Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Everything is simple. All people are just hypocrites and fetishists. In general, it is in vain to believe that people do not feel sorry for the chicken. Chicken is a pity, but not the one whose meat is already in the oven. I feel sorry for the mink, but we wear a fur coat. I feel sorry for the cow, but we'll eat the gaburger. It is ok. People who work in meat processing plants, where animals are sometimes killed alive, tend to change a lot, become cynical, but not necessarily angry. I would say they are becoming real hypocrites, not fake effeminate hypocrites. The fact that we feel sorry for those we kill is more likely a consequence of social influence. Compassion is given to us not by birth, but by upbringing, as I believe.
But you know, there is a phrase that is even better to answer this question. The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic. I believe that this property of the human psyche applies not only to human death, but also to animal death.
In general, human fears are not always the result of explaining other people or their own experience, some of them are genetically inherited. Moreover, those types of animals and insects (snakes, spiders, toads, rats, wolves, crocodiles, etc.) that most people reject, really in some cases represent a deadly danger. And killing them is usually not a pity. And for example, a rabbit, it is defenseless and does not pose a danger, so it is a pity.
I think that the answer to this question can be as follows: some animals (mainly mammals) experience feelings and emotions similar to human ones and outwardly express their feelings, it is a pity to kill these animals, and those animals that are less active in expressing their feelings and emotions, or do not express them at all, then it is not so sorry to kill them accordingly. Although by the way, some people do not feel sorry for killing anyone, neither animals nor people.
This depends on the degree of similarity to the person and, most importantly, on the ability to communicate with the person. Insects, reptiles, amphibians, snakes, and most birds are nothing to humans. They don't understand people, people don't understand them, everyone lives in their own world.
Now compare it to a cat and a dog. These animals have a real contact with a person, sometimes not much different from contact with another person. The cat knows its home and its place, the cat can ask, demand, play, the cat can change the tone of its meow in different situations to influence the person, the cat is pleasant to human caresses. A cat understands when a person is angry with it, when he is kind. This is mutual understanding. It's the same with the dog. And compare these animals to, say, a turtle – the turtle doesn't care where it is, who is with it, what people do to it, what they say to it, and so on. Contact is minimal, purely technical – to feed, clean the aquarium.
In general, there are different cases and variants, but in most cases it's like this: those animals that were able to establish contact with a person are pitied. The others are not.
I think everything is determined by attachment and contact. Those animals that live with us are personalized by us – we give them names, train them, and feed them. This creates certain contacts, habits, and even predictable behaviors and patterns. At the same time, those types of animals with which we do not have contact do not cause us special emotions and experiences – they do not react to us. And as a result, in the first case, the animal will feel sorry for both “its own” and any similar one, and in the second-a neutral reaction to its murder.
It seems to me that the motive determines the attitude to the impact on the animal. So, the decision to euthanize a terminally ill pet takes people out of a normal state, when responsibility to themselves and the animal is no longer limited to the natural course of things. Pity is here, as for me, to get rid of a difficult emotion out of the ordinary situation with yourself and your pet, in order to survive. Self-defense to preserve one's own health, when threatened by a pet, is absolutely ruthless and the experience will have a different emotional color.�
To say that there is mortification as a natural human reaction, at least for one type of living nature, is impossible because of the postulation of biogenesis by humanity — humanity has been standing on the order and training for at least several thousand years that the meaning of killing an animal should be seen in tasks approved by science and society. Almost universal social institutions prepare for this; the opposite is usually known as fanaticism, sadism, etc. reprehensible actions.
Fans of science fiction could enjoy the decadent attempts of the human species to write off wildlife when reading Amer's story. The Indomitable Planet by Harry Garrison.
People are prone to anthropomorphism, humanizing everything and everything. Therefore, objects that are less likely to resemble the person themselves evoke much less empathy. Especially, in this regard, the snakes were unlucky…
The desire to enjoy your senses is the only reason. Where there is no criminal prohibition of cannibalism, they eat people. For example, there are restaurants in quite civilized countries where you can order aborted children. What can we say about our smaller brothers?..
Because people mostly don't think about it. They just live like everyone else. The rest of them eat these-and I will. The rest of them are taken as pets – and I can. Few people think that animals can suffer like humans. This is not taught in schools and at home, so few people pay attention.
Perhaps it is a kind of instinct: we love what we see, what is closer and clearer to us. Or, at the very least, we love (i.e., feel compassion for) what we see most often. You need to choose the current one. A chicken is dumber than a dog, and the dog has a different function. Geese can also protect, but they are simpler than a dog in its food chain, and not it in theirs:) My friends have a shelter for wolves, they need to be fed meat. And that's it, you can't go anywhere, you chose wolves, understand them and love them, respect their dependence on you and don't feed them cookies. And another friend's neighbors threw farm animals in the hedges, she got into them, took them in, feeds them, protects them from wolves. This is choice, instinct and situativeness!
Sincerely, Maria.
Just for fun, they usually do not kill (all sorts of sadists and perverts do not count). They kill for food, respectively, and treat animals as food. It would be customary in the food culture to eat cats and dogs rather than keep them as pet friends, and they would also be treated differently, regardless of their intelligence. When you breed animals to eat them later, you already know their fate from the beginning and do not get attached to them. And if you get attached – write lost, it will be hard to raise a hand on them. Karel Chapek has a good short story “Tonda” on this topic. The main character was given a piglet, he was named Tonda (Czech version of Anton), the whole family loved and became attached to him. And when it was time to cut, the owner did not dare to do it:
“…when I came to my senses about something, I felt uneasy. Ah, hell, killing a Tondu, quartering a Tondu, smoking a Tondu — that's no good, I wouldn't eat it myself. I'm not that bloodthirsty, am I? When there is no name, it is a piglet like a piglet, but when it is already a Tonda, then you immediately have a different attitude towards it. Well, I sold Tonda to a butcher, and even then I felt like a slave trader. I was not happy with the money that I got for it.”
A very detailed answer to this question can be found in the American psychologist Melanie Joy in her book “Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows” (unfortunately, it was not published in Russian; it can be ordered on Amazon and Kindle). You can watch TED talks about this topic. Although it is more related to veganism, but the question you put echoes this video:�http://www.youtube.com
I won't be able to give you a short answer, but it seems that the answer is carnism – a belief system that teaches us to eat certain animals. (“Carnism is the belief system that conditions us to eat certain animals.”) Your question is about animal abuse, but I can only tell you about eating meat that is violence. If you don't agree with me, I can offer you to watch the movie “The Earthlings”. I will try to reveal the concept of “cornice”, which was proposed by psychologist Melanie Joy. When people talk about a vegetarian, they usually mean a person with a plant-based diet and with certain moral values. But when people talk about a meat eater, few people think that he also has a certain value system that allows him (reduces psychological discomfort when consuming meat for food) to eat animals. However, in most countries we can choose between different types of diets, which means that meat eating is a choice, and the choice always stems from our beliefs. (“Our choices always stem from our beliefs,” as psychologists say.) Hence, meat eaters also adhere to a certain ideology, although they may not be aware of it. This ideology is Carnism.�
I could tell you more, but I am not a psychologist and it is difficult for me to talk about this topic.�
Personally, your question seems illogical from some point of view. After all, as far as I know, people are disgusted with violence and murder. You can view the research of military scientists on this topic, if you do not agree. Therefore, it is probably more correct: why do people think that they feel sorry for killing some animals, but not others? From the point of view of Carnism and psychology, we can answer this way: Carnism uses psychological defenses so that we can kill animals without a sense of conscience. (Psychologists, sorry for the inaccuracies). One of them is dichotomization – the representation of animals in categories such as edible and inedible, domestic and wild, pests and helpers. (I may be wrong in translating the word dichotomization – the process of mentally putting others into two, often opposing, categories based on our beliefs about them – the process of semantically dividing others into two, usually opposite, categories based on our beliefs about them.) There may also be such a category – it's a pity to kill, it's not a pity to kill. In general, to maintain and strengthen yourself, carnism requires a lot of psychological defenses, as Melanie Joy says: this is psychological acrobatics. These include the following: denial, avoidance, routinization, justification, objectification, deindividualization, dichotomization, rationalization, dissociation. I won't translate it, because I don't know much about it. Carnism also uses three main justifications for any violent ideology: this is normal, naturally necessary. You can tell me a lot about it, since the cornice is a matrix within a matrix, but I have already moved away from the question.
The short answer to your question is carnism; to make it easy to kill animals without experiencing psychological discomfort. Just consider, if you were to define a certain group of animals as one that cannot be killed, would you be able to kill them? No, that's why they are divided into categories.
P.S. You shouldn't have put the hashtag “why did I find out?”. You are a Person with a Capital Letter for asking such questions. People should live consciously and talk about topics that come from the depths of our selves.
because the beautiful always enjoy special privileges, whether it's people or animals, it doesn't matter. Beautiful creatures can be used to satisfy your aesthetic and erotic needs. That is, cute animals can be kept in the house to please the eye and relax, and beautiful people can be used for breeding to get beautiful and healthy offspring.
I do not remember at �a tribe was �rule �to ask forgiveness �have �killed � animal and thank �it for what it �feed � today �the whole tribe . “We didn't come up with the idea of 'killing' a living thing . Hunger invented it. They kill not because they feel sorry for it or not, but because meat is food . The carnivores that we are eat meat . Nothing personal. The law of nature. �Other � causes �outrage. Why ” do you take a gun “and” go out to kill for “pleasure” without “hunger”?
If you can cross the line and kill creatures that you feel sorry for, then the level of violence towards people will increase in society.
As mentioned above, it is important to have empathy and the ability to communicate with the animal. These qualities determine a certain similarity of an animal with a person. If you can kill those who feel sorry for you and with whom you can communicate, then today it's a cat, tomorrow a monkey, after tomorrow a Tajik, and then someone will knock on your door.