I'll keep an injured bird warm and away from the cat (it was the cat that injured it), but calling animal control for a terrorized sparrow seems like a waste of everyone's resources.
Everything I do is illegal in some way or another so I've stopped taking that into account.
Donating to a wildlife charity misses the point. It's not about producing utilons, it's about maintaining empathy. Putting on my murder face to watch a bird get torn apart by the cat while planning to donate to a charity falls in the second category (from parent) of things I could do, except that it doesn't even save me time.
If it was a larger animal like a coyote or raccoon, then calling the animal people would make sense, but not for little birds.
I'll keep an injured bird warm and away from the cat (it was the cat that injured it), but calling animal control for a terrorized sparrow seems like a waste of everyone's resources.
The bird is probably gong to die anyway. It's probably better just to kill it.
If it was a larger animal like a coyote or raccoon, then calling the animal people would make sense, but not for little birds.
They'll probably just euthanize it anyway. But yes, it can make you feel good if you don't know or think about what'll end up happening.
I ended up reading this article about animal suffering by this Christian apologist called William Craig. Forgive the source, please.
He continues the argument here.
How decent do you think this argument is? I don't know where to look to evaluate the core claim, as I know very little neuroscience myself. I'm quite concerned about animal suffering, and choose to be vegetarian largely on the basis of that concern. How much should my decision on that be affected by this argument?
EDIT: David_Gerard wins by doing the basic Google search that I neglected. It seems that the argument is flawed. Particularly, animals apart from primates have pre-frontal cortexes.