What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?
No, because I'm not saying that is a position I personally hold. I'm merely presenting it as a position that I know that (some) people do hold.
My position here is, roughly speaking, "this (intentionally injuring mice or other animals) is an issue where there is a legit discussion to be had around the ethics of same." Of course I have my own opinion, but I don't really care to get into it. I just didn't think that the parent poster needed to be downvoted for raising the question.
Since your question implies some, are there reasons that we shouldn’t care about animals or other living creatures?
Obviously the phrase "they're living creatures" is a bit vague on this; bacteria and molds (and arguably viruses) are also living creatures but I don't think anyone considers it genocide to disinfect your counter with alcohol or something. I think we generally start drawing lines with animals.
Even within the scope of animals, I think we can still make reasonable concessions on things that are of sufficiently low intelligence to where we're not even 100% sure they feel pain in the same way that we do. Do I care if a mosquito suffers? No, not really, they're annoying dangerous little critters who aren't really having a lot of intelligent thought.
However, when we start getting into mammals (and possibly birds), I think it starts getting into more questionable territory. Most mammals (as far as I know) do have enough neural development to feel pain, to feel fear, and actually suffer in ways not completely dissimilar to humans. Since mice are mammals, there is an argument to be made that if we're hurting them, it's adding a lot of pain to the world.
-------
To be clear, I'm somewhat in the camp of "they're just mice, I care about helping humans more". I just wanted to play devil's advocate for a bit.
It doesn't automatically follow. I can entirely correctly, subjectively decide which living things I want to care about and which I do not. I can separate living things by a hierarchy of importance. Which is exactly what we do all the time with other people and our relationships to them (example: hey HN, let me know how much you love Donald Trump and where he ranks on your hierarchy of importance).
I don't care about mice. I care about puppies (insert reasons here). That is not an irrational position. It's entirely subjective either direction. Any attempt to apply logic or science to the premise is inherently absurd. What we each value and why is subjective, it's personal; it inherently can't be objective. Rat and mice fans might likely pick those over puppies or kittens for example, due to their personal experiences and their hierarchy of values.
No, I wouldn't kill or injure the mice myself for a living. I think it's grotesque.
I wouldn't perform abortions for a living, it's sometimes a very grotesque process. I'm entirely pro-choice.
I wouldn't butcher animals for a living, it's often quite a disgusting process as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with other people doing so. And I have no problem with eating a steak. That's not contradictory or hypocritical.
I also would never want to be a nurse. I fully understand what nurses do. The human body can be quite disgusting at times. I'm glad nurses exist.
Such things are not contradictory. You can find an action and outcome acceptable, while not enjoying (or glorifying) all aspects of the process in question.
Once you cross the line of: all living things matter without exception and should never be killed, on to: some living things do not matter as much as others (eg plants for consumption) - then you're down to subjectivism as your argument across the board.
The animal rights argument is entirely subjective (what should the protections be, should there be any protections, how many should there be, who decides, for which living things, and on and on). What that means is, the opposite position has as much validity, it's also subjective. What it comes down to is majority politics ultimately: how many people can you get to agree with you, such that you can pass legislation in your preferred direction.
The subjective aspects of a difficult question doesn’t mean all takes are equally valid. That’s the same as giving up and saying that nothing means anything.
