The morality of it all

peasant

From this article:
http://www.sligochampion.ie/news/regret-over-the-manner-horse-was-put-down-following-accident-at-races-1778905.html

Regret over the manner horse was put down following accident at races

The organisers of Sunday's Culleenamore races have said they regret any upset caused when a horse was put down in front of hundreds of shocked spectators, including families with young children. Two jockeys were injured in the same incident.

The races committee will review the operation of the races and say they will have a protective screen in place in the event of a similar occurrence in the future.

The accident happened shortly after the start of the fourth race when two horses became entangled and as a result of the collision one horse suffered a broken leg and two young teenage riders sustained injuries.

A veterinary surgeon put the animal down on the strand and two ambulances present at the race meeting brought the injured jockeys to Sligo General Hospital after they had been stabilised.

Racing was suspended until such time as the ambulances returned to Culleenamore.

" It was a terrible accident, but the way the horse was put down and then removed in front of everyone was terrible and very distressing for children in particular,"one parent who attended the races with her children, told The Sligo Champion.

"We took the children away after the incident and people were very, very upset," she added.

Race committee member Terry Hayes described the accident as "very unfortunate", but stressed that there was a vet and full medical cover, including a doctor, in place.

He confirmed that the two young jockeys were now "okay and recovering well."

"We would not expect anything like this to happen. It was also unfortunate that we didn't have a protective screen available and that is certainly something we will be looking at.

"The horse was put down as quickly as possible, " Mr. Hayes said.

He further explained that a 'winch' facility to take the horse from the strand was not available to the race committee on the day.

"Of course we regret any upset caused to those in attendance," said Mr. Hayes.

So let me get this right, parents have no problem taking their children along to see any of the following:

- a protected beach and dune area being driven and trampled on by organisers and spectators
- horses getting carted in for hours in wonky trailers from miles around
- people betting on horse racing
- people getting drunk at these races
- horses being whipped to run faster

But an accident happens, a horse has to be put down on the spot and the little darlings need to be shielded from that?

Im I the only one spotting a bent needle on the moral compass there ?

Dades

I'm more disturbed at the idea that you just put a horse down if it breaks a leg.

peasant

A quick google search will tell you that treating a broken leg on a horse is anything but simple, very costly and also can result in further pain and suffering for the horse.

In the case of a race horse braking a leg, the decision to have it put down would almost certainly be an economic one, as that horse will never race again.

But why have it race in the first place?

I've never really gotten the hang of other peoples morality in most circumstances... never mind when it comes to animals.. Would it have been better if they had eaten the Horse after killing it?

Porkpie

Horse racing in itself is cruel when you think about it. Horses running against their will, whipped, over exerted, all for our entertainment.

peasant

Porkpie wrote: »

Horse racing in itself is cruel when you think about it. Horses running against their will, whipped, over exerted, all for our entertainment.

Exactly !

People just don't want to see that and when it becomes blatantly obvious through an accident they demand to be shielded from it ...won't somebody pleeez think of the tildren.

I mean, either you accept and support horse racing with all its consequences or you don't go at all. Or at least don't bring your children if you're worried about the impact of something like this on their fragile little minds.

Cianos

Well hopefully the children who did see the horse being put down won't have such a rose-tinted opinion of events based around animals in the future. It all looks glamarous and glossy on the outside and it's rare that the audience gets to witness the cruel side of it.

It is actually not fair on the children being brought to circuses or the zoo in that they think they are going to see cute and happy animals doing cute and funny things whereas it's the attendance of the children that is supporting the industry that is exploiting these animals - you don't get many adults without kids going to the circus, so like the easter bunny or Santa they depend on children in order to exist!

Cianos

Cianos wrote: »

Well hopefully the children who did see the horse being put down won't have such a rose-tinted opinion of events based around animals in the future. It all looks glamarous and glossy on the outside and it's rare that the audience gets to witness the cruel side of it.

It is actually not fair on the children being brought to circuses or the zoo in that they think they are going to see cute and happy animals doing cute and funny things whereas it's the attendance of the children that is supporting the industry that is exploiting these animals - you don't get many adults without kids going to the circus, so like the easter bunny or Santa they depend on children in order to exist!

Actually I still like the circus, and go myself when I can. I figure some of you are taking this animal exploitation too far. Many circus's take great pains to look after their animals, and don't mistreat their animals.

The simple fact is that most people don't care. They have come to see the animals, and as long as they themselves don't see any mistreatment, it will settle easily on their minds. I have to admit I'm the same. It is the way things are. Animals are kept by humans. I don't see too many people complaining about humans having pets like cats, or dogs, when most of those owners keep them in lifestyles opposite to their natural environments.

I'm completely against cruelty to animals, and its one of the few charities that I subscribe to. However, I think many people take things too far, by including everything into that cruelty section.

pagancornflake

Porkpie wrote: »

Horse racing in itself is cruel when you think about it. Horses running against their will, whipped, over exerted, all for our entertainment.

Gotta love being the dominant species

Dades

pagancornflake wrote: »

Gotta love being the dominant species

Tell that to bacteria.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

I'm more disturbed at the idea that you just put a horse down if it breaks a leg.

Why? Please explain why this is disturbing. Personally I've put many a fly down when it's been merely buzzing around my head. In fact last week, televised, President Obama killed a fly. Surely this act is of a much greater weight then the act of putting down a horse with a broken leg. He callously took the life of another living creature without warrant did he not?

It's consistently been a curiosity to me the arbitrary brackets people place different animals into. We attribute the quality of nobility to horses and put them in a bracket above mere food animals, and therefore the death of one of them holds a greater weight due to these brackets. We then think Hindus are odd for showing reverence for Cows as in the Western bracket, this animal remains as a lowly food animal, to give us milk and then to be consumed.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It's consistently been a curiosity to me the arbitrary brackets people place different animals into.

Flies spread disease and are not bred purely for our pleasure until they become less useful to us.

Don't get me wrong, I've eaten many animals, I just feel it's poor taste to raise a horse as one of your own and then shoot it when you break it's leg.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

Flies spread disease and are not bred purely for our pleasure until they become less useful to us.

Precisely, this horse was bred for our pleasure and enjoyment. So once it had broken it's leg its usefulness no longer existed therefore it was put down. Nothing disturbing about it though.

If I dropped a clock and broke it so that one of its hands would always move a minute slower I'd get rid of. No use keeping a semi-functioning clock around when I could easily get another fully functioning clock.

Dades

So now we're comparing clocks and horses? Why don't we skip 10 posts and compare clocks with humans...
Then someone will bring up Nazis and we can all go home.

Mena

Bottom line is, and I am open to correction on this, I failed veterinary science 32 years ago, but it's actually better for the horse.

A broken leg on a horse is a lot more serious than a broken leg on say, a human.

That's my understanding anyway.

Edit: Nazi's!

Dades

Mena wrote: »

A broken leg on a horse is a lot more serious than a broken leg on say, a human.

Left untreated it can lead to a bullet in the head. :pac:

I've actually been reading a bit on Google on about horses and leg breaks and have come around somewhat to seeing why they shoot 'em. Don't think I'll be getting into horse-breeding any time soon though.

Mena

Dades wrote: »

Left untreated it can lead to a bullet in the head. :pac:

Oh man that made my day

Dades wrote: »

I've actually been reading a bit on Google on about horses and leg breaks and have come around somewhat to seeing why they shoot 'em. Don't think I'll be getting into horse-breeding any time soon though.

Yeah, it's not nice at all. Poor buggers

pagancornflake

Dades wrote: »

Tell that to bacteria.

Just to let you know, bacteria are not a species, since there is no consensus for defining the fundamental unit of bacterial biological diversity, the species. The ubiquitous charecteristics held by what would be called a bacterial species are instead constrained by ecotypes.

Oh, I would tell them, but they have no brain (no language comprehension),and also no guts, no anus etc...

To be fair, they lack the drive for communal self preservation on the scale that we have it, which is why we exist in far more ecotypes and hold down the brainpower to potentially annihilate any strain that we do not want. On the other hand, we have done so successfully on at least a few occasions. I think its a bit silly to call something more dominant just because it subsists in our own biology.

Dades

pagancornflake wrote: »

Just to let you know, bacteria are not a species...

After some frantic googling I've decided not to drag this thread further off topic.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

bred purely for our pleasure until they become less useful to us.

Dades wrote: »

So now we're comparing clocks and horses?

I was replying in regards to the definition you yourself outlined for horses. As something we make to fill a human need but that is discarded once this need has been filled or it can no longer meet this need.

A racehorse with a broken leg is useless. Yes you could put it through a lot of pain and suffering to heal it, but it will never again race like it did before. It's man assigned raison d'être no longer exists. Face it, a racehorse is given no greater rights than a mere clock. It is kept in captivity it's whole life, constantly adjusted throughout it's lifetime to perform at its peak performance and if lucky it will get to have it's sperm artificially collected and sold without it ever being allowed to mate. It is a creature purely developed for mans pleasure and wants. Nothing more. To view it as having more worth than a clock, is to not understand the nature of its existence.

My quibble regardless is the subjective nature of people who while swatting flies, or running over birds and foxes on their way home would have a problem with the humane killing of an injured horse. I was also curious to understand how you could call such an act "disturbing".

Dades

Firstly, I'm not sure you saw my post here... which I posted after reading about racehorses and the consequences of a break.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

My quibble regardless is the subjective nature of people who while swatting flies, or running over birds and foxes on their way home would have a problem with the humane killing of an injured horse. I was also curious to understand how you could call such an act "disturbing".

Secondly, I'd have similar compunction with killing a bird, a fox, or a horse. Flies, mosquitos, or any disease carrying creature get little sympathy from me, but everything else has a right to life afaic. Except clocks. I hate those fcuking things.

As for disturbing? Watching anything shot in the head would bring that reaction in me. You must a cyborg sent from the future if you wouldn't be 'disturbed' seeing, for example, a horse polished off with his big ol' eyes bulging.

peasant

Dades wrote: »

As for disturbing? Watching anything shot in the head would bring that reaction in me. You must a cyborg sent from the future if you wouldn't be 'disturbed' seeing, for example, a horse polished off with his big ol' eyes bulging.

The horse in question wasn't shot actually but put down by lethal injection. (as I understand it, somebody on the commitee deemed it inappropriate to shoot the horse in front of so many spectators)

Which, ironically, makes it even worse to watch because the horse will kick, squirm and scream for quite another while until the two injections finally quiten it down.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

As for disturbing? Watching anything shot in the head would bring that reaction in me. You must a cyborg sent from the future if you wouldn't be 'disturbed' seeing, for example, a horse polished off with his big ol' eyes bulging.

No I've just been out hunting with family friends in the US and been around when they shot large Deer or Elk then walked over and shot them again if they where still alive (was usually the case) then watched them field dress (i.e gut), quarter (depending on if we had Quads, the size of the animal and how dense the underbrush was, they'd use hatchets or a saw for this) then drag the animal back to the nearest vehicle.

Shortly after we'd eat it around a BBQ. I, unlike yourself it would seem, do not let sentimentality cloud my opinion of a creature. Did that creature have eyes like Bambi? Yes. Was it delicious? More so. A racehorse is a product made by humans to fulfill one of our leisure activities. The same with pets, food animals, clothes animals... etc.

You eat meat right? You understand how your Pig, Cow and Chicken are killed correct? In fact you, by your own admission, take the life of living earthlings you imagine might be dangerous. You act as judge, jury and executioner regardless. I think however that you'd have a harder time killing a pregnant cow that you feared had a disease than you would as easily kill a spider and its egg sack merely occupying a corner of your shed.

You subjectively classify the value of living beings by their size, species... etc. I think claiming you do so because they might be "disease carrying" is mostly rubbish. I'm sure you've killed plenty of insects knowingly to keep your grass looking green, or to feed some irrational fear of them or protect others who have these fears. We kill moths, spiders, flies and insects in general, with ease, regardless if they are known disease carriers.

It seems sentimental qualities like eye size, fur and facial expression subjectively alters how we judge an earthlings existence and worth and in doing so give it value.

scanlas

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

No I've just been out hunting with family friends in the US and been around when they shot large Deer or Elk then walked over and shot them again if they where still alive (was usually the case) then watched them field dress (i.e gut), quarter (depending on if we had Quads, the size of the animal and how dense the underbrush was, they'd use hatchets or a saw for this) then drag the animal back to the nearest vehicle.

Shortly after we'd eat it around a BBQ. I, unlike yourself it would seem, do not let sentimentality cloud my opinion of a creature. Did that creature have eyes like Bambi? Yes. Was it delicious? More so. A racehorse is a product made by humans to fulfill one of our leisure activities. The same with pets, food animals, clothes animals... etc.

You eat meat right? You understand how your Pig, Cow and Chicken are killed correct? In fact you, by your own admission, take the life of living earthlings you imagine might be dangerous. You act as judge, jury and executioner regardless. I think however that you'd have a harder time killing a pregnant cow that you feared had a disease than you would as easily kill a spider and its egg sack merely occupying a corner of your shed.

You subjectively classify the value of living beings by their size, species... etc. I think claiming you do so because they might be "disease carrying" is mostly rubbish. I'm sure you've killed plenty of insects knowingly to keep your grass looking green, or to feed some irrational fear of them or protect others who have these fears. We kill moths, spiders, flies and insects in general, with ease, regardless if they are known disease carriers.

It seems sentimental qualities like eye size, fur and facial expression subjectively alters how we judge an earthlings existence and worth and in doing so give it value.

Well said. Morals are relative. I kill spiders all the time because I don't like the look of them, much like Hitler killed the Jews.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I, unlike yourself it would seem, do not let sentimentality cloud my opinion of a creature.

I'm not sure where you're pulling this from. You seem to be trying to spar with me regarding something I haven't said. I know what animals are and where exactly they stand in the food chain, and this isn't 'clouded' by some in-built reaction to watching an animal die. It's only a reaction in my brain.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'm sure you've killed plenty of insects knowingly to keep your grass looking green, or to feed some irrational fear of them or protect others who have these fears. We kill moths, spiders, flies and insects in general, with ease, regardless if they are known disease carriers.

TBH, I don't kill spiders, or moths without giving them a fighting chance to relocate. And only this morning I moved a few snails off of the path after the rain last night.

But you don't mind watching creatures get killed, be they puppies or fleas. Congratulations you're more evolved than me.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

TBH, I don't kill spiders, or moths without giving them a fighting chance to relocate. And only this morning I moved a few snails off of the path after the rain last night.

But you HAVE killed them, and think nothing of it. That is my point. You would find it odd if someone said they where "disturbed" at watching you kill a spider would you not?

Dades wrote: »

But you don't mind watching creatures get killed, be they puppies or fleas. Congratulations you're more evolved than me.

A smiley face and sarcasm *slow clap*

It's not that I don't mind watching animals get killed. It's that I consciously examine the irrational repulsion I would have to watching someone step on a kittens head compared to the complete lack of care that I'd have if someone stepped on a spider. In fact I know my aunt goes around looking under the leaves of the vines in her garden picking off the spider egg sacks and destroying them, she must of killed millions of spiders by this stage as she has been doing this for years. But she found it abhorrent that I was out hunting in the US to kill 1 Deer.

I'm not saying you are wrong in being disturbed at the thought of watching a horse be killed. I'm just asking you question why it is that you find it disturbing, and why you would not find say, someone standing on a spider as disturbing.

Perhaps its the facial similarities of the creature. A creature with two eyes, a nose, mouth and ears has enough in common with the human face for us to begin to sentimentally have feelings for the creature and care for its existence.

t-ha

peasant wrote: »

Im I the only one spotting a bent needle on the moral compass there ?

Ridiculous, the horse is still put down whether the sheet is there or not.

t-ha

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Perhaps its the facial similarities of the creature. A creature with two eyes, a nose, mouth and ears has enough in common with the human face for us to begin to sentimentally have feelings for the creature and care for its existence.

Yeah I call altruism on this one - there's probably something genetic that makes us like certain characteristics in (some) other people, and more genetically similar animals like mammals are more likely to have more of those characteristics. People tend to feel alot of empathy for horses, dogs and even cows and pigs when they actually see them. But insects, lizards, arachnids, fish etc. are so far removed (genetically) that we don't have that so much towards them.

carlybabe1

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never really gotten the hang of other peoples morality in most circumstances... never mind when it comes to animals.. Would it have been better if they had eaten the Horse after killing it?

We are not permitted to consume horsemeat in Ireland, in europe however thats a different story, so we continue to export them live, and in horrendous circumstances. Most of the equines slaughtered here go to cheap dog and cat food, and lets not forget the glue factories. If a horse breaks its leg at a minor race, unless it has anything valuable to donate to the gene pool it will be put down for economic reasons, i.e. it would cost the owner too much to look after it and pay vet fees etc. Horses are expendable, end of. The industry is about financial gain, not about the animals. There is no morality in it

carlybabe1

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Why? Please explain why this is disturbing. Personally I've put many a fly down when it's been merely buzzing around my head. In fact last week, televised, President Obama killed a fly. Surely this act is of a much greater weight then the act of putting down a horse with a broken leg. He callously took the life of another living creature without warrant did he not?

It's consistently been a curiosity to me the arbitrary brackets people place different animals into. We attribute the quality of nobility to horses and put them in a bracket above mere food animals, and therefore the death of one of them holds a greater weight due to these brackets. We then think Hindus are odd for showing reverence for Cows as in the Western bracket, this animal remains as a lowly food animal, to give us milk and then to be consumed.

Its the whole apples and oranges thing again. For a start, me personally, you cant equate a horse with a fly. Apart from the obvious intelligence difference, one is asthetically pleasing, (horses are my favourite animal, they are absolutely stunning to look at) the other lives on sh*t and other decaying matter, and carries bacteria.

As regards the highlighted portion, I agree to a point, but as noble as we think they are, theres very little people are prepared to do for the causes such as preventing live exports, and ensuring that they are put down as humanely as possible.

carlybabe1

Dades wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're pulling this from. You seem to be trying to spar with me regarding something I haven't said. I know what animals are and where exactly they stand in the food chain, and this isn't 'clouded' by some in-built reaction to watching an animal die. It's only a reaction in my brain.

TBH, I don't kill spiders, or moths without giving them a fighting chance to relocate. And only this morning I moved a few snails off of the path after the rain last night.

But you don't mind watching creatures get killed, be they puppies or fleas. Congratulations you're more evolved than me.

I agree with you Dades, Im not a tree hugger, but watching something struggle with its last bit of strength disturbs me too, whether its a horse/dog/bee. I hate watching NatGeo tv, I know its nature, but I dont like watching it. I cant understand why people who knock down animals just keep driving, they could at least move the poor things remains to the side of the road to prevent it being mashed :eek:
Hunting I abhore, and I reckon that people who do it are lacking an empathy gene. Why do they derive so much pleasure from it??? How can someone stand and watch the light go out in an animals eyes??
I personally cant figure it out, but each to their own I suppose

Goduznt Xzst

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Why do they derive so much pleasure from it???

It's rarely about deriving pleasure from it. But tapping into the primal instincts that allowed humans to survive to our current highly evolved state.

We still have these instincts. Have you ever wondered why a lot of people with computers in offices set their desktop wallpapers to forests, and beaches and natural environments devoid of modern industrial influence. Why? Why is the bare necessities of nature so appealing to us?

For the same reasons you enjoy a stroll along a beach a hunter enjoys the primal stalking, killing and then consuming of its prey. Amongst hunters also there is a deep respect for the animals they hunt. They are not flippant about it. In fact their reverence for the animal greatly exceeds that of any person who has never witnessed an animal being killed but who eats packaged meat daily.

Tapping into your basic survival instincts has a great, as best I can describe it, centering affect. Like you, as a creature, are assuming your natural place in the order of this world. I think modern technology has trained us to disconnect this part of our psyche, but nevertheless the sense of it still remains.

carlybabe1

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It's rarely about deriving pleasure from it.

With all due respect, thats a crock of ****. Of course you derive pleasure out of it, otherwise you wouldnt do it. On some level you enjoy it.

But tapping into the primal instincts that allowed humans to survive to our current highly evolved state.We still have these instincts.

To an extent I could possibly believe that, but I dont see it, and heres why. I obviously dont have the primal instinct you're talking about so does that make me more evolved than you?

Have you ever wondered why a lot of people with computers in offices set their desktop wallpapers to forests, and beaches and natural environments devoid of modern industrial influence. Why? Why is the bare necessities of nature so appealing to us?

For me its because, aside from the asthetically pleasing scenery, untainted by polution etc, its out of the rat race isnt it? It signifies somewhere you dont have to worry about paying your bills, or listening to the neighbours annoying dog/a;arm/drunken louts at the weekend

For the same reasons you enjoy a stroll along a beach a hunter enjoys the primal stalking, killing and then consuming of its prey.

I sincerely doubt that. I look forward to a nice dip in refreshing water with waves washing over my head
You (the hunter) look forward to hunting down the animal (a lot of the time the odds are stacked against them unfairly) and when its cornered and terrified, you then lift your rifle and take your shot. Then you approach said animal and check that its dead, and if its not you "humanely put it out of its misery". Then (and this is I suspect when you feel most satisfaction) you stand looking at your prey and patting yourselves on the back and congratulate each other on what great men you are, taking down a prize like that.

Amongst hunters also there is a deep respect for the animals they hunt. They are not flippant about it. In fact their reverence for the animal greatly exceeds that of any person who has never witnessed an animal being killed but who eats packaged meat daily.

That I sincerely doubt. My definition of respect does not include killing

Tapping into your basic survival instincts has a great, as best I can describe it, centering affect. Like you, as a creature, are assuming your natural place in the order of this world.

When mankind did have to hunt and kill to survive, I doubt they had rifles and quadbikes

I think modern technology has trained us to disconnect this part of our psyche, but nevertheless the sense of it still remains.

Some would call it evolution, kind of like the way society has evolved to have a justice system that doesn't include "eye for an eye".

Im not launching a personal attack on you so please dont be offended, I just strongly disagree with your reasoning, but that doesnt mean you are wrong or that Im trying to convert you, Im not.

If hunting is your passion then fair enough, you like it for your own reasons and each to thier own. Please dont insult my intelligence by pissing on my shoulder and telling me its raining

Goduznt Xzst

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Im not launching a personal attack on you so please dont be offended, I just strongly disagree with your reasoning, but that doesnt mean you are wrong or that Im trying to convert you, Im not.

No offence taken. I respect, equally, the right of all individuals to hold their opinions and understand why you hold yours. I don't actually hunt myself, I've merely been out with people who do hunt to understand it. The feeling I got from being crouched hidden with a hunter, as we moved closer was comparable to the natural feelings of swimming by a beach to me. Perhaps without prejudice you would feel the same. Also the animal rarely knows the hunters presence until it has been shot, deer especially, are particularly cunning in evading a hunter they are aware of.

In regards to primal instincts. Imagine if you will that you and your baby are marooned on a desert island, your baby hasn't eaten for days and is starting to look pale. You don't know which plants are poisonous but see a small animal trapped momentarily in a bush. Do you let your baby die and then yourself? Or do you kill that animal and eat it? Examples would show that in situations like this the human survival instincts take over and replace most of our societally indoctrinated morality and ethics.

Also the use of rifles nowadays is because they are a more humane way of killing the animal. I knew hunters that used hunting crossbows and with them there admitted there was a greater chance of injuring the animal first before getting a straight kill.

Anyway, this argument is age old and not likely to be resolved here. I will however remind you that your lineage is made up of hunters who killed to survive. In fact it is likely that the genes that would of gotten passed on would of been from individuals with stronger natural abilities to hunt and kill. It is unfair to look unkindly on those who hunt with the evolved instincts that our ancestors honed within us as we would not be here where it not for them.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'm not saying you are wrong in being disturbed at the thought of watching a horse be killed. I'm just asking you question why it is that you find it disturbing, and why you would not find say, someone standing on a spider as disturbing.

Leaving aside the point that I don't like people standing on spiders, I'm not under any illusions as to whether there's some universal morality concerning the whole affair. I'm just a talking primate who has evolved with some compunction against taking what is loosely defined as "life". I don't stop and wonder why, in the say way I don't dwell on the details of where my beef casserole came from.

I don't think analysing where the irrational feelings of compassion people have come from will ever change those same feelings in people.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

I don't think analysing where the irrational feelings of compassion people have come from will ever change those same feelings in people.

Rarely is the analysis of anything with the soul intent of changing it. It is usually just to understand it first. But knowing capitalism and the psychology behind marketing I'm sure it has already been exploited in some fashion.

It's no wonder that kids TV shows feature furry creatures, with large dilated eyes, and simple facial expressions more similar to pet animals than humans. I wonder how well these shows would be received if they had natural looking reptiles and insects as the lead characters?

I also accept that I, also, despite being aware of the irrational nature of how and when I show compassion, still react in an irrational manner. Just yesterday I spotted a wasp inside and killed it promptly. But then later I noticed a large bee also inside but took the time to coax it to the nearest window and help it to get outside. Could it of stung me? Probably. I guess, irrationally, because I know the Bee will die if it stings me that it has less compunction to do so, of course this is a human sentimentality that I'm sure has no bearing on the nature of a Bee.