that I have tried.)or deliberately chopping down a tree for the satisfaction/or relief of knowing pain possibly doesn't exist to them, through speculations and assumptions of course...but that concept remains oblivious to most.

I have been conditioned to understand that harming a human being deliberately at any rate is wrong, as well as harming any animal, or any other living entity with life sustaining abilities/purposes..It's the remorse that kicks your ass in the end.

So I say neither on the poll.

[TheLastMohican]

Whats worse?...Deliberately chopping down a tree, or deliberately gutting a fish?

..Now I'll just sit and wait!

Chopping down the tree, of course. Every tree is a miniature ecosystem, and you would ruthlessly destroy all the animals that depend on it? :laugh:

[Sylvanus]

The Bible prevents animal cruelty, similarly it also prevents 'cursing a deaf man'. Not because it causes harm to the 'victim', but because it causes harm to the aggressor. It causes you to become callous. I voted it's worse to be cruel to a human for this reason. Killing an animal for no reason is a waste, but I have no pity for the animal. It feels pain, and responds to it by instinct alone, not by any real thought process.

[Antares]

The Bible prevents animal cruelty, similarly it also prevents 'cursing a deaf man'. Not because it causes harm to the 'victim', but because it causes harm to the aggressor. It causes you to become callous. I voted it's worse to be cruel to a human for this reason. Killing an animal for no reason is a waste, but I have no pity for the animal. It feels pain, and responds to it by instinct alone, not by any real thought process.

Don't they suffer all the same? We're talking about whether they suffer, not whether they think to themselves: "Ouch that hurts. I'm officially suffering." When you're being tortured, I'm betting that the most natural reaction would be to run away? Isn't that an instinct? What's wrong with instincts, if they're all the animal has? Besides, how would you know that the animal doesn't suffer as much as humans? Are you an animal? Can you completely put yourself in their shoes? Do you know that my dog displays as much emotions as a young child? And that he would look at you with a pained expression if you're physically punishing him? Whether they know it or not, if they can feel suffering, then it's abominable. I would vote neutral, but there isn't such a choice.

Whether it causes harm to the aggressor is a matter of subjective interpretation. I might ask: What's the harm of being callous? All it means is 'hardened'. Is it good to be soft and sensitive? We can't all agree.

Also, food for thought: Can it be that many of us vote humans because we're, in fact, humans? Not trying to commit ad hominem, but I think it would be reasonable for sea turtles to vote that it would be more immoral to torture turtles than all other animals, hypothetically, if they could to that.

[Jgib5328]

Don't they suffer all the same? We're talking about whether they suffer, not whether they think to themselves: "Ouch that hurts. I'm officially suffering." When you're being tortured, I'm betting that the most natural reaction would be to run away? Isn't that an instinct? What's wrong with instincts, if they're all the animal has? Besides, how would you know that the animal doesn't suffer as much as humans? Are you an animal? Can you completely put yourself in their shoes? Do you know that my dog displays as much emotions as a young child? And that he would look at you with a pained expression if you're physically punishing him? Whether they know it or not, if they can feel suffering, then it's abominable. I would vote neutral, but there isn't such a choice.

Whether it causes harm to the aggressor is a matter of subjective interpretation. I might ask: What's the harm of being callous? All it means is 'hardened'. Is it good to be soft and sensitive? We can't all agree.

Also, food for thought: Can it be that many of us vote humans because we're, in fact, humans? Not trying to commit ad hominem, but I think it would be reasonable for sea turtles to vote that it would be more immoral to torture turtles than all other animals, hypothetically, if they could to that.

Humans have a higher state of consciousness, they understand a lot more than lower animals do, ergo they understand their pain and suffering more, thus the human's suffering is worse than the animals. You can't argue that animals have the same degree of mental functions as we do. Some of the higher animals understand more, but it is still much less than a human's understanding.

[Sylvanus]

Don't they suffer all the same? We're talking about whether they suffer, not whether they think to themselves: "Ouch that hurts. I'm officially suffering." When you're being tortured, I'm betting that the most natural reaction would be to run away? Isn't that an instinct? What's wrong with instincts, if they're all the animal has? Besides, how would you know that the animal doesn't suffer as much as humans? Are you an animal? Can you completely put yourself in their shoes? Do you know that my dog displays as much emotions as a young child? And that he would look at you with a pained expression if you're physically punishing him? Whether they know it or not, if they can feel suffering, then it's abominable. I would vote neutral, but there isn't such a choice.

In the book Dune, Paul is put to a test to determine if he was animal or human. The premise is that if an animal is caught in a trap, they would chew off their leg and run off. A human would lie in wait for the trapper, and kill the trapper when he came for his bag. The human will willingly suffer in expectation for a worthy payoff. In all fairness, man is more than just a "smart animal". We are conscious beings, aware of ourselves, capable of advanced thought, and made in God's image. The value of any animal's life pales in comparison to the value of even the most base of humans. I still say it is wrong to torture that animal, just not as wrong as it would be to a human.



Whether it causes harm to the aggressor is a matter of subjective interpretation. I might ask: What's the harm of being callous? All it means is 'hardened'. Is it good to be soft and sensitive? We can't all agree.

I suppose that part is a value judgement. Not everyone is concerned with living a life for God, and so a person who does not shoudln't concern themselves.



Also, food for thought: Can it be that many of us vote humans because we're, in fact, humans? Not trying to commit ad hominem, but I think it would be reasonable for sea turtles to vote that it would be more immoral to torture turtles than all other animals, hypothetically, if they could to that.

Sure a turtle would think that, if they were as aware of themselves as we are of ourselves.

[E148]

Where does the Bible say anything about not harming an animal? The 10 Commandments address how we treat God and humans. Unless you are talking about using a sharp knife to kill an animal in an animal sacrifice, so that the sacrifice feels no or less pain?

Those who chose animals over humans remind me of the following scenario. They are the ones who when given a choice between saving their dog or a neighbor in a flood, choose their dog.

I have said this before so I hope I am not boring you. PETA should not be allowed to exist, or at least, no one listen to them.

[zibber]

What has really started to bug the bejesus out of me, no matter how much understanding I have for it, is this anthropocentric distinction everyone makes between "human" and "animal". It's possibly even worse with "primate", a subgroup that does actually include our race. We are literally as much an animal and primate species as the rest, the only difference being that we were the first to develop certain qualities that allowed us to automatically establish an almost all-encompassing rule over this planet, thus securing our unique position.

I can't even begin to address the religions reasons for the distinction, as they are almost incommensurably removed from my own (current) line of thought.. I respect everyone's beliefs, but I'm puzzled by the way some people seemingly choose to ignore the obvious history of our genetic development. Sure, there are some minor gaps, but that doesn't discount the big picture.

To the question: "do you pick your own species over the others?" I answer: "it depends." Must I abstract from reality and ignore the context-sensitivity of most of my choices? Chances are that I would choose to save my dog over an unknown human. What am I now, a heartless demon? (Although I'm ethically admittedly not 100% on this,) I have no immediate responsibility for every random individual's safety. It's my danged dog. I think it's more than logical to feel most related to those in my camp.

As for the industries that fully objectify nonhuman animals and use them as means, I have no respect for them or any of the people involved in them on the highest level. Commercialization and the unrelenting drive for economic growth have taken the beautiful concept of personally domesticating a handful of (farm) animals for sustenance and made it into a huge, abstract, depersonalised, industrial affair that makes me cringe just thinking about it.

[outrider]

Humans have a higher state of consciousness, they understand a lot more than lower animals do, ergo they understand their pain and suffering more, thus the human's suffering is worse than the animals. You can't argue that animals have the same degree of mental functions as we do. Some of the higher animals understand more, but it is still much less than a human's understanding.

Animals live in the present. They don't dread the future and they don't dwell on the past. But they surely suffer physically and mentally when their current reality is unbearable, have little capacity to understand that unpleasantness may be temporary, and certainly give up more quickly than adult humans, many of whom decide to endure in hopes of surviving until conditions improve (think: POWs, famine, catastrophic illness or injury, etc.).

As a veterinarian, when I'm discussing with an owner whether to subject an animal to an unpleasant procedure with an extended recovery period, that animal's individual capacity to cope with suffering without giving up and deciding to die is always part of the equation.

So for animals and humans with limited capacity to understand that suffering is usually finite, pain may be worse in the moment and be more likely to cause life-threatening despair. For humans with the ability to experience fear and dread, mental anguish may worsen physical suffering, though this may be ameliorated by the capacity to hope.

[Jgib5328]

Animals live in the present. They don't dread the future and they don't dwell on the past. But they surely suffer physically and mentally when their current reality is unbearable, have little capacity to understand that unpleasantness may be temporary, and certainly give up more quickly than adult humans, many of whom decide to endure in hopes of surviving until conditions improve (think: POWs, famine, catastrophic illness or injury, etc.).

As a veterinarian, when I'm discussing with an owner whether to subject an animal to an unpleasant procedure with an extended recovery period, that animal's individual capacity to cope with suffering without giving up and deciding to die is always part of the equation.

So for animals and humans with limited capacity to understand that suffering is usually finite, pain may be worse in the moment and be more likely to cause life-threatening despair. For humans with the ability to experience fear and dread, mental anguish may worsen physical suffering, though this may be ameliorated by the capacity to hope.

Still the human will be forever scarred by the suffering. Think about it like this, say a woman was brutally beaten and raped. She'd forever be permanantly scarred and would suffer the rest of her life, constantly burdened by the thoughts of the horrid atrocity. An animal, like you said lives in the present. It may still carry on later in life, like the beaten dog who is afraid when someone raises their hand, but they won't think deeply about it, they won't understand the pain. That's why I think human cruelty is worse.

[Triple E]

I personally think animal cruelty is worst. I just can't stand seeing an animal being abused in one way or another, it really hurts deep inside and makes me want to torture the person who did it to death. Cruelty against humans (Above 14-15 years of age) is entirely the opposite. I feel absolutely nothing when I see a human suffering.

What about you?

Human cruelty by far - IF, the human is innocent.

You feel absolutely nothing when you see a crying mother after her innocent child has been murdered?

[futureperfect5]

I didn't vote ... one of the best books that I ever had in high school was in intermediate spanish. The title of the book alone taught me volumes about life, society, culture. It was called: Perspectivas

Which is worse, in my view, depends on the perspective you have -- are you an animal or a human?

Personally, I am concerned about both ... humans and animals: it does seem as though humans could do a bit better. Some humans claim that their actioins are normal for the animal kingdom and seems to justify their right to behave most savagely, whenever it is to their advantage.

I have never been the "talk to the animals" sort ... Yet, I cannot imagine that animals worry much over how humans treat each other. Still, for humans who domesticate animals for their use ---which bothers me a little, I have heard and read stories about animals becoming defensive on behalf of children and their keepers.

[outrider]

Still the human will be forever scarred by the suffering. Think about it like this, say a woman was brutally beaten and raped. She'd forever be permanantly scarred and would suffer the rest of her life, constantly burdened by the thoughts of the horrid atrocity.

I certainly think it improbable that a person would survive such an experience unchanged. Whether a person is "permanently scarred", "would suffer the rest of her life" and/or be "constantly burdened by the thoughts of the horrid atrocity", however, would depend both upon the individual and other factors such as access to counseling, family support, etc. Some people are better at making the decision to survive and go on with life than others.

An animal, like you said lives in the present. It may still carry on later in life, like the beaten dog who is afraid when someone raises their hand, but they won't think deeply about it, they won't understand the pain. That's why I think human cruelty is worse.

So, if your criteria is the ability to think deeply about past trauma, is it worse for a baby to be raped and beaten by a caregiver, or an adult chimpanzee? The baby surely won't remember, and the chimpanzee certainly will.

(By the way, I didn't vote in the poll, because I think the question is deceptively oversimplified.)





outrider added to this post, 6 minutes and 43 seconds later...

I have never been the "talk to the animals" sort ... Yet, I cannot imagine that animals worry much over how humans treat each other.

There was an actual university research project done a few years ago in which graduate students followed horses around 24/7 and kept logs in hopes of discovering what horses enjoy doing. The answer: horses like to walk around and eat, and really enjoy engaging in both activities simultaneously. And they like to do this with a few of their friends.

So I agree with you, overall. It is surprisingly common, however, for animals to display stress behavior when they reside in households where there is violence or conflict, even if it is not directed at the animal. But I don't think they're concerned about world peace or genocide.

[Jgib5328]

I certainly think it improbable that a person would survive such an experience unchanged. Whether a person is "permanently scarred", "would suffer the rest of her life" and/or be "constantly burdened by the thoughts of the horrid atrocity", however, would depend both upon the individual and other factors such as access to counseling, family support, etc. Some people are better at making the decision to survive and go on with life than others.



So, if your criteria is the ability to think deeply about past trauma, is it worse for a baby to be raped and beaten by a caregiver, or an adult chimpanzee? The baby surely won't remember, and the chimpanzee certainly will.

(By the way, I didn't vote in the poll, because I think the question is deceptively oversimplified.)





outrider added to this post, 6 minutes and 43 seconds later...



There was an actual university research project done a few years ago in which graduate students followed horses around 24/7 and kept logs in hopes of discovering what horses enjoy doing. The answer: horses like to walk around and eat, and really enjoy engaging in both activities simultaneously. And they like to do this with a few of their friends.

So I agree with you, overall. It is surprisingly common, however, for animals to display stress behavior when they reside in households where there is violence or conflict, even if it is not directed at the animal. But I don't think they're concerned about world peace or genocide.


Even if that person were to overcome a traumatic event, there still would be scarring, and he/she would still remember it.

I would think it was worse for the baby to be raped and beaten, because I value human life much more than a lower animal's life. It's just another element to the issue. I mean if I was completely objective and thought that a human life = an animal life, then I'd say the chimpanzee, but humans are more important.

[Antares]

In all fairness, man is more than just a "smart animal". We are conscious beings, aware of ourselves, capable of advanced thought, and made in God's image.

I don't believe in the last one, so I'm not addressing it. We are conscious beings; are dolphins conscious beings too? Are dolphins aware of themselves? And capable of advanced thought? We don't know, but some things seem to suggest that.

At Marine Studio Oceanarium, Bimbo, an 18 foot pilot whale stopped eating and became aggressive to smaller dolphins in the tank. The trainers, after a long issue, decided that maybe his ego needed bolstering. So they proceeded to drain the tank to the three-foot level. Bimbo, now stranded, began to whistle piteously. Soon all the dolphins gathered around and comforted him with conversation which consisted of whistles, chirps and the usual dolphinese sounds. When the tank was again refilled, Bimbo's manners improved immediately.

So you mentioned intelligence. Should that be a factor? Intelligence is what sets us apart from other animals, but a person who is less intelligent is treated the same as, say, Einstein. Is that a fair judge?

]Dolphins ha.ve a higher neo-cortical-limbic ratio than even healthy, intelligent humans....Dolphins have more convolution than even healthy, intelligent humans...

Collectively, these findings provide definitive evidence that the two dolphins in this study used the mirror (and other reflective surfaces) to investigate parts of their bodies that were marked. These findings, therefore, offer the first convincing evidence that a nonprimate species, the bottlenose dolphin, is capable of MSR.


So the above criteria fits dolphins as well. The question is now should we extend that to all animals, or just the animals that fit your criteria?

Still the human will be forever scarred by the suffering.

And dolphins won't? Dolphin is an animal too, and they don't stay with you after you've abused them. Even the solitary dolphins leave.

[Jgib5328]

I don't believe in the last one, so I'm not addressing it. We are conscious beings; are dolphins conscious beings too? Are dolphins aware of themselves? And capable of advanced thought? We don't know, but some things seem to suggest that.



So you mentioned intelligence. Should that be a factor? Intelligence is what sets us apart from other animals, but a person who is less intelligent is treated the same as, say, Einstein. Is that a fair judge?



So the above criteria fits dolphins as well. The question is now should we extend that to all animals, or just the animals that fit your criteria?



And dolphins won't? Dolphin is an animal too, and they don't stay with you after you've abused them. Even the solitary dolphins leave.

Yes a dolphin is a very advanced animal, but it still less advanced than a human. A human has a deeper conscious than a dolphin and thus will have deeper suffering. The suffering of a dolphin is most likely > the majority of animals though.

[outrider]

Even if that person were to overcome a traumatic event, there still would be scarring, and he/she would still remember it.

Uh, I do think I mentioned that it is unlikely one would survive a traumatic event unchanged. But "scarring" is a loaded word; it implies changes that I do not think would be present in all survivors.

I would think it was worse for the baby to be raped and beaten, because I value human life much more than a lower animal's life. It's just another element to the issue. I mean if I was completely objective and thought that a human life = an animal life, then I'd say the chimpanzee, but humans are more important.

This is your opinion. Fair enough.

FWIW, I read a book a few months ago (the name of which escapes me, unfortunately, as I borrowed it from the library) written by an expert in childhood trauma. Apparently, even infants and toddlers can experience behavioral sequellae as a result of early trauma. If one were to extrapolate, this has interesting implications for animals experiencing trauma, since the developing mind of an infant functions on a level lower than that of many animals.

Just stirring the pot... this is not a simple question when one removes one's personal values and beliefs from the equation.

[Antares]

Yes a dolphin is a very advanced animal, but it still less advanced than a human. A human has a deeper conscious than a dolphin and thus will have deeper suffering. The suffering of a dolphin is most likely > the majority of animals though.

There's no proof of that though. It's one of the questions that we're still trying to answer.

[Darkmist]

Animals suffer lasting trauma. The abused and rescued dog or cat comes to mind. They show scars in their altered behavioural attitudes, often for life, though they can become less so over time with 'treatment' in the form of human kindness.

I also believe in the 'we are all animals' scenario. Differing intelligences perhaps, yet people have differing intelligence levels. I mean F'n G, there are some people I've known who a pig would throw out of the mud.

What gets me is the humans stick with humans mentality, when for our survival as a species we have often relied upon animals and not always for food. (companionship, speed, guardianship etc, abilities we lack or have evolutionary shoved to the wayside)

That horse rider who tamed the horse to get him across the desert was smart yes, but he may not have survived without the horse that lived there to begin with. (arabians among other desert horses, as one example)

We need the animals as much as they need us and we need the trees and all other wildlife too. Sure we can live off cloned things. But what would we have been had there never been any animals or vegetation to begin with? Not alive now, likely.

I'd save the dog because ten thousand others will rush to that kid. That's not PETA, that's survival of my species.

[Dreamer]

I would gladly throw a puppy down a football field simply to see the reaction of bystanders.

I like steak and I am proud of it.

[sriv]

Human species survival is a programmed purpose of life. Humans connect with other humans and if you connect with the dog better, than you are a dog. I call it species allegiance. Would the dog feel more for the human or the dog? Oh wait, it cannot feel empathy.

[Uberfuhrer]

Animals. A dog has never treated me like crap, but a great number of people have.

[suzyk]

Both are equally as bad. The food chain has made it obvious that humans are superior to animals, but mistreatment to all living things is wrong. I try to be as unbiased as I can.

[sriv]

Animals. A dog has never treated me like crap, but a great number of people have.

Humans selectively breeded dogs into mild-mannered animals. They used to be wolves. You do not want to "treated" by a wolf.

[Mistress Corvidae]

I think animal cruelty is by far the worst bacause they do not have any idea of what is coming and therefore cannot make any sort of escape or protest. Sometimes I just could care less what happens to people because most of them are assholes that are just raping the earth and everything on it, not giving two s*!ts about the legacy they are leaving to future generations.

[azelismia]

Humans have a much > mind than animals. They will understand their pain and suffering. They just won't be physically tortured, but mentally also. Humans have a mind to understand their pain, animals don't.

you assume A LOT here. I don't think it's true. Other animals are aware. Remember we ARE just big animals just like they are. we have opposable thumbs but other than that we're pretty much alike. it's silly to assume b/c they don't talk that they aren't aware. I am guessing you don't have pets. If you observe them for any amount of time their awareness seems pretty self explanatory.

[sriv]

Simple question. Is homo sapien more aware than other animals? (Awareness as in sentience and cognition)

I believe the answer is relatively self-explanitory.

[notoppings]

I agree with most people here any cruelty is bad. I answered the question animal. My reason is based on communication/language barrier. The animal is not likely to understand the reason for the cruelty and if it has identified the abuser as it's alpha/prime it can't help but return. It can not seek advocates on it's own as most humans can, baring the very young or mentally infirmed. Chances are that there will hopefully be someone there for the human but for the animal the cruelty is rarely witnessed so goes unpunished.

[sriv]

This is more subjective than I formerly thought.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I agree that cruelty is cruelty, regardless of whether it is done to a human or animal. Animals feel pain in exactly the same way as humans (physiologically most animals have highly developed nervous systems). I have seen the psychological damage that cruelty has done to companion animals like dogs, cats, and horses. Species indentification or indentifying with your own species is relatively common amoung all animals. This causes most humans to hold humans in higher regard than other species of animals. This is similar to racial indetification or cultural indentification. It's proabably a selected for trait since it likely enhanced survival (the lone wolf is the least likely to survive). Since it is psychologically hard-wired in many cases, it really isn't based in fact. There is no evidence to suggest that any one species is 'more important' than another.

There is also the question of damage to the person perpetrating the cruelty.

[Antares]

Humans selectively breeded dogs into mild-mannered animals. They used to be wolves. You do not want to "treated" by a wolf.

Actually, there are stories of wolves adopting human infants and kept them alive. Also, there is an account of a girl who adopted a wild wolf; they developed a close bond.

[Antares]

Simple question. Is homo sapien more aware than other animals? (Awareness as in sentience and cognition)

I believe the answer is relatively self-explanitory.

Than the less complex animals? Sure. But compared with other advanced animals like primates, cetaceans and squirrels (yes, they're among the smartest animal), I can't say anymore.

[rvi]

I think all cruelties are evil.

But I see what some people mean when they say they don't feel bad for an adult being mistreated versus an animal or child. I have known some grown women who have the chance to leave an abusive relationship, but don't for a variety of reasons. I feel bad at first, but then I stop feeling pity because the woman has the opportunity to leave and doesn't. How is she a victim? It seems more masochistic than anything. I know it wouldn't be easy to leave someone you love, but to me, it's obvious the person doesn't return the sentiment because they treat you like a dog, so be rational and leave.

Which brings me to animals and children or other people that cannot leave on their own free will/defend themselves. It's disgusting, cowardly, shameful, and makes me incredibly angry to see truly defenseless creatures/people abused. It actually makes me feel physically ill.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think all cruelties are evil.

But I see what some people mean when they say they don't feel bad for an adult being mistreated versus an animal or child. I have known some grown women who have the chance to leave an abusive relationship, but don't for a variety of reasons. I feel bad at first, but then I stop feeling pity because the woman has the opportunity to leave and doesn't. How is she a victim? It seems more masochistic than anything. I know it wouldn't be easy to leave someone you love, but to me, it's obvious the person doesn't return the sentiment because they treat you like a dog, so be rational and leave.

Which brings me to animals and children or other people that cannot leave on their own free will/defend themselves. It's disgusting, cowardly, shameful, and makes me incredibly angry to see truly defenseless creatures/people abused. It actually makes me feel physically ill.
I agree that an adult that stays in an abusive situation must bear part of the responsibility. However, keep in mind that these adults have usually been psychologically damaged and have very low self-esteem. Ideally, society would offer more help to adults who are poorly trained in this regard.

[Phrixos]

I am indifferent.

Human suffering or animal suffering - if no one is "suffering" it is because we cease to exist. A world without pain or peace with a race of self aware individuals involved is not feasible.

[rvi]

I agree that an adult that stays in an abusive situation must bear part of the responsibility. However, keep in mind that these adults have usually been psychologically damaged and have very low self-esteem. Ideally, society would offer more help to adults who are poorly trained in this regard.

True. I guess that is a more merciful way of looking at things. I can be too dismissive of those situations sometimes.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

True. I guess that is a more merciful way of looking at things. I can be too dismissive of those situations sometimes.
It's difficult to see evrything from every point of view........but, I guess we should continue to try.

[antisocial one]

I think that animal suffring is worse because it is not even nearly entertaining as human suffering.:sneaky:

[sam988]

Human cruelty is obviously worse. Unless my dog is at stake... then screw human cruelty.

[ssrprotege]

I personally think both are bad. Humans are animals with slight difference with other types of animals. It's just higher mental, intellectual processes. Anyway, I don't think mistreating our "fellow" animals is bad - and that includes the subset named human. Interesting poll, but I am not sure what to choose....