In movies, why do we care about animals dieing, not humans?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I don’t know if this is just me, but in any given movie it doesn’t matter if a man gets shot in the face, but I care and almost cry (close) if a dog or horse is shown getting injured or killed. Why? Is it more than a movie, or is it just my out look (raising) on human life?

Like in Braveheart, good movie. I was almost outraged that William Wallace’s horse brakes it’s back while hitting the water, but I “love” the action scene where the guy chops the other guys head off. I know its not just me, but is this just because of how we feel about humans, or just because we understand its just a movie?

Is this how we view human life? Is there more than it seems in our minds?

Curiosity killed the cat!

2

it’s because of environmentalist wacko ethicists, like singer, espousing systems where human life is devalued and the ethics of the non human is advanced… it’s a crock… but you obviously have been schooled to not care about human life…

-Imp

3

It is the way it is presented in the movie. Animals are usually shown as inncocent, goood, etc. so we care when they die.

4

Likewise you have obviously been schooled to not care about animal life.

You wacko. :slight_smile:

5

:slight_smile: I care deeply about animal life, and I am not afraid to show my caring when I eat them…

-Imp

6

“Touch me tender”. :evilfun:

7

But then why is it that I am not really sad when the hero dies either? And
why the hell would they teach us to feel like this? Also when the animal is evil, I still feel that it wasn’t his fault?

8

Exist-

It is the way it is presented in the movie. Animals are usually shown as inncocent, goood, etc. so we care when they die.

Isn’t it a little wacky to describe animals interms of right and wrong? Animals cannot use logic, and therefore could not commit a crime. They could violate the actus reus, but not the mens rea. Simply put, there is no right or wrong in animals. Which is why none of them deserve to die.

Sincerely,

Floyd

9

Quite, Floyd.

Plus, people have never really held much affection for other people. We don’t care if they die. Only when those whom we consider close pass away do we experience grief, which is really just an expression of our ultimate selfishness (we don’t want them to go because they enhance our lives in some way - emotion, security etc.)

10

Alle Guten, Alle Bosen, they die for causes; animals, they die because they are run down by cars or something like that. Their deaths aren’t justified. Things that aren’t justified are pathetic.

We want anwsers, that’s why there is philosophy, so we don’t feel pathetic.

11

Not Cujo dammit!!

or those creepy animals in pet semetary.

as to braveheart?

I always tear up when he’s getting his entrails pulled out and he screams “FREEDOM”. Gets me every time.

edit:

I think it really depends on how the violence against animal or human is presented and who is watching.

12

Catwoman-

Quite, Floyd.

Meow.

Sincerely,

Floyd

13

Hi Hellwizard,

I know what you mean about having more sympathy for animals that for humans depicted in movies. I too have wondered about this.

I think part of this has to due with the sheer magnitude of humanity in the world today, along with our awareness it. The mass of humanity has added to a sense of alienation. We have to see so many people and deal with so many people every day. We have to develop a think hide of generalized apathy just to cope. Most people who you interact with remain strangers to you. This is a world of strangers.

Dealing with animals is rare. Usually if you deal with any animals on a regular basis they are well known to you. We don’t develop a general apathy towards animals. There is no reason to do so. So we retain a strong vulnerability towards animals. Our sympathy for them has few inhibitions. Animals are often safe and non-threatening.

Ian Suttie and his student John Bowlby did research in early childhood development. Suttie pioneered the idea that human being have a natural desire for intimacy and tenderness that is thwarted by a social taboo against intimacy.

More recently Carol Gilligan wrote about the socializing that happen to young boys at around 5 years old. It is during this critical time that boys start to internalize the taboo against intimacy. Boys are tough to inhibit their emotional expressions. Peer pressure is strong against boys who fail to act tough.

The same taboo against intimacy does not get internalized in girls until adolescence.

14

What an original question!! Kudos!!

Exist said:
“It is the way it is presented in the movie. Animals are usually shown as inncocent, goood, etc. so we care when they die.”

I think when someone dies in those action movies it is always couched in some kind of moral argument. When the villain dies, we hardly flinch an eye, when the hero dies we are usually bent on revenge, unless the death is a senseless accident like in the day after tomorrow. We are so caught up in our moral symbols and identify so much with our species. We have forgotten that humans, although endowed with consciousness, are still animals. I also believe that there are cultural trends that see us as the protectors of nature, due in part perhaps, to us seeing ourselves as outside of nature.

15

Well, he seems to be describing them as good and innocent, not in terms of right and wrong.

I think he has a fair point. We care more if the human is good and dies and we care more about animals because they are seen as ultimately innocent. Ironic though, if you eat them.

16

OxfordWill-

Well, he seems to be describing them as good and innocent, not in terms of right and wrong.

Are you kidding me? Alright, I hereby change my post to plug in the words “good and innocent.” Now, isn’t it a bit wacky to describe animals as good or innocent? And, by the way, the terms good and innocent are apart of the moral encompassment of right and wrong.

We care more if the human is good and dies and we care more about animals because they are seen as ultimately innocent.

This is my point. How are animals innocent? How are they good? They are animals. They are incapable of committing a crime. That doesn’t make them innocent, it makes them not describable in terms of right and wrong. Animals use no logic, and therefore aren’t good or bad, right or wrong, innocent or guilty.

Sincerely,

Floyd

17

No, not at all wacky. Off the top of my head, I can think of three philosophies that would describe animals as inherantly good, and inherantly innocent. Being moral requires a great deal more than being good, or innocent. Depending on your definition, one can be good and still lead an immoral life. One can be innocent, and lead an immoral life. It is wacky to confuse these terms. :slight_smile:

I feel it a mistake to think in legal terms. Legality is not morality. I am not innocent because I simply fail to prove myself guilty of something. Innocence is a purer, more determined word than this. Yes, we happen to use the word ‘innocent’ in our legal process but that is an interpretation, or separate definition, to the one you would need to refer to in this discussion of morality.

You could easily argue that because animals cannot reason, they are innocent. Innocence, such as that of a newly born child who knows little of the complications of life and is instantly trusting of anything that does not directly cause it pain or discomfort.

Likewise you could easily argue that an animal is good, by virtue of its innocence, lack of capability for deviancy…etc.

I do not see any reason to believe that just because animals cannot use logic, as you put it, they cannot be good or innocent. If you provide justification for that I might be able to say something more.

18

Oxford Will-

Depending on your definition, one can be good and still lead an immoral life. One can be innocent, and lead an immoral life. It is wacky to confuse these terms.

Okay.

I feel it a mistake to think in legal terms.

I only used legal terms to illustrate that there are two necessary components of crimes, and these two components can be helpful when dealing with morality. If someone doesn’t mean to commit a crime, they are not guilty. If someone does not commit the act, they are not guilty. It is only when there is a combination of the two that we describe them as guilty.

To illustrate: You and I presumably both feel that having sex with animals is immoral, wrong. What happens if I fall asleep naked and my dog does something very, very bad? Am I bad? No. Is the dog bad? No.

You simply can’t claim that things that don’t intend to do things right or wrong are guilty or innocent. Is a rock innocent of murder? What if it landed on someone’s head? If something hasn’t the ability to BOTH commit the crime and know that it was a crime, it simply can’t be referred to as right, wrong, guilty, moral, immoral, or innocent, IMHO.

Yes, we happen to use the word ‘innocent’ in our legal process but that is an interpretation, or separate definition, to the one you would need to refer to in this discussion of morality.

Actually, we do not use the term innocent in our legal system. If you are from the USA, then neither does yours. People are either guilty, or not guilty.

Maybe it is a difference in definition, but I feel that if something CANNOT be guilty, then it CANNOT be innocent. If something cannot be right, it can’t be wrong.

Maybe I am missing the point.

Sincerely,

Floyd

19

Well I would consider that if something cannot be right, it could instead be wrong.

We have ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ in our legal process here in the UK.

I really see no reason to think legal terms can help us in the world of morals. It’s easy to compare the two, most definitely, and convenient, but these are not good reasons for doing so in my opinion.

20

i think there are two things that combine cause us to feel more empathy towrd the depictions of animal harm. This first is that, unless a person is a hunter, food industry worker or sociopath they don’t have much experience in violent animal deaths/injuries in our society. The second is the not often enough metioned phenomena called misanthropy.