Why Be Kind?

[Kyrisch]

This is a question I've never really resolved in my own mind, and I was hoping to get some external commentary.

 

I was reminded yesterday about the issue when a friend and I were talking about PETA's reaction to the Obama fly-swatting video. Apparently they were upset at the actions of the president for unnecessarily ending the life of the poor fly. This is the stupidest thing I have ever head; there is no such thing as animal cruelty to animals which cannot feel. Further, our conception of what is "pain" is only comparable to what other conscious animals feel. This is because the pain we feel is an experience, and experiences are only meaningful to things with consciousnesses.

 

However, even animals with consciousnesses -- why should we care whether or not they are unhappy? In principle, there is something that compels people to say "we should", but that's just misapplied knee-jerk programmed empathy whose purpose was to enable intimate social interaction, not to 'protect the rights of animals'. And, as evidenced by the number of non-vegetarians in the country, people (even people who are fully aware of the horror of slaughterhouses), simply don't feel the compulsion not to eat meat. (Or said compulsion is not strong enough to make them not want to eat meat.)

 

So there is some cognitive dissonance between what people say is right and what people actually do (or care enough to think about). But I have actually thought about it. And while I feel that same empathy towards inflicting pain in conscious creatures, I simply cannot put a finger on any truly objective, rational argument for why we should care.

 

At this point, I was somewhat disheartened, but not completely. I am not, of course, a vegetarian, so it rather validated a position I was holding by default in the first place. But then I realized, if there is no reason to care about animal happiness, why should we care about fellow human happiness (where, of course, it does not affect our own)?

 

I struggled with this for quite some time, and I could not come up with a cohesive answer. It's a horrible prospect to conceive, but I see no solid line of reasoning against it.

[the guy]

i agree with you here, i am somewhat uncomfortable with the notion, but i have wondered what it is to be cruel. surely it would only be cruel to cause pain to an animal which can be distressed. animals such as flies are simply robots and just do things because they are 'programmed' to do them. they have 'programmed' responses. but when you get to animals such as dogs or even lesser animals, they can obviously become distressed by things and feel pain, fear, sadness etc. some pets will become ill if they are not forgiven for something bad they have done.

after thinking about this, i thought that it would be difficult to draw the line between which animals are 'robots' and which feel distress etc so it should not be done to any animals. this brought to think that, why is it cruel? pain is simply the body telling the consciousness that there is something wrong. i then thought that, if one kills someone, especially if it is quick, then where is the harm, for they are no longer feeling. but then i thought that it would cause grief to others so it would be bad. but then, what is sadness? it is merely a biological response to losing something you have become accustomed to. it is, if you like, a side affect of such and advanced mind. as are all emotions.so then i thought, where is the harm in killing, or being cruel, or anything? afterall, we are simply bunches of chemicals designed to make more chemicals. thats it. in the end, even after all that, i am glad to say that my 'side effect' emotions are too strong so even if i could find a way to justify cruelty i would not like it.

this is all rather disturbing but, on occasion, i like to ponder on such issues in a philisophical way.

Edited June 26, 2009 by the guy

[Kyrisch]

Bump because I thought this question would garner more discussion, and the above did not really address the issue, but rather sort of conceded to the same slippery slope argument I presented.

[Moontanman]

Why not be kind? I see no reason to be unnecessarily cruel to anything or anyone. having grown up on a farm and killed many an animal for food, we were always aware of unnecessary cruelty and never killed on animal in sight of another. When ever possible all animals were treated as kindly as possible. Death was always swift and painless as possible. I see no reason not to be kind to animals or humans and no reason what so ever to be cruel.

[iNow]

Have you considered looking at it in terms of game theory, whereby we (and our kin) can directly benefit from the reciprocation of our kindness? I'm thinking of it in evolutionary terms, whereby those who were "kind" tended to do better reproductively than those who were "unkind." The kind ones benefited from the resources of the larger collective, so the trait of kindness was heavily selected. Those who were "unkind" were selected against, since they wouldn't be granted access to the group resources, nor access to reproductive partners.

[Kyrisch]

Why not be kind? I see no reason to be unnecessarily cruel to anything or anyone. having grown up on a farm and killed many an animal for food, we were always aware of unnecessary cruelty and never killed on animal in sight of another. When ever possible all animals were treated as kindly as possible. Death was always swift and painless as possible. I see no reason not to be kind to animals or humans and no reason what so ever to be cruel.

 

Why should it matter? Saying why not be kind, when you haven't shown a reason to/i[] be kind is like saying "why not avoid all the cracks on the sidewalk?" It's because it's dreadfully inefficient. While a lot of the KFC scandals are unnecessary cruelness perpetrated by sadists, vegans often argue that the contraptions to which cows are hooked to most efficiently collect milk are horribly uncomfortable and unethical. How about the veal that is raised in a box so as to keep the meat tender?

 

Have you considered looking at it in terms of game theory, whereby we (and our kin) can directly benefit from the reciprocation of our kindness? I'm thinking of it in evolutionary terms, whereby those who were "kind" tended to do better reproductively than those who were "unkind." The kind ones benefited from the resources of the larger collective, so the trait of kindness was heavily selected. Those who were "unkind" were selected against, since they wouldn't be granted access to the group resources, nor access to reproductive partners.

 

I understand why we feel the empathy we do. It's similar to our sweet tooth, which evolved without provisions for excess. But overapplication leads to such ludicrousness as people being angry at someone swatting a fly. But if we deem that ludicrous, where can we draw the line? The original reason[i/] is because altruistic behaviour ultimately helped ourselves (or the spreading of our genes). But, like fake sugar, our task as intelligent beings is to reason through our primitive emotions and attempt to act rationally.

[bascule]

Why Be Kind?

 

Short answer: empathy

[JohnB]

But overapplication leads to such ludicrousness as people being angry at someone swatting a fly.

our task as intelligent beings is to reason through our primitive emotions and attempt to act rationally.

 

There is your answer. PETA is neither intelligent nor rational.

 

For a Bhuddist, non violence is a way of life, it's just how they are. For people like PETA, "non violence" is a religion, one they wish to spread by any means possible. A religious extremist, by definition is not rational.

[Tsuyoiko]

But then I realized, if there is no reason to care about animal happiness, why should we care about fellow human happiness (where, of course, it does not affect our own

 

We have a natural drive to care about the happiness of humans close to us because that affects our own happiness. We care about other humans who are not close to us because we see them behaving like the humans who are close to us. And we care about animals because they behave in some measure like humans. I think the reason some people care more about animals than others is because their ability to see (or imagine) these similarities is more developed, or because they have made a conscious decision that cruelty is wrong, or simply because they respect life.

 

I'm a vegetarian, I don't swat flies, and yesterday I cried because I accidentally stepped on a woodlouse. I know, I sound like a crazed hippy, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I got here through the same physical processes as that woodlouse. It had been crawling across the ground, maybe looking for a good place to hide, maybe looking for food; acting according to some biological drive analogous to the drives we experience, so its death moved me.

[CaptainPanic]

I care about animal happiness, but I realize that without predators, breeding and unlucky deaths, the animals wouldn't have evolved to be what they are today... therefore I continue to eat them.

 

Flies evolved to be what they are because for millions of years, animals and humans have tried to kill them, either because they're food or because they're just annoying. Therefore, one could argue that not killing a fly actually means that you are not behaving naturally. You're preventing a survival of the fittest.

 

I don't kill animals for fun. But a fly will die if it's annoying (meaning it's inside the house). And I kill one type of animal whenever, wherever. Mosquito's. I see no purpose for those pesky insects. I hate them, and I hope they go extinct, and I actively help them to achieve that (the traditional way - no chemical toxins).

 

And anyway, animal happiness is a vague concept. What animal is happier? The pig in the shed who has plenty of food, but a lack of space? Or the zebra on the open plains, dying of drought or a painful and slow death by some predator or disease? We hear a lot about the food industry, but animals in the wild really don't live such happy lives as we imagine. It's just that in children's books, the lion and the zebra are friends, and animals never die. Reality shows that animals get many more than 2 young per couple, and still struggle to maintain the population.

 

(note that for the sake of the discussion, I totally neglected the fact that I disagree with unnecessary animal cruelty)

Edited June 29, 2009 by CaptainPanic
more arguments why PETA is stupid

[Kyrisch]

Short answer: empathy

 

Short response: Intelligence trumps emotion (or should).

 

For instance, recently on Facebook someone created a poll on abortion, asking, "do you think abortion should be legal?" and including a gruesome picture of a bloody fetus. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion, and even though everyone's stomach turns when they see that picture (just as everyone has the tendency to empathize with animals and fellow people), modern science has shown (many of) our intelligences that abortion is a necessary evil. In the same way, my argument is not that we should go out of our way slaughtering animals and people alike, but rather that we should not go out of our way to treat them well and likewise not go out of our way to avoid treating them poorly.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There is your answer. PETA is neither intelligent nor rational.

 

For a Bhuddist, non violence is a way of life, it's just how they are. For people like PETA, "non violence" is a religion, one they wish to spread by any means possible. A religious extremist, by definition is not rational.

 

But then you start sliding down the slippery slope. If it's irrational to care about the "feelings" of a fly, when does it become rational to care about the feelings of anything?

[Tsuyoiko]

In the same way, my argument is not that we should go out of our way slaughtering animals and people alike, but rather that we should not go out of our way to treat them well and likewise not go out of our way to avoid treating them poorly.

 

Abortion is acceptable because it is done for good reasons. The same thing goes for animal testing. Can you think of a good reason not to avoid treating animals poorly?

[Sisyphus]

Alright, then, slightly longer answer: rational distribution of empathy. If that makes sense. Empathy is a fundamental part of what it means to be human, and it's necessary both for society and for one's own mental health. It's also unavaoidable, unless you're a sociopath, which is considered a serious mental disorder. So "why empathy" on an individual level is kind of a moot point. It's here, and collectively we're much better off because of it. Where "rationality trumps emotion" is in where that empathy is applied, deciding what qualities the objects of it have that make them "worthy" of it, and then being consistent. That's why you might be pro-choice even though pictures of aborted fetuses turn your stomach, or give moral significance to non-human animals to varying degrees.

[iNow]

I understand why we feel the empathy we do.

 

Right, but I am more suggesting that "why" might be the wrong question. When I referred to game theory and the evolutionary benefits of kindness, I was alluding to an explanation of its existence, not an answer of "why" we should do it. The explanation of its existence itself, for me anyway, is enough. When we act kindly toward other animals, it is merely an extension of that same kindness phenomenon which we've evolved... it is more of a byproduct... an emergent property, all coming from the same trait which was naturally selected.

 

Basically, we can explain the reason for the existence of our kindness to animals and other humans, as well as the benefit conferred by this kindness. I'm not sure asking "why" does us any good, because then we're far too deep into the realm of the subjective and the philosophical. You won't find "one right answer," because when you venture down that path you encounter the fact that everybody has their own personal and distinct reasons for "why," despite the fact that we all have already agreed on an explanation for the existence of kindness.

[visionofprog]

This is a question I've never really resolved in my own mind, and I was hoping to get some external commentary.

 

I was reminded yesterday about the issue when a friend and I were talking about PETA's reaction to the Obama fly-swatting video. Apparently they were upset at the actions of the president for unnecessarily ending the life of the poor fly. This is the stupidest thing I have ever head; there is no such thing as animal cruelty to animals which cannot feel. Further, our conception of what is "pain" is only comparable to what other conscious animals feel. This is because the pain we feel is an experience, and experiences are only meaningful to things with consciousnesses.

 

However, even animals with consciousnesses -- why should we care whether or not they are unhappy? In principle, there is something that compels people to say "we should", but that's just misapplied knee-jerk programmed empathy whose purpose was to enable intimate social interaction, not to 'protect the rights of animals'. And, as evidenced by the number of non-vegetarians in the country, people (even people who are fully aware of the horror of slaughterhouses), simply don't feel the compulsion not to eat meat. (Or said compulsion is not strong enough to make them not want to eat meat.)

 

So there is some cognitive dissonance between what people say is right and what people actually do (or care enough to think about). But I have actually thought about it. And while I feel that same empathy towards inflicting pain in conscious creatures, I simply cannot put a finger on any truly objective, rational argument for why we should care.

 

At this point, I was somewhat disheartened, but not completely. I am not, of course, a vegetarian, so it rather validated a position I was holding by default in the first place. But then I realized, if there is no reason to care about animal happiness, why should we care about fellow human happiness (where, of course, it does not affect our own)?

 

I struggled with this for quite some time, and I could not come up with a cohesive answer. It's a horrible prospect to conceive, but I see no solid line of reasoning against it.

 

I find it horribly ironic when vegans and vegetarians go on a tangent about cruelty and suffering, but when it comes to non-sentient life they don't give it two seconds thought. They adopt this mentality of "so what if I'm eating it or its dead?" It's the compartmentalization of life I find most irrational. I agree that killing any sort of life must be done for a very good reason (food). And I also agree that we should minimize has much pain and suffering as possible when we process this life into food. What I don't agree with is compartmentalizing life to the point where one half of the spectrum is treated indifferently.

[Kyrisch]

Where "rationality trumps emotion" is in where that empathy is applied, deciding what qualities the objects of it have that make them "worthy" of it, and then being consistent.

 

I agree. What we're discussing is the nitty-gritty. What qualities determine whether or not something is 'worthy' of empathy? And this decision must be made rationally, so we fall back on the original question: Why be kind? or more relevantly, to what or whom should we be kind (if anything/anyone)?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Right, but I am more suggesting that "why" might be the wrong question. When I referred to game theory and the evolutionary benefits of kindness, I was alluding to an explanation of its existence, not an answer of "why" we should do it. The explanation of its existence itself, for me anyway, is enough. When we act kindly toward other animals, it is merely an extension of that same kindness phenomenon which we've evolved... it is more of a byproduct... an emergent property, all coming from the same trait which was naturally selected.

 

Basically, we can explain the reason for the existence of our kindness to animals and other humans, as well as the benefit conferred by this kindness. I'm not sure asking "why" does us any good, because then we're far too deep into the realm of the subjective and the philosophical. You won't find "one right answer," because when you venture down that path you encounter the fact that everybody has their own personal and distinct reasons for "why," despite the fact that we all have already agreed on an explanation for the existence of kindness.

 

I understand, but you of all people would understand how it is our job to go against our better feelings. In all the threads treading on the heels of superstition, you speak strongly against it. This is the same thing. Even though being superstitious was evolutionarily beneficial, even without provisions for excess, our better knowledge provides for us those provisions. Asking "why are people superstitious" and "why should be we superstitious" are two different things. You answered the former, but I am trying to apply rational thought the why we ought to.

 

For instance, asking "I don't see any reason not to avoid causing harm to animals" is comparable to "I don't see any reason not to avoid stepping on the cracks in the pavement". Neither of these have any answer beyond "because there's no reason to do so."

[iNow]

Asking "why are people superstitious" and "why should be we superstitious" are two different things. You answered the former, but I am trying to apply rational thought the why we ought to.

 

A very fair point, and TBH I'm not too sure of the answer. I speculate that my approach is one which borders on utilitarianism... whereby I'm trying to maximize benefit with my own kindness, without simultaneously causing harm/detriment to myself. If I feel I will decrease my own position somehow (like not being able to eat or hold down a job because I spend so much time protecting animals), then I won't do it. However, if the cost/benefit analysis suggests I can protect the animal without causing undue harm to myself (or, more specifically, my own social position), then I will.

 

It really is a good question you've raised, and I suspect the answer is a moving target.

 

 

As an aside... I also think asking "why should we be superstitious" misses the point entirely. There is no answer to it, there is no "why" informing that we "should do this." Superstition is an emergent phenomenon of how we learn and a byproduct of the fact that we've evolved an innate curiosity about the world. Superstition is a confluence of that curiosity and a lack of adequate knowledge/description of actual processes. So as not to further derail this thread, I request any comments on that particular assertion be directed over here for further discussion:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40233

 

 

EDIT: Back on point, I think this idea of "detriment to ones own social position" may have some traction. The PETA folks find the importance of their social position lower than the importance of a swatted fly. They have simply done their cost/benefit analysis and found that protecting the fly is worth the cost to themselves and their own social position based on their own internal calculations.

[visionofprog]

Why be kind? Well, we can start with the basic precept that biologically speaking we want to live long enough so we can produce offspring which carry our genes into subsequent generations. Biological organisms that want to die go extinct rather quickly, and individuals who want to die don't really need to answer this question because it doesn't matter to them. If we're not kind to the people around us our chances of survival dramatically reduce. So while we ultimately are acting on selfish grounds what it produces overall is this sort of illusive altruism.

[Kyrisch]

However, if the cost/benefit analysis suggests I can protect the animal without causing undue harm to myself (or, more specifically, my own social position), then I will.

 

You still must defend the process of the cost/benefit analysis. In a recent thread, called "Science-based Morality" or something to the effect, you were all for the idea, and that concept is what I'm trying to apply here. Our scientific knowledge should inform our decisions on how to treat others, not our knee-jerk emotional responses.

 

So, for instance. Valid situations:

 

-Saving a wild animal whose extinction would disrupt the ecosystem and cause untold horrors on our agriculture.

 

-Being kind to your family members so your family life is not a living hell.

 

See how for each of them, the reasoning behind it is delineated? Where's the reasoning behind giving a hobo spare change? Behind keeping a beached whale alive for hours on the sand?

 

As an aside... I also think asking "why should we be superstitious" misses the point entirely. There is no answer to it, there is no "why" informing that we "should do this." Superstition is an emergent phenomenon of how we learn and a byproduct of the fact that we've evolved an innate curiosity about the world. Superstition is a confluence of that curiosity and a lack of adequate knowledge/description of actual processes. So as not to further derail this thread, I request any comments on that particular assertion be directed over here for further discussion:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40233

 

I know it's not directly related, but it is a good analogy. The answer to "Why be superstitious?" is actually quite easy. And it is to forge casual connections between events that we can show are valid, i.e. the scientific method. So, in short, we should be superstitious where it ultimately helps us, and should not waste resources where it doesn't.

 

Now, why is it so hard to transfer that simple concept across to morality? Everyone who says "there's no reason not to save the dying whale" is committing the same fallacy as religious people do when they say things like "there is no evidence against God." That's not how science works, and that's not how intelligence works.

 

EDIT: Back on point, I think this idea of "detriment to ones own social position" may have some traction. The PETA folks find the importance of their social position lower than the importance of a swatted fly. They have simply done their cost/benefit analysis and found that protecting the fly is worth the cost to themselves and their own social position based on their own internal calculations.

 

But that's absolutely irrational, and I know you know it is. The video in the other thread (which is a lot more related to this than I realized, maybe I'll dredge up the link) pointed out how some systems of ethics can be flat-out wrong (wearing burqas, for example). I think avoiding swatting flies (which is on the same level as crying over a squashed woodlouse or the principles of our odd resident a while back, "Green Xenon", whose skin was basically one giant bacterial culture) is patently irrational.

[iNow]

Again, we decide to save the dying whale, or offer spare change to the homeless dude because those behaviors are emergent properties of the evolved mechanism underlying kindness and empathy itself. That's all I've got. It's the logical outcome of the evolved mechanism. After that, I've got nothin'.

 

BTW - As I stated in the thread about PETA and that stupid fly Obama swatted, I find their position on this completely irrational and stupid. However, that doesn't mean they haven't deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.

[Kyrisch]

Again, we decide to save the dying whale, or offer spare change to the homeless dude because those behaviors are emergent properties of the evolved mechanism underlying kindness and empathy itself. That's all I've got. It's the logical outcome of the evolved mechanism. After that, I've got nothin'.

 

And religious belief is the same thing, but we've quelled that with our intelligence. So, my question is, where is the intelligent motivation to do such things?

[iNow]

Golden rule? We'd want others to do it for us, so we lead by example and do it ourselves? I feel like I'm throwing darts at an invisible target.

[Kyrisch]

Have I set up the question so there is no answer? We've answered it all well and good regarding so many other things, that I didn't think it would be such a problem. Something I realized recently is that being "kind" to people may be rationally permitted by the fact that much of society behaves like the prisoner's dilemma. If we act selfishly, everyone loses. If we act selflessly, everyone wins. And not just cases where you get direct benefits from being altruistic, but also simply upholding the principle of the golden rule allows the standard to be such that everyone gains in the end. So in a way, upholding the principle in general yields the greatest benefit, rather than taking things case-by-case (as is what rationality often demands). This position, in game theory lingo, is called superrationality.

 

This, however, does not extend into the animal realm, and I still see no rational defence of, say, helping a beached whale.

[john5746]

And religious belief is the same thing, but we've quelled that with our intelligence. So, my question is, where is the intelligent motivation to do such things?

 

Does there have to be? We are not robots, there is more to life than logic and rationality. Empathy is emotional. We save the whale because we feel for it, not because it will someday save the planet.

[iNow]

We save the whale because we feel for it, not because it will someday save the planet.

Bah! Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home proves you wrong, sir.