From The Wall Street Journal comes this little question worthy of the Mishna:
A recent paper by Topolski, Richard at George Regents University and colleagues, published in the journal Anthrozoƶs, demonstrates this human involvement with pets to a startling extent. Participants in the study were told a hypothetical scenario in which a bus is hurtling out of control, bearing down on a dog and a human. Which do you save? With responses from more than 500 people, the answer was that it depended: What kind of human and what kind of dog?.
Everyone would save a sibling, grandparent or close friend rather than a strange dog. But when people considered their own dog versus people less connected with them—a distant cousin or a hometown stranger—votes in favor of saving the dog came rolling in. And an astonishing 40% of respondents, including 46% of women, voted to save their dog over a foreign tourist. This makes Parisians' treatment of American tourists look good in comparison.
2 comments:
Wouldn't the same principle apply to humans as well? If your sister and a stranger where both in front of said bus who would you save? More than likely your sister because of emotional attachment. Being an animal involved should have nothing to do with it. Buddhist thought puts all life on the same level human or animal, who's to judge who's life is greater than the other. In the end it boils down to emotional attachment and who's life means more to you.
let me say this about that...
http://pedanticmystic.blogspot.com/2013/07/which-is-more-important.html
Post a Comment