It's wild to me how sentimental people can get about a tree or incensed by, say, someone kicking a dog (neither of which are good, for the record) yet be completely indifferent to completely preventable human suffering. Worse, that suffering is often painted as a moral failure by those who are suffering, almost like they deserve it. They can even cheer it on.
> yet be completely indifferent to completely preventable human suffering.
A lot of human suffering is self-inflicted. There's also the point that humans have a higher bar for being able to take care of themselves.
A human can and should defend themselves. A tree or a dog cannot. (and before someone decides to ackshually correct me, we've been breeding dogs for docility for over 10,000 years)
> I will never not find that bizarre.
You find bizarre that people have different value systems? Huh?
>and before someone decides to ackshually correct me, we've been breeding dogs for docility for over 10,000 years
Some breeds were specifically bred for fighting, so I don't agree with this at all. Also, some breeds are bred for hunting, some for herding, etc.; these are not "docile" tasks. I think it's more accurate to say that dogs have been bred to be subservient to humans for 10k years. But even here, there's plenty of dogs specifically trained to be violent with humans: German Shepherds are notorious for this, as well as Rottweilers, which is why they're used for military/police work.
But I completely agree about humans having a higher bar for taking care of themselves, and also we expect them to have a conscience and "do the right thing" and not cause needless destruction, and to work for the greater good.
Just because dogs can be trained to do tasks that involve violence, doesn't mean they aren't super-docile and will try to avoid confrontation with their handler to the best of their ability.
Well, one of the synonyms listed on Wiktionary is "meek", and that is definitely not what I think of when I see pitbulls attacking people and causing lifelong injuries. And considering this frequently happens to children in homes with such dogs, it seems that the other definitions of "docile" don't really apply either.
Basically we'd feel unbearably sad all the time, if we'd care about things unfiltered. So filtering must go on. After all, the existence of feelings is to support a social cohesion, which in turn enhances the chance of survival. It doesn't make evolutionary sense for feelings to not have bounds. So, there are bounds - feelings usually intensify with close proximity, and there is a bunch of mechanisms that quell feelings and empathy, like dissociation. What you're seeing is just these mechanisms in work. The very concept of fairness, and so unfairness, also only exists in humans. And we don't even agree on what that entails, just that all of us feel this to a degree.
It's wild to me how sentimental people can get about a tree or incensed by, say, someone kicking a dog (neither of which are good, for the record) yet be completely indifferent to completely preventable human suffering. Worse, that suffering is often painted as a moral failure by those who are suffering, almost like they deserve it. They can even cheer it on.
I will never not find that bizarre. And sad.