Philosophy - does taking care of a cat throughout its life have less value than taking care of a human child?

[Serenityinaz12]

Strange question maybe, but it came to me tonight and I'm wondering what others think about this. If you are a mother who has kids and raises them, is that of more value than a cat parent who takes care of some cats throughout their lives? You could play with the scenarios like what if the kids raised turned out to be criminals, at that point is the cat parent have done something of more value by giving some cats a good life? What if the human kids were huge successes, does that change things? I guess ultimately it really boils down to if people think humans have inherent superiority and value over other living things?

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Mia6]

Absolutely not. I couldn't love my cat babies anymore than if I'd given birth to them.

 

[Maria Bayote]

I am not sure if I got the question right. I am sorry if I understood wrong.

But I do not think that if an individual or a parent who has a lot of compassion for animals would turn out to have "unpleasant" children. Children who have been raised in a compassionate, kind and animal-loving environment would most probably end up fine, because it is the only natural thing they see day in and day out. When they grow up, they will most probably pass it on.

As for which is more "rewarding" or more of value, I have human offspring and I also have pets my entire life, plus rescues and strays I take care of. There is no greater love and happiness between a mother and her child. It is the umbilical cord that connects a momma to her children forever. I believe it is a different level of love. To describe it further is difficult.

BUT, I also love my fur babies with a deep intensity that I cry when they are sick, panic when they are hurt, grieve when they are gone. They have all sorts of toys, treats, anything that makes them happy. The joy my cats (and dogs) give me is also incomparable. To distinguish this love from another is not quite the same.

So which is more rewarding?
Both.

 

[Serenityinaz12]

I am not sure if I got the question right. I am sorry if I understood wrong.

But I do not think that if an individual or a parent who has a lot of compassion for animals would turn out to have "unpleasant" children. Children who have been raised in a compassionate, kind and animal-loving environment would most probably end up fine, because it is the only natural thing they see day in and day out. When they grow up, they will most probably pass it on.

As for which is more "rewarding" or more of value, I have human offspring and I also have pets my entire life, plus rescues and strays I take care of. There is no greater love and happiness between a mother and her child. It is the umbilical cord that connects a momma to her children forever. I believe it is a different level of love. To describe it further is difficult.

BUT, I also love my fur babies with a deep intensity that I cry when they are sick, panic when they are hurt, grieve when they are gone. They have all sorts of toys, treats, anything that makes them happy. The joy my cats (and dogs) give me is also incomparable. To distinguish this love from another is not quite the same.

So which is more rewarding?
Both.

I appreciate your insight on the matter and I believe my question may have been a bit confusing for sure. The thought behind it was less about whether someone who raises both would find more connection with their human child compared to their cat, but more as follows:

1. Person A - raises and takes care of 3 children but never has cats
2. Person B - raises and takes care of 3 cats but never has children

Is person A's accomplishment of more value than person B's? Does the human lives raised mean Person A lived a more important and worthwhile life than Person B? They both have done a service by raising and taking care of another living thing, sacrificing themselves in some way in order to provide this care. Have they done an equal accomplishment?

I don't have the answer, just seems interesting to me.

 

[denice]

I think this is kind of an apple and orange thing. Everyone is different with unique strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone is met to have children and having children does not make someone's life somehow more consequential then someone's life who did not have children. If someone does choose to have children then their children should be their top priority.

The same is true of having animals. Some people choose to and some choose not to. We are all different.

 

[Katie M]

I agree with denice . I for one don't have the temperament for kids.

 

[Mia6]

I lost a baby 6 and half months into the pregnancy. It is very difficult for me to talk about it so I won't but
I like to think she is at the Bridge. It was devastating so I decided to never have another, too painful.

 

[Jem]

I don't have any human children, so I'm speaking from that perspective...

When it comes to A vs B in terms of value. I think they are the same. If both parties are experiencing love and affection and are giving love and affection. If both parties feel fulfilled and have a sense of purpose. If both parties are better people for it...Than they are of equal value.
When it comes to A vs B in terms of importance. Obviously a human child requires more than an animal. And while I do not believe animals are disposable, when you break it down to survival...human babies/children need human care, animals can survive on their own. If I had children, they would be my top priority...that's just how it is...however, I can't fathom not giving my cats the same level of care as I currently do. But just because a human technically requires more than an animal in terms of care, I still don't think that means there is more value caring for a human. No one except that person can determine the value in how they choose to live and care for others.

Overall, this is something that really can't be measured...it's sort of like asking what the definition of success is, everybody puts value on things differently. Is it money, having a family, fame, being dirt poor but happy?

 

[Maria Bayote]

I lost a baby 6 and half months into the pregnancy. It is very difficult for me to talk about it so I won't but
I like to think she is at the Bridge. It was devastating so I decided to never have another, too painful.

Oh I am so sorry to know. I wish I could hug you right now.

 

[MoochNNoodles]

I do not believe that it is something you can truly compare They are both important but different. The biggest difference is that kids grow up to contribute to society at large. Our pets are mainly for us. Few pets will touch lives outside a family. A human life might not have big accomplishments; but every person contributes to the economy of an area. Most will have coworkers and friends outside the home.

I might have thought it more similar before becoming a parent. But the stakes of raising children are much higher. Its much more complex and takes the equivalent of a cats entire lifetime to do just the basics. I have kids and I’m still learning from my parents. Rarely have I had to pull an all nighter for a pet. I’ve definitely had to research and pray to make the best decisions for them. But never on the level of motherhood.

My fur babies contribute immensely to my life and that of my kids. I was without a cat for almost 2 years when DH and I got married and I can’t describe how I missed them. But I lost a nephew a few years ago and I really can’t describe what that was like to go through. Especially for his parents.

So I will stick with both being important; but different. At the end of the day people need to be who they are supposed to be. If its a parent; then parent. If its a pet parent; then be that. I have a couple childless friends (by choice and not by choice) and I can’t imagine life without them. I don’t think I’m better or living a more important life just because I reproduced. All lives are valuable and unique. A person is valuable because they are a person; not because of what they do with their lives.

 

[MonaLyssa33]

I do not believe that it is something you can truly compare They are both important but different. The biggest difference is that kids grow up to contribute to society at large. Our pets are mainly for us. Few pets will touch lives outside a family. A human life might not have big accomplishments; but every person contributes to the economy of an area. Most will have coworkers and friends outside the home.

I might have thought it more similar before becoming a parent. But the stakes of raising children are much higher. Its much more complex and takes the equivalent of a cats entire lifetime to do just the basics. I have kids and I’m still learning from my parents. Rarely have I had to pull an all nighter for a pet. I’ve definitely had to research and pray to make the best decisions for them. But never on the level of motherhood.

My fur babies contribute immensely to my life and that of my kids. I was without a cat for almost 2 years when DH and I got married and I can’t describe how I missed them. But I lost a nephew a few years ago and I really can’t describe what that was like to go through. Especially for his parents.

So I will stick with both being important; but different. At the end of the day people need to be who they are supposed to be. If its a parent; then parent. If its a pet parent; then be that. I have a couple childless friends (by choice and not by choice) and I can’t imagine life without them. I don’t think I’m better or living a more important life just because I reproduced. All lives are valuable and unique. A person is valuable because they are a person; not because of what they do with their lives.

I agree completely. I don't have kids, but I hope to one day. I think that, even though I love my cats, I will love my children differently and likely more than my cats, but it doesn't mean I won't still love them. I think a child makes you love more intensely.

 

[Margret]

I think that it isn't a competition, and we don't need to justify caring for people, no matter how many legs (or tails) the "people" have. Caring is valuable work, always, and love is important, always.

Margret

 

[Mia6]

Oh I am so sorry to know. I wish I could hug you right now.

Thank you, sweetie

 

[TV Dinner]

Plenty of people out there who live for self their entire life and never have pets or kids, or get pets or kids and be a horrible caretaker. So, if you have bothered to take time out of your life to care and love another thing at all you have done a positive service on this world. Seems pointless to compare which one is a MORE positive thing.

 

[maggiedemi]

I love my two cats as if they were my children. I can't imagine loving anyone more than I love them.

 

[aliceneko]

Definitely not. Many people out there can't have children or choose not to have them and their cats are their children (I come under that bracket!). My cousin has three human children, on the other end of the spectrum, but her cat is also very much a fourth child and part of the family just as much as her human siblings are. She's about 9 now as they got her just before her oldest was born when they were a new couple.

 

[fionasmom]

As Emerson said in the fable about the squirrel and the forest.....talents differ, all is well and wisely put. I have quoted this throughout my entire life to anyone who questioned my attachment to animals in the face of my utter lack of interest in human children.