Animal abuse vs Human abuse, Which is worse, I'm not talking about intellectual but personally-to you which feels worse for you.
Brought about by a fan fiction that treated Animal abuse as worse than rape and murder, as well as the escapist's would you save your pet or a stranger thread.
Personally, I don't like animals,don't get me wrong I don't hate animals but they are not that endearing to me,as such I feel that Human abuse is much worse.
Just plain abuse is wrong. In all forms, to all forms.
If you solve the human problem, however, all abuse will cease. If there's one thing I try to emulate, it's to be more like nature. Nature is cruel, but humans are cruel AND perverse.
Well, intellectually, human abuse is of course, worse.
It's more understandable, though. When someone commits a crime, there's often calls for harsh punishment. You don't get that when a dog bites somebody...you might have people calling to kill the dog, but nobody much wants to make it suffer first.
In reality, human abuse is obviously the worst of both. I very much doubt you'd find anyone who would debate otherwise, though animal abuse is horrible as well, of course.
In fiction, I find animal abuse much more horrible, but only to domestic animals and the occasional wolf if it does that sorrowful scream. I just hate it when dogs get killed in games, or cats, though the latter is much rarer. I guess the reason for this is how desensitised the killing of sapient beings are in games and movies.
I'll say human abuse is worse, but the context of the kind of abuse is more important in my opinion. Two adults can kick each others ass all day and I couldn't care less. However, humans have the capacity to wipe out an entire species. One human killing another human > one human killing one animal.
So yeah... It depends on the context of the type of abuse and the degree of violence.
People that think animal abuse is worse than human rape or murder are stupid.
It really depends on the animal IMO, because in part it's based on intelligence of the animal. All living things feel pain, but I would put a pig above a fly, or a dog above a chicken. It seems to me though that animal cruelty offenses don't seem to face a harsh enough punishment in most Courts.
The deterioration of economic output is greater if a human is abused than if an animal is. I am more desensitized to human suffering than animal suffering however. Rationally the former is worse but the more shocking image would still be kittens getting stomped on.
Putting a saddle on a person and making them carry you around is pretty degrading and abusive, yet doing the same thing to a horse isn't.
Likewise, giving a person a cigar and a glass of brandy at the end of a dinner party is considered good form and hospitable, do the same to a chimpanzee and you'd get in trouble for animal abuse.
Even in the context of the same act, locking a person in a glass bow or enclosure is very abusing because not only are you restricting their freedom, but they're aware of and affected by their imprisonment, but keeping a goldfish in a similar prison isn't considered abusive by most.
Training a dog to behave well and respond to triggers, rewards and punishments is considered to the actions of good and responsible pet owner, conditioning a person in the same manner would be considered to be psychological abuse and all manners of wrong.
It's a difficult question to give a straight answer to because although abuse is wrong in any case, the psychological make-up of humans and animals is so different that they're not really comparable, plus there are so many variations of abuse and similar actions that may or may not be abusive depending on context and whether the target of those actions is a human or animal.
Putting a saddle on a person and making them carry you around is pretty degrading and abusive, yet doing the same thing to a horse isn't.
Likewise, giving a person a cigar and a glass of brandy at the end of a dinner party is considered good form and hospitable, do the same to a chimpanzee and you'd get in trouble for animal abuse.
Even in the context of the same act, locking a person in a glass bow or enclosure is very abusing because not only are you restricting their freedom, but they're aware of and affected by their imprisonment, but keeping a goldfish in a similar prison isn't considered abusive by most.
Training a dog to behave well and respond to triggers, rewards and punishments is considered to the actions of good and responsible pet owner, conditioning a person in the same manner would be considered to be psychological abuse and all manners of wrong.
It's a difficult question to give a straight answer to because although abuse is wrong in any case, the psychological make-up of humans and animals is so different that they're not really comparable, plus there are so many variations of abuse and similar actions that may or may not be abusive depending on context and whether the target of those actions is a human or animal.
Obviously it depends on the situation to a degree, I doubt many would argue that verbaling abusing a human is worse than say, frying a kitten in the microwave. Given human's greater degree of sapience than other animals however it's clear that for a comparative act abusing a human is worse.
Emotionally I feel the same way, I don't really feel any emphatic connection to animals, heck I've seen a YouTube video of a dog being skinned alive and the only thing I felt was mild disgust at the gore aspect. The rage in the comments seemed frankly bizarre to me. If it was a human on the other hand I would be raging along with them.
Putting a saddle on a person and making them carry you around is pretty degrading and abusive, yet doing the same thing to a horse isn't.
Likewise, giving a person a cigar and a glass of brandy at the end of a dinner party is considered good form and hospitable, do the same to a chimpanzee and you'd get in trouble for animal abuse.
Even in the context of the same act, locking a person in a glass bow or enclosure is very abusing because not only are you restricting their freedom, but they're aware of and affected by their imprisonment, but keeping a goldfish in a similar prison isn't considered abusive by most.
Training a dog to behave well and respond to triggers, rewards and punishments is considered to the actions of good and responsible pet owner, conditioning a person in the same manner would be considered to be psychological abuse and all manners of wrong.
It's a difficult question to give a straight answer to because although abuse is wrong in any case, the psychological make-up of humans and animals is so different that they're not really comparable, plus there are so many variations of abuse and similar actions that may or may not be abusive depending on context and whether the target of those actions is a human or animal.
It's the kind of question that's so complex that it's impossible not to put much thought into answering.
Even if I were to quickly say "Human abuse is worse because humans are sentient and aware of the harm being done to them", then that raises more questions than it answers, e.g. "Is it better or worse to abuse a person when they're unconscious than when they're awake?" or "Which is worse, punching a dolphin or punching someone who's far beyond being medically retarded and is barely sapient?".
I suppose this also brings us to the hypothetical question "In fiction, is abusing a zombie closer to human abuse or animal abuse and (ignoring killing them for self-defence), how morally wrong is killing and abusing zombies?".
Depends on the context. Verbally abusing a human is not as bad as physically abusing an animal, for example. There are many different categories of abuse, and each of us has a different sorting scale of people and how much we'd care if this or that person was abused in this or that way in comparison to animals.
Putting a saddle on a person and making them carry you around is pretty degrading and abusive, yet doing the same thing to a horse isn't.
Likewise, giving a person a cigar and a glass of brandy at the end of a dinner party is considered good form and hospitable, do the same to a chimpanzee and you'd get in trouble for animal abuse.
Even in the context of the same act, locking a person in a glass bow or enclosure is very abusing because not only are you restricting their freedom, but they're aware of and affected by their imprisonment, but keeping a goldfish in a similar prison isn't considered abusive by most.
Training a dog to behave well and respond to triggers, rewards and punishments is considered to the actions of good and responsible pet owner, conditioning a person in the same manner would be considered to be psychological abuse and all manners of wrong.
It's a difficult question to give a straight answer to because although abuse is wrong in any case, the psychological make-up of humans and animals is so different that they're not really comparable, plus there are so many variations of abuse and similar actions that may or may not be abusive depending on context and whether the target of those actions is a human or animal.
It's the kind of question that's so complex that it's impossible not to put much thought into answering.
Even if I were to quickly say "Human abuse is worse because humans are sentient and aware of the harm being done to them", then that raises more questions than it answers, e.g. "Is it better or worse to abuse a person when they're unconscious than when they're awake?" or "Which is worse, punching a dolphin or punching someone who's far beyond being medically retarded and is barely sapient?".
I suppose this also brings us to the hypothetical question "In fiction, is abusing a zombie closer to human abuse or animal abuse and (ignoring killing them for self-defence), how morally wrong is killing and abusing zombies?".
Even more good point's that you bring up,your the poster that keeps on giving ^_^,that being said........What about.......Zombie animals O_O which is worse abusing normal zombies or animal zombies!
Psychologically and perhaps physiologically, humans suffer more than most animals although animals don't have the ability to understand and process, or even fight back the way that humans can. From a metaphysical standpoint, I'd say animal abuse is worse in the sense that you're bullying the weakest party. Psychologically, human abuse is worse. I don't know enough about how the intensity in pain compares across species so I'm not going to comment on that.
I'd save my pet before I'd save any of you unless the social response would be so extreme as to deprive me of more pleasure than the animal itself would provide, in which case I would be forced to save the person instead. So, let's hope the opportunity presents itself in private.
Animal muthafuckin rights activists, at least da most thugged-out 'dedicated' is such hypocrites anyway. To git attention n' shout bout savin tha whales, they beat tha shizzle outta people. Should human muthafuckin rights activists beat tha shizzle outta muthafuckas ta git enough attention ta raise awarenizz fo' human rights?
From a strictly moral perspective, I'd say beating an animal is worse that beating a human. They can't defend themselves. It's picking on the little guy. If someone kicks their dog, and does it over a span of time, what can the dog do about it? If the dog fights back, it could be putting itself on death row as it won't be deemed suitable as a pet anymore. The only hope an abused animal would have is if another human discovers what is going on and contacts the authorities.
Humans can do something about the situation if you physically abuse them, even if they aren't physically stronger. They have the ability to do something about it in at least a percentage of cases. They could call the police and file charges. They have direct access to authorities. Pets and other animals don't have such a privilege. The quality of their own life isn't really in their hands, and to beat them is about as bad as it gets as far as animal treatment goes.
I sound like an intense animal rights activist, don't I? Maybe just a little.
From a strictly moral perspective, I'd say beating an animal is worse that beating a human. They can't defend themselves. It's picking on the little guy. If someone kicks their dog, and does it over a span of time, what can the dog do about it? If the dog fights back, it could be putting itself on death row as it won't be deemed suitable as a pet anymore. The only hope an abused animal would have is if another human discovers what is going on and contacts the authorities.
Humans can do something about the situation if you physically abuse them, even if they aren't physically stronger. They have the ability to do something about it in at least a percentage of cases. They could call the police and file charges. They have direct access to authorities. Pets and other animals don't have such a privilege. The quality of their own life isn't really in their hands, and to beat them is about as bad as it gets as far as animal treatment goes.
I sound like an intense animal rights activist, don't I? Maybe just a little.
Basically this. Violence against animals for me is on the same level as violence against small children. For me, I judge a society by the way it treats its animals. Plus, animals don't have a concept of good or evil, and will never attack a human being out of sheer malice.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
