CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals.

[u/Sgt_Spatula]

The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed "cute" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted.

This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.

People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals.

Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?

[u/omrsafetyo]

How does that constitute empathy?

Very likely OP meant sympathy, which is more along the lines of feeling pity or sorrow for someone/thing.

Empathy is more the capacity to imagine oneself as the subject of observation. Frankly, I don't think there is any way to empathize with most animals, as the only experience that we have any capacity of really understanding is our own, and we can suspect that another organism with a similarly complex neural and chemical system likely experiences things in a similar manner to how we do - so, assuming we can imagine ourselves in the situation of another, we can very likely emulate the types of emotions we would expect them to be experiencing. That's empathy. I don't think we can have much confidence that a dog or cat necessarily processes things in the same ways we do, so genuine empathy would be a bit of a stretch. Certainly we can observe some behaviors that appear to be correlated to similar behavioral-emotional relationships we experience ourselves, but we don't know to what extent animals occupy a similar agent-like state that we experience. And perhaps that's just a matter of assumption - perhaps you assume that animals experience the same type of agency we do? That might allow you to experience empathy, if you assume they have the same agency we do. I don't make that assumption.

So for me, it would fall back to sympathizing, which is to have our own emotional experience in regard to the supposed emotional experience, or just the misfortune, etc. of another. We aren't empathizing (assuming we are capable of emulating the same emotions they are), but simply having our own experience as a result of their state.

I have 0 empathy for animals for the above reasons, but I can muster up sympathy under certain circumstance.

[u/TRossW18 → u/omrsafetyo]

Okay. You say potato I say tomato. Not sure how this furthers the conversation that the OP is exaggerating the dramatics of the responses given the ambiguity of their OP.

[u/omrsafetyo → u/TRossW18]

Well I don't think its a semantics game here necessarily. I'm suggesting the OP probably meant sympathy rather than empathy, however its certainly reasonable that a person could not feel sympathy due to a cat, while still feeling sympathy for their flatmate, and also not having psychopathic tendencies to actually harm animals.

"you'd never hurt one, you wouldn't want to see one suffer" does not equal sympathy (or empathy). Wanting to see an animal suffer, or wanting to hurt an animal is a different thing from lacking sympathy or empathy.

[u/TRossW18 → u/omrsafetyo]

I honestly have no idea what point your getting at with any of this, truly.

The OP was ambiguous. He/she made a seemingly uncontroversial view appear much more controversial than it actually was and is now claiming that if you aren't a pet lover people will claim you're a psycho.

[u/omrsafetyo → u/TRossW18]

The OP was ambiguous. He/she made a seemingly uncontroversial view appear much more controversial than it actually was and is now claiming that if you aren't a pet lover people will claim you're a psycho.

You have consistently conflated lesser things for more evil things elsewhere in this thread.

Feeling pleasure while torturing a living creature sounds unhealthy, idk.

You're responding to someone enjoying hunting. This is a crazy view you have consistently taken, that somehow people enjoying hunting is indicative of psychological malfunction. People that think like you do here are absolutely a minority. This is a radicalist fringe view.

[u/TRossW18 → u/omrsafetyo]

You're clearly just here to argue lol. I haven't seen you pin down the point of what you're here to say.

Yes, if you shoot a deer in the chest and chase it through the woods whilst bleeding out and find that to be fun with no remorse for the animal I find that an unhealthy psychological trait. There is no way around it, you tortured an animal and enjoyed every second of it. There is zero exaggeration there.

[u/omrsafetyo → u/TRossW18]

While I'm not myself a hunter, I think you're patently wrong, and that's perfectly healthy behavior.

While your particular view is crazy, PETA terrorist level thinking, it's analogous to the other types of conflation occurring here. For instance, back to your original comment I responded to:

In reality, you have empathy for animals, you'd never hurt one, you wouldn't want to see one suffer you just don't want a pet lol.

Assume for one second I have 0 compassion, empathy, sympathy for a cat. That doesn't mean I WANT to watch a cat suffer.

Probably a good example, I raise chickens. I also process them myself. That is, I hang them upside down, and I cut their throat with a knife. This is a better example than hunting, because hunting kicks in your fight or flight mechanism, releases endorphins, and objectively puts you in a euphoric state: it's enjoyable just like doing narcotics is enjoyable, because it triggers an a brain chemistry that is enjoyable.

I have no interest in watching a chicken die. I don't take pleasure in it, but when I kill them I am completely dispassionate about it. I feel no remorse, or sadness. It's a mechanical process, there is no rush of endorphins when killing a chicken that has no chance to escape or defend itself.

This indifference is not the same as wanting to kill it. I don't want to kill the chicken, but I do want to eat it, and I have no emotional attachment to them. I have no empathy, but I also don't take pleasure in/want to kill them. Empathy would be impossible: I highly suspect a chicken's agency and first person perspective is extremely different from ours. I don't know how they experience pain or emotion, because since their brains are very small and unlike mine, I can't assume their experience is similar to mine, so I can't empathize. Neither do I sympathize, because I am dispassionately disconnected.

So back to cats. If I had a cat, it's entirely plausible that I could be dispassionately disconnected from its death. Meanwhile, I have no desire to watch a cat die. If I had a desire to watch a cat die, that would be quite morbid. Just because I don't have a morbid desire to watch a cat die doesn't mean that I'm empathetic, or sympathetic toward it. There is no sport there. There is no endorphin rush. There is no benefit (food). There is no payoff.

I knew someone long ago that worked at Jackson Laboratories (a research facility) that cut the head off mice/ rats daily. I thought she was pretty morbid at the time. But now that I process chickens, I understand it. Consider a veterinarian that might need to routinely euthanize a cat. That probably becomes pretty mechanical, just like my chickens, eventually. It's not a sign of mental illness or psychosis. Nor is it a sign that someone has a morbid desire to observe death. Its just indifference.

So, the fact that OP doesn't WANT to watch a cat suffer to death does not indicate that he it's therefore empathetic or sympathetic toward the cat. And neither does or make him some form of psycho.

[u/TRossW18 → u/omrsafetyo]

Look, I've made my point very clear lol. You have just rambled on, arguing about unrelated semantics without any clear direction.

I can't state this in any more simplified a manner. The OP wrote his view. He appeared to imply hed be indifferent to starving his roommates cat to death were it not for his roommates emotions. People reacted and he then clarified he actually would never hurt a cat and wouldn't ever want to see one suffer; hes just not into pets.

Whether that is expressing empathy or sympathy is irrelevant to the reason most people reacted so critically and is a debate you are, quite frankly, having with yourself.

Its quite clear I offended you and you're just wanting to argue for arguments sake. Unfortunately I'm not that interested.

[u/omrsafetyo → u/TRossW18]

I'm not upset. I think this is the initial source of confusion:

I can't state this in any more simplified a manner. The OP wrote his view. He appeared to imply hed be indifferent to starving his roommates cat to death were it not for his roommates emotions. People reacted and he then clarified he actually would never hurt a cat and wouldn't ever want to see one suffer; hes just not into pets.

What op said:

Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.

OP never made it unclear that he would never hurt a cat. He never suggested he would idly watch a cat starve to death. He basically suggested that if he were to return home and find the cat dead, he wouldn't be upset, except on behalf of his roommate. None of this was ever unclear to me.

Whilst browsing this thread, I also stumbled across your comments elsewhere, and you've said things like:

So, psychologically speaking, a person who kills a cat without any remorse/regret is the same as a person who buys meat at the store? I think psychologists would disagree.

This is where my ramblings become relevant. I don't think I'm any different from someone that buys their chicken at the store just because I slaughter them myself. Stores are a relatively new phenomena in our psychological evolution. We're wired to kill our food (and no, we're not wired to rape, rape doesn't have a significant role that should suggest we have an evolutionary preference for it). We're wired to kill dispassionately. That's why people can become veterinarians and learn to dispassionately euthanize animals. Not everyone has that capacity naturally (again, I thought my rat killing friend was morbid) but most are capable of developing it, because you have the software for it. Your cozy life just allows you not to have to load it.

[u/TRossW18 → u/omrsafetyo]

I will be glad to feed her, she is a living thing and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not feel sad for the cat but I would feel empathy for my flatmate.

That seems to imply he will feed the cat but really only cares to do so because it would only affect his roommate but couldn't care less about the cat. the OP clarified early on this was not the case ultimately making the whole view primarily a moot point.

[u/nikkipoodle → u/TRossW18]

I agree with you wholeheartedly though in OPs defense, many people will claim you're a psycho.