Why Be Kind?

[Tsuyoiko]

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.

 

I agree. It makes me uncomfortable to draw an arbitrary line between what I will and won't eat. But since I'm not comfortable eating animals, and I have to eat something, I draw it between plants and animals. I take some small comfort from the recognition that I am a hypocrite!

 

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

 

As John5476 says, we do it (in part) because we feel for the whale. I'm not clear on why you think superrationality doesn't extend to our treatment of animals. It's pretty well-established that cruelty to animals is correlated with violent crime. Being kind to animals makes sense because it makes for a generally kind person.

 

I think another sensible reason is that it makes us feel good.

 

I don't think you've given any good reasons yet why we shouldn't be kind to animals.

[Sisyphus]

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.

 

Yes, in terms of strict cost-benefit to yourself. But that's not all there is to it. You are empathic. Trying to separate that from rationality doesn't work. If you're going to ask why you should care about other people/beings, you may as well ask why you should care about yourself. Seriously, why? Your cost/benefit analysis is meaningless if you don't care about yourself, and caring about yourself is not rationally arrived at. What you've done is assume one irrational (but factual) premise, deny a different irrational (but factual) premise, and try to derive something rational from them.

[iNow]

Again... I can't help but to suggest that the key term in all of this is "emergent property."

[souixsie]

I thought Obama showed a ruthless streak when he swatted that fly. I'd have captured it in a glass and let it out the window. There was no need for him to kill it. It displayed thoughtlessness and a lack of respect for life and the wonderful process of evolution that has produced flies. I don't agree that it's 'just a fly' so doesn't matter. Everything matters, but to varying degrees based on ones own perspective. If it had been a mosquito biting his arm, it would have perhaps been justified, but a fly just buzzing around? Death was a little harsh I think.

 

The point about being kind is that it's an attitude, not an action or combination of actions. It's all about precedence. If one can be unkind for no good reason to other things (whatever they may be - even inanimate objects) then one can use the same argument to be unkind to other people. It's a road to psychopathy!

Edited July 5, 2009 by souixsie

[Liquid Nitrogen]

Short answer: empathy

 

Add compassion to that list!