I mean why do the most humans wants to save the life of other humans they don't know. And don't talk about all humans in the world but about the most. Why do humans wants to help humans with disabilities. It takes more work to teach humans with disabilities (and I mean mental disabilities) that humans without disabilities. And these humans would never be so productive that other humans. And also humans with strong physical disabilities (e.g. humans they can't see and hear both). And why do humans donate their blood or their organs to save the life of other humans they don't even know? What are the advantaged to try to save every single life. Can a society of humans also work with only humans they have worth for the society? Why do a society needs homeless peoples? Why do a society needs peoples with strong disabilities?

And an other point is the environment. Why is it okay to kill animals and exploit the planet? When a humans kills an other humans the murderer will also killed or goes into the prison for the rest of his life. But when a human kills an animals in nearly any cases nothing happens. In all countries in which no death penalty exists a murderer of a human would go into the prison. But when an animal kills a human the animal has to be killed. And an animal kills no human because of fun or because the animal to bored. But humans does. So why can the human life and the animal must die?

All I wrote is just my opinion. Please write when you have another opinion and explain why.

closed as primarily opinion-based by Mr. Kennedy, Chelonian, Conifold, Frank Hubeny, Philip Klöcking Jun 5 '18 at 10:33

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Hi, welcome to Philosophy SE. Please visit our Help Center to see what questions we answer and how to ask. As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. – Conifold Jun 3 '18 at 20:47
  • 1
    Opinions have no place in our format, as Conifold pointed out. Also, what you write points straight to euthanasia, something not even the Third Reich dared to pursue openly after 1941 (Google "Lion of Münster" for further information) as it is simply murder of innocent humans and every other label is nothing but a euphemism. Perhaps reading up on that issue will help you understand some problems and moral sentiments involved. – Philip Klöcking Jun 5 '18 at 10:48

It's basic biology - saving other human lives is hard-wired into our genes.

If you see a lion fighting with a pack of hyenas, you might favor one or the other, but few people would attempt to help either side. But if a lion or hyena attacks a human, most people would instinctively help the human, just as we instinctively save other people from fires and other disasters.

Such behavior isn't necessarily completely selfless. If we are ever in a dangerous situation, we would want someone to help us, too. So there are elements of empathy and selfishness (including the so-called "selfish gene") at work.

Helping people who appear to be beyond hope (e.g. the sick and injured) is more complex. It should really be asked as a separate question.

I'm a little hesitant about including the homeless with people who are physically incapacitated, though many homeless people do indeed have mental problems. However, the homeless are largely political and/or economic casualties, and one could argue that it would better to get rid of the people at the top of the economic pyramid than to get rid of their victims.

Again, that's another topic.

Why is it okay to kill animals and exploit the planet?

Yet another question, one that's extremely opinionated. Many Christians believe that God wants us to "subdue" Earth and its resources. Capitalists see profits in natural resources.

Other people appreciate Nature's beauty and many also see practical benefits to living with Nature, rather than taming or defiling it. Building communities on flood plains isn't a smart choice, for example.

One more thing - how do you define "mental disabilities"? We normally think of people who are visibly "mental" or have a hard time functioning in society. But what about seemingly normal people who have been brainwashed? What about people who believe that Earth is nothing more than a pile of resources that should be exploited for cash as fast as possible?

That could be considered a mental disability, which is a topic for yet another discussion.

  • With mental ability I mean people they a hard to teach. For example people they suffer from Down syndrome or a strong attention deficit. And yes of cause there are people they exploit the earth for cash but that is another topic. Furthermore a big problem is also the amount of humans on earth. So why should every human saved when the earth is overpopulated? – Maximilian Schelbach Jun 4 '18 at 14:39
  • I just realized, I misread your question. I sought to explain WHY we save people when you're asking whether we SHOULD save people - which is a good question. – David Blomstrom Jun 4 '18 at 19:49

Human is a social animal no matter what you say or how you say it it's all going to be down to one simple line.

If you are a human down with the heart you will show care; be it an animal or another human.

When you are blessed with all the abilities and you see another person missing that precious elements from his life or his body you tend to incline towards him or her. This is all because nature has created us that way.

So basically any human will show care and humanity towards others. Unless otherwise.

  • Do you have any references of philosophers who also present this position. It would strengthen the answer by giving the reader other places to go for a similar perspective. – Frank Hubeny Jun 5 '18 at 0:52
  • Well, currently I do not. This is something that came to my head and I drafted it here. – Syed Hussaini Jun 5 '18 at 11:00

For the origins and qdaptive benefits of altruism biologically, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality Although it's a big topic with plenty of controversies. It's noteworthy that gibbons who raise young in creches, learn more quickly from each other than chimpanzees who don't but have larger brains - it seems mirror neurons develop more strongly with collective childcare. These help physically mimic others, but also form the basis for empathy and feeling others' pain.

To understand the progress from caring about family and descendents, to caring about distant people, and now increasingly domesticated and wild animals also, Peter Singer gives a good account in 'The Expanding Circle Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress' https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9434.html We have a strong bias towards people we know, to people who are like us and live near us, and other kinds of tribalism and parochial thinking. The manifestation of that in a modern industrialised society, and of hostility to the homeless (who usually have untreated mental health and/or substance abuse problems), mentally ill and disabled people, and anyone who is 'undesirable', can be seen in Nazism, and Soviet ideas. It wastes huge amounts of human potential, and fosters destructive societies.

We assume humans who have murdered are capable of reform, or will not be released. We generally think that not possible for animals.

  • Can you explain what you mean with 'wastes huge amounts of potential'? I mean that is the basic question of this thread. And why do you mean that a society without all humans they are undesirable becomes destructive? The Nazism idea is based on that there are only one race of humans they a worth to live. And Nazis just want to have power. In the nature animals they have disabilities are outcasted. And this is working in the nature. So why do we need humans with disabilities in out society? – Maximilian Schelbach Jun 5 '18 at 9:50
  • @MaximilianSchelbach: Humans are different by nature. You cannot compare animals that live by necessity and inclination (even if they transcended mere instinctive behaviour, as all higher mammals and quite a few birds) with humans, i.e. animals that have an idea of "should" through grasping that which is not actual. This would pierce through the is-ought divide without even addressing it. – Philip Klöcking Jun 5 '18 at 11:07
  • Nazis didn't just kill racially, they also killed disabled and mentally ill people. Their same pre judgements of people, applied to the natural world, they dismissed Einstein's ideas as 'Jewish science', and lost many of the scientists who developed nuclear weapons. (trying) Not to have prejudgements is to hold we are 'born equal', we can be free to be judged by behaviour and capacities, not superficial things or categories. Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been allowed to live by Nazis, nor Alan Turing. That is the kind of waste of potential that loses wars. – CriglCragl Jun 5 '18 at 11:12
  • @MaximilianSchelbach - Some humans are fair, intelligent, loving and forgiving; one would spontaneously wish them well. Of course, not all humans are like that. Experiences have shown that those who mind their own businesses had done a lot less harm than whose who invent lofty excuses to meddle with other people's affairs. Humanity as a whole are the cause of untold misery to other animals; putting humans above other animals is no less selfish than putting oneself above others. – George Chen Jun 5 '18 at 14:47

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.