Thread: Why You Watch Accidents

Originally Posted by A Humble Sinner

I actually think the way humans murder other humans is worse that the way humans kill animals. And thats not for some "animals don't have rights" reason, even though it's related.

That is exactly why humans justify killing animals in a more brutal way. Simply youtube "animal cruelty" to see for yourself.

Humans kill other animals because, in their eyes, humans are superior and have a right to do this. Or animals don't have rights. It's simple harvesting, or, in extreme cases, sport etc. Again, that comes from thinking that other species have no rights.

But in fact, killing humans is worse. Because when we kill animals, we are simply asserting what we feel is our right. There's no hatred involved, no unthinkable brutality that comes with murder. And that, that absence of motive, or really a negative one, is my whole point.

When humans kill other humans, those actions are the result of negative emotions and motives. In fact, when we kill each other, we show that, not only do we not care about each other, we hate each other.

So in fact (conclusion, sorry it took so long), we are more vicous, we are more violent and we do care less about each other - we do not necessarily care more about each other. Our levels of vicousness in regards to humans and animals prove that.

So, you are saying human deaths are worse because there is more sentiment?

I could use the exact same reasoning to say, "humans brutally rape and skin animals alive because there is no sentiment."

If you truly think humans are not viscious to animals, I suggest you review animal cruelty and ask where your food comes from, clothing, etc. I am not a vegetarian or anything, but humans are certainly more capable, and commit to, viscious killing of animals.

However, yes.. humans do brutally murder each other. My point is that humans can (and do) easily say, "killing this animal does not matter" and run it over.

I have no statistics on this, so, this is truly just conjecture from my own neandering experience.

~

Contrary to the view that humans care about eachother is that they don't.
Many psychologists believe that helping behaviour is entirely egoistic i.e.
They will only help if the benefit of helping (praise from others, heightened self belief)would outweigh the cost of helping (time, risk). What do you guys think about this?

Anyway..... here are some interesting facts about helping behaviour:
-People are more likely to help someone in a rural environment than in an urban one

-Men are more likely to help when the victim is an attractive woman, when there is a crowd and when there is significant danger.

-People are more likely to help other people who they percieve as similar to themselves

-Helping someone in need is more likely to occur in a collectivist culture then in an individualistic one (the USA, Canada, and the UK are all individualistic)

Originally Posted by psychology student

Contrary to the view that humans care about eachother is that they don't.
Many psychologists believe that helping behaviour is entirely egoistic i.e.
They will only help if the benefit of helping (praise from others, heightened self belief)would outweigh the cost of helping (time, risk). What do you guys think about this?

Yes, the study of altruism is also a bit circular; almost anything can be argued to a selfish standpoint. A good reinforcement for evolutionary psychology, but what is falsifiable about this?

I think you are also alleging to the social-reciprocity norm? The idea of getting something back in return?

Anyway..... here are some interesting facts about helping behaviour:
-People are more likely to help someone in a rural environment than in an urban one

-Men are more likely to help when the victim is an attractive woman, when there is a crowd and when there is significant danger.

-People are more likely to help other people who they percieve as similar to themselves

-Helping someone in need is more likely to occur in a collectivist culture then an individualistic one (the USA, Canada, and the UK are all individualistic)

This is also all part of the reinforcement for evolutionary psychology.

Student, consider what you said, "some believe they help because they are egoistic" because? To help there species survive perhaps..? This is one stance.

Have you delved into evolutionary psychology at all?

~

Oh, yes... in fact you're saying brutality to animals is worse because we give them an "inferior" role?

Yes, I get your point. I was merely pointing out that I believe that because animals are deemed "inferior" human-human brutality has more sentiment which makes it worse. But you're right.

Originally Posted by A Humble Sinner

Oh, yes... in fact you're saying brutality to animals is worse because we give them an "inferior" role?

Yes, I get your point. I was merely pointing out that I believe that because animals are deemed "inferior" human-human brutality has more sentiment which makes it worse. But you're right.

lol you are very right - we can't make a martyr out of a squirrel now can we?

We don't see cows dying for a political cause or hanging a dictating bull.

~

Lol

In some ways they are a lot smarter than us...

Why do we watch car accidents?

The answer is simple and complete; because you care about your fellow human being.

Thats not true...

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Thats not true...

Care to elaborate or offer an alternative argument?

~

Shouldn't think so.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Student, consider what you said, "some believe they help because they are egoistic" because? To help there species survive perhaps..? This is one stance.


~

Sorry I took so long, but I was in a car accident. It wouldn't have been so bad and hence I so long, had I not been the odd one out in that western city, full of women!

Anyway, the first thing you said seems to imply that my argument is circular, or can work both ways. This is only because you cite me as saying that the actual being is egoistic, when I actually said the behaviour is egoistic:

"Many psychologists believe that helping behaviour is entirely egoistic"

If behaviour is egoistic, then it implies that it is universally selfish. However when you said that I said that the actual beings are egoistic, in combination with the second part of my post (people help similar people), then, it implies that a beings behaviour is not universally egoistic but egoistically selective, only helping ones species, or race or peers. It is thus circular as it condones selfless behaviour in humans.
Moreover, the second part of my post was intended to be independent of the first and was essentially some interesting facts found by studies on the subject on altruistic and bystander behaviour in humans; it in no way was support for the first. Furthermore, I personally, do not believe that humans are egoistic but selfless. I actually agree with you and was just offering the alternative psychological interpretation of human behaviour that exists.




"Have you delved into evolutionary psychology at all?"

When you ask that are you questioning the argument, or asking about my history; its ambiguous?

Originally Posted by psychology student

Sorry I took so long, but I was in a car accident. It wouldn't have been so bad and hence I so long, had I not been the odd one out in that western city, full of women!

Anyway, the first thing you said seems to imply that my argument is circular, or can work both ways. This is only because you cite me as saying that the actual being is egoistic, when I actually said the behaviour is egoistic:

"Many psychologists believe that helping behaviour is entirely egoistic"

If behaviour is egoistic, then it implies that it is universally selfish. However when you said that I said that the actual beings are egoistic, in combination with the second part of my post (people help similar people), then, it implies that a beings behaviour is not universally egoistic but egoistically selective, only helping ones species, or race or peers. It is thus circular as it condones selfless behaviour in humans.
Moreover, the second part of my post was intended to be independent of the first and was essentially some interesting facts found by studies on the subject on altruistic and bystander behaviour in humans; it in no way was support for the first. Furthermore, I personally, do not believe that humans are egoistic but selfless. I actually agree with you and was just offering the alternative psychological interpretation of human behaviour that exists.


"Have you delved into evolutionary psychology at all?"

When you ask that are you questioning the argument, or asking about my history; its ambiguous?

I was more or less extending on to what you said. I was not arguing you so much as elaborating and seeing if you agree. As it seems, we agree - unless you think otherwise..?

Sorry for the vague nature; I assure that if it were in person with prosody, we would be having a very agreeable discussion.

~

At least we have these emoticon/smiley things . We agree at least.