NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it we cling to it?

While there's a regular army of anthropocentric trolls skulking about NSG, rabid religious orthodoxy isn't what I want to talk about. I don't get it, I never will, so you might as well not try explaining that to me.
Instead, I want to talk about our anthropocentric worldview. I'm using we & our a lot, and it's intentional. I can't defend it, but I cling to it myself - at least subconsciously. But why is it important to us humans that everything revolves around us? Does it make us feel better, worse, what?

I bring it up, because it seems to me to be permeating our very existence. Everything from pollution, to language, to poverty, to religion, to racism, to nationalism & so on & so forth, hinges on this seemingly utterly irrational point of view.

As already mentioned, I don't understand it, so I shan't try defending it. But I'd be much obliged if someone could explain the significance of it. And... Please use plain English. I know it's easier for some to throw about various references, but it's the death of communication. Nobody wants to spend a week with their nose in the wiki if they can help it.

Isn't that just... you know... human nature? We're here, so we tend to look at things from our perspective?

I'd like to be the first one to admit to not knowing what anthropocentricism is.

Also, it lacks a wiki page.

Isn't that just... you know... human nature? We're here, so we tend to look at things from our perspective?What does that have to do with Anthropocentrism?

Foe example: from my perspective, the world's a big place. It seems to me I'd have to add something to that to reach the conclusion the world gives a shit about me.

Unless you can clarify your opinion, I don't see the relevance.

EDIT:

I'd like to be the first one to admit to not knowing what anthropocentricism is.

Also, it lacks a wiki page.That's just 'cuz I can't spell :p Anthropocentrism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anthropocentrism) is the worldview that everything revolves about us humans. Typically emphasised in religion, but pretty much to be found in anything human-related.

It was actually your comment about "the sky is blue" that inspired this thread. Because the sky isn't blue at all, it just looks that way. Got me thinking about how poorly our languages convey the reality of things.

I'd like to be the first one to admit to not knowing what anthropocentricism is.

Also, it lacks a wiki page.

Try here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anthropocentrism).

Try here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anthropocentrism).

Yay! Thanks. :fluffle: :fluffle:

And: what GN said. Of course we're going to put ourselves first.

Why is it we cling to it?

While there's a regular army of anthropocentric trolls skulking about NSG, rabid religious orthodoxy isn't what I want to talk about. I don't get it, I never will, so you might as well not try explaining that to me.
Instead, I want to talk about our anthropocentric worldview. I'm using we & our a lot, and it's intentional. I can't defend it, but I cling to it myself - at least subconsciously. But why is it important to us humans that everything revolves around us? Does it make us feel better, worse, what?

I bring it up, because it seems to me to be permeating our very existence. Everything from pollution, to language, to poverty, to religion, to racism, to nationalism & so on & so forth, hinges on this seemingly utterly irrational point of view.

As already mentioned, I don't understand it, so I shan't try defending it. But I'd be much obliged if someone could explain the significance of it. And... Please use plain English. I know it's easier for some to throw about various references, but it's the death of communication. Nobody wants to spend a week with their nose in the wiki if they can help it.


What a strange question!

The easy answer would be that we can only view the world through our own senses, we can never 'know' what it is like to live as a squirrel, and so we are litraly at the center of our experiances.

What does that have to do with Anthropocentrism?
Foe example: from my perspective, the world's a big place. It seems to me I'd have to add something to that to reach the conclusion the world gives a shit about me.
Unless you can clarify your opinion, I don't see the relevance.

Isn't what I said pretty much what Anthropocentrism is? Man, I don't even know what the hell you're talking about, for this makes no sense to me - other than what I've said.
I don't see the relevance of this thread.
And: what GN said. Of course we're going to put ourselves first.
What else? Nature? Forget it - we're stupid monkeys that talk and built nukes.
What a strange question!
Indeed!
The easy answer would be that we can only view the world through our own senses, we can never 'know' what it is like to live as a squirrel, and so we are litraly at the center of our experiances.
Sort of what I said, only better phrased.

What were you expecting as an answer, if I may ask?

We're no more anthropocentric than chimpanzees are chimpanzee-centric or wolves are wolf-centric; every species on Earth places its own members above others. In fact, any species that doesn't will probably be extinct in quite short order; the natural world isn't the friendly, comfortable place that humans have created for ourselves to survive and thrive in.

If not anthropocentric, then what? We don't gain brownie points for being team players with other species, and they're sure as hell not going to extend that courtesy to us. If we're weak, they'll move in and take what they want, killing us or allowing us to wander and die in the process.

I mean, it's a miracle that we're able to even contemplate the idea of anthropocentrism...our advanced brains and fully conscious minds liberate and enable us. If anything, that ability alone places us above other species.

Anthropocentrism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anthropocentrism) is the worldview that everything revolves about us humans. Typically emphasised in religion, but pretty much to be found in anything human-related.

Well, yeah. If I'm sick, I'm going to go to the doctor's for a prescription and not worry about the bacteria or viruses that will be killed because of it. Or, if I'm hungry, I'm going to eat what I want and not worry about the plants or animals that died to feed me.

It's just a fancy term for the remnants of our survival instincts.

It was actually your comment about "the sky is blue" that inspired this thread. Because the sky isn't blue at all, it just looks that way. Got me thinking about how poorly our languages convey the reality of things.

It's more than real enough for our needs. It's a lot easier to say the sky is blue and convey that meaning to everyone than to ramble on about diffraction of light and lose half of the population.

Besides, describing it in scientific terms really does nothing but destroy the aesthetic aspects of the object...what fun is that?

Well, yeah. If I'm sick, I'm going to go to the doctor's for a prescription and not worry about the bacteria or viruses that will be killed because of it. Or, if I'm hungry, I'm going to eat what I want and not worry about the plants or animals that died to feed me.

It's just a fancy term for the remnants of our survival instincts.



It's more than real enough for our needs. It's a lot easier to say the sky is blue and convey that meaning to everyone than to ramble on about diffraction of light and lose half of the population.

Besides, describing it in scientific terms really does nothing but destroy the aesthetic aspects of the object...what fun is that?

Excellent posts.

I'd like to point out that my people did just fine without an anthropocentric worldview...and to a great extent, we've maintained the belief that we live amongst "all our relations", human and non.

And yet we eat meat, and vegetables, and sometimes step on bugs.

The world doesn't give a shit about us, but because of that we have to compensate and give a shit about ourselves.

Actually, so-called "anthropocentrism" IS rational. Any kind of value is based only on attributes that the human mind gives to things- that's why we prefer diamonds over water. Even saying that there are things more valuable than humans is inherently a subjective human value, and thus "anthropocentric." Seeing as how there is no objectively proveable system of economic value, it is obvious that we must depend upon a subjective system of value of each individual. Hence, so-called "anthropocentrism."

We're no more anthropocentric than chimpanzees are chimpanzee-centric or wolves are wolf-centric; every species on Earth places its own members above others. In fact, any species that doesn't will probably be extinct in quite short order; the natural world isn't the friendly, comfortable place that humans have created for ourselves to survive and thrive in.

If not anthropocentric, then what? We don't gain brownie points for being team players with other species, and they're sure as hell not going to extend that courtesy to us. If we're weak, they'll move in and take what they want, killing us or allowing us to wander and die in the process.

I mean, it's a miracle that we're able to even contemplate the idea of anthropocentrism...our advanced brains and fully conscious minds liberate and enable us. If anything, that ability alone places us above other species.

just as a matter of anthropological fact, anthropocentrism is not the default position for human societies.

and it is actually fucking dangerous as all hell as a foundational belief.

I'd like to point out that my people did just fine without an anthropocentric worldview

damn, beaten to it

Even saying that there are things more valuable than humans is inherently a subjective human value, and thus "anthropocentric."

this is as silly as claiming that altruism doesn't exist because caring about other people is really selfish

I'd like to point out that my people did just fine without an anthropocentric worldview....

Apparently not. :(

Apparently not. :(

that wasn't the non-anthropocentrism's fault

Apparently not. :(

Smart ass.

And what Free Soviets said.

And frankly? Tens of thousands of years of success compared to a few hundred years of repression? Who's your daddy now, huh?

In nature species exist within a state of anarchy, a self help system. The primary motivation of all species is the propagation of their own genome, and to make this easier, they will do whatever it takes to make it so that they can.

Humanity is not excluded from this, we are bound up in this same rule, much as the lesser animals are, the difference is that we recognize that this rule exists, but we don't abide by the rule arbitrarily like the lower species do, instead we receive evolutionary coaxing (i.e. The fact that sex is fun, food tastes good, etc.) to get us to abide by this rule.

Smart ass.

And what Free Soviets said.

And frankly? Tens of thousands of years of success compared to a few hundred years of repression? Who's your daddy now, huh?

Hey, your preaching to the choir; my ancestors came over the land bridge too; they were just smart enough to seek warmer climates and nicer beaches. ;)

Hey, your preaching to the choir; my ancestors came over the land bridge too; they were just smart enough to seek warmer climates and nicer beaches. ;)

Fool, don't you know you've got it backwards? We crossed the landbridge alright...and populated Asia.

Any creature without a "-centric" viewpoint would be less likely to survive. "Me first!" is a trait which has been naturally selected for (whether you believe in evolution or not. YEC's still believe in natural selection).

Rats. What I said, better stated and first. I'm pwnt :eek:

Naw, you were more concise. You pwn.

In nature species exist within a state of anarchy, a self help system. The primary motivation of all species is the propagation of their own genome, and to make this easier, they will do whatever it takes to make it so that they can.

Humanity is not excluded from this, we are bound up in this same rule, much as the lesser animals are, the difference is that we recognize that this rule exists, but we don't abide by the rule arbitrarily like the lower species do, instead we receive evolutionary coaxing (i.e. The fact that sex is fun, food tastes good, etc.) to get us to abide by this rule.

Rats. What I said, better stated and first. I'm pwnt :eek:

Fool, don't you know you've got it backwards? We crossed the landbridge alright...and populated Asia.

So it's all your fault! :eek:

"Me first!" is a trait which has been naturally selected for

only to an extent. humans are significantly altruistic, for example.

only to an extent. humans are significantly altruistic, for example.

Altruism, though, is far from being the primary motive for human action.

I wonder if it's one of those things that came with the advent of agriculture? I mean, the farm was the first centralized place for humankind. If you're standing still, it's easy for it to appear that things revolve around you.

only to an extent. humans are significantly altruistic, for example.

Only because it makes us feel good. We're still hedonists, one and all ;)

Why does clicking on "Page 3" take me to the top of Page 2. I do not understand.

Only because it makes us feel good. We're still hedonists, one and all ;)

yeah, all that running into burning buildings and throwing ourselves on grenades - fun times, fun times.

I wonder if it's one of those things that came with the advent of agriculture? I mean, the farm was the first centralized place for humankind. If you're standing still, it's easy for it to appear that things revolve around you.

maybe, but it's not even all agricultural societies

Why does clicking on "Page 3" take me to the top of Page 2. I do not understand.
I'm still on page one. (40 posts per page) *shrug*

I'm using we & our a lot, and it's intentional. I can't defend it, but I cling to it myself - at least subconsciously. But why is it important to us humans that everything revolves around us?
Why not? I, like most people, am not actively interested in the welfare of most of humans.
So, if I'm not going to join the Peace Corps and start adopting Ethiopian babies, why should I care how the world's otter population are doing?

Oh, I hate that anthro po what ever it is too.

Humans are not superior to other animals, we are specialized.

Why not? I, like most people, am not actively interested in the welfare of most of humans.
So, if I'm not going to join the Peace Corps and start adopting Ethiopian babies, why should I care how the world's otter population are doing?

question - do you think genocide is wrong?

another question - aimed generally. two, actually. would it be morally permissible for the last human alive to destroy all life on earth? and would it be morally permissible to willfully slaughter to extinction alien lifeforms should we ever discover any?

Why is it we cling to it?

While there's a regular army of anthropocentric trolls skulking about NSG, rabid religious orthodoxy isn't what I want to talk about. I don't get it, I never will, so you might as well not try explaining that to me.

Not all religions are anthropocentric, not by a long shot. Some take as their focus human suffering in particular or human-like deities, but others choose to deify the earth, include all life as part of the same "family", or have an otherworldly deity or set of deities. Just sayin'

Instead, I want to talk about our anthropocentric worldview. I'm using we & our a lot, and it's intentional. I can't defend it, but I cling to it myself - at least subconsciously. But why is it important to us humans that everything revolves around us? Does it make us feel better, worse, what?

I think you've hit on part of the answer here. It does help make us feel better to think that we are the baddest mofos in our world. But it's also due to us simply being human. In being human, we take on a human perspective that shapes our view of reality, and our priorities will naturally often seem to be the most important ones to us unless we make an effort to take a broader perspective and/or are socialized with a broader view.

I bring it up, because it seems to me to be permeating our very existence. Everything from pollution, to language, to poverty, to religion, to racism, to nationalism & so on & so forth, hinges on this seemingly utterly irrational point of view.

As already mentioned, I don't understand it, so I shan't try defending it. But I'd be much obliged if someone could explain the significance of it. And... Please use plain English. I know it's easier for some to throw about various references, but it's the death of communication. Nobody wants to spend a week with their nose in the wiki if they can help it.

Should I take this as a sign that my post in response to yours in which I summed up Hume's problem of induction in the other thread wasn't up to par? :p

another question - aimed generally. two, actually. would it be morally permissible for the last human alive to destroy all life on earth? and would it be morally permissible to willfully slaughter to extinction alien lifeforms should we ever discover any?

It depends on who is making up "morality" that day, nyet?

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY! GO DEEP ECOLOGY!

Yes. Wheeey!

Considering that everything revolves around me, and I'm human, I guess it's not a far stretch.

question - do you think genocide is wrong?
No worse than the sum of the killings that constitute it. Thus, if I care nothing for killing one ant, killing all ants (or otters or wolves or whatever) is of no consequence.
another question - aimed generally. two, actually. would it be morally permissible for the last human alive to destroy all life on earth?
Morality was invented as a way to govern human interaction, so in a world that has just one human (and therefore no interaction), there is no morality to permit or deny anything.
and would it be morally permissible to willfully slaughter to extinction alien lifeforms should we ever discover any?
Are they intelligent? If not, then sure, kill them all.
If they are intelligent, then they deserve at least the same minimal level of respect that one is supposed to afford to fellow humans.
And, before you ask, yes the super-evolved monkeys in Planet of the Apes were well within their rights to subject the devolved humanoids.

Egocentricity for me. :)

No worse than the sum of the killings that constitute it. Thus, if I care nothing for killing one ant, killing all ants (or otters or wolves or whatever) is of no consequence.

really? that seems insane on the face of it.

Morality was invented as a way to govern human interaction, so in a world that has just one human (and therefore no interaction), there is no morality to permit or deny anything.

and yet...

If they are intelligent, then they deserve at least the same minimal level of respect that one is supposed to afford to fellow humans.

these two positions are inconsistent

really? that seems insane on the face of it.
I'd say it is insane to believe that, somehow, the last thousand elephants alive are suddenly more morally significant than the first ten million that were slaughtered for fun and profit.
and yet...

these two positions are inconsistent
I fail to see your point.

I'd say it is insane to believe that, somehow, the last thousand elephants alive are suddenly more morally significant than the first ten million that were slaughtered for fun and profit.

Posing the question: Is murder as bad as genocide? (Species-icide... whatever)

I'd say it is insane to believe that, somehow, the last thousand elephants alive are suddenly more morally significant than the first ten million that were slaughtered for fun and profit.

why so?

there is a difference in kind between destruction in general, and destruction of the last remaining examples of something. has to do with that 'extinction is forever' idea. it is more wrong to destroy a class of things forever than it is to destroy any particular set of members of that class, simply because to destroy all of them means that their history stops there - the universe has been robbed of the value of that class not just now but for all time.

I fail to see your point.

it is inconsistent to hold both that morality purely governs human interactions and that intelligent aliens have moral value

No worse than the sum of the killings that constitute it. Thus, if I care nothing for killing one ant, killing all ants (or otters or wolves or whatever) is of no consequence.

Except that killing all ants will result in an ecosystem crash that will most likely result in your death, while killing one ant will not. Funny how reality works.

Except that killing all ants will result in an ecosystem crash that will most likely result in your death, while killing one ant will not. Funny how reality works.
Except that by the time I've killed enough ants to begin practically contemplating the idea of kill all ants, I'd have destroyed enough of their number that they could no longer fulfill their role within the ecosystem, and so it would already have crashed and I'd already be dead.
And that's assuming that such a crash would occur, which is rather doubtful considering that (A) the Earth is still capable of supporting life and (B) countless species of every positiong have been driven to extinction. No species is irreplaceable.
there is a difference in kind between destruction in general, and destruction of the last remaining examples of something. has to do with that 'extinction is forever' idea. it is more wrong to destroy a class of things forever than it is to destroy any particular set of members of that class, simply because to destroy all of them means that their history stops there - the universe has been robbed of the value of that class not just now but for all time.
So now, even though the animal had no value when the Earth was full of them, the hypothetical examples of said animal that may exist at some undefined point in the future are valuable.
I still don't follow.
it is inconsistent to hold both that morality purely governs human interactions and that intelligent aliens have moral value
Check again, mon ami, I said that it was invented purely to govern human interactions, because, at the time, humans were the only species intelligent enough to enter into a moral compact with one another. Were another species intelligent enough to join us in the moral compact to appear, then morality could be expanded to encompass them.

So now, even though the animal had no value when the Earth was full of them, the hypothetical examples of said animal that may exist at some undefined point in the future are valuable.
I still don't follow.

no, they had value even then.

the point is that destroying things of a certain class but leaving the class itself intact, and destroying the class altogether are fundamentally different actions. thus the different moral valuations of killing lots of people and committing genocide. in genocide, something more than just the individuals is destroyed.

Check again, mon ami, I said that it was invented purely to govern human interactions, because, at the time, humans were the only species intelligent enough to enter into a moral compact with one another. Were another species intelligent enough to join us in the moral compact to appear, then morality could be expanded to encompass them.

so it isn't about morality not applying at all in a world with only one human, but that we can only have moral obligations to entities above a certain threshold of intelligence. so no to, for example, dogs and small children, yes to aliens of a particular sort.

what is it that prevents us from expanding the moral sphere to other sorts of things?

no, they had value even then.
To you, maybe, but obviously not to the general population, as is evidenced by the fact that they were hunted to death over something that was probably pretty petty.
the point is that destroying things of a certain class but leaving the class itself intact, and destroying the class altogether are fundamentally different actions. thus the different moral valuations of killing lots of people and committing genocide. in genocide, something more than just the individuals is destroyed.
The difference is minimal, and if wiping out 90% of the population is acceptable, then such an increase isn't consequential.
so it isn't about morality not applying at all in a world with only one human, but that we can only have moral obligations to entities above a certain threshold of intelligence. so no to, for example, dogs and small children, yes to aliens of a particular sort.
Small children have value of a sort, as they can be raised to accept their moral obligations. However, since they haven't developed past that threshold yet, they are deprived of certain rights and priveleges so that they can be better managed and socialized.
what is it that prevents us from expanding the moral sphere to other sorts of things?
The fact that those things can't reciprocate. A human isn't required to respect the rights of a wolf or a tree, because the wolf or tree is incapable of doing the same in return.

The difference is minimal

obviously not to the general population

;)

Except that by the time I've killed enough ants to begin practically contemplating the idea of kill all ants, I'd have destroyed enough of their number that they could no longer fulfill their role within the ecosystem, and so it would already have crashed and I'd already be dead.
And that's assuming that such a crash would occur, which is rather doubtful considering that (A) the Earth is still capable of supporting life and (B) countless species of every positiong have been driven to extinction. No species is irreplaceable.


Just because life would survive doesn't mean we would survive. And if you think that the sudden loss of 15% of all terrestrial animal biomass wouldn't do anything to the ecosystem, you are profoundly ignorant.

Just because life would survive doesn't mean we would survive. And if you think that the sudden loss of 15% of all terrestrial animal biomass wouldn't do anything to the ecosystem, you are profoundly ignorant.
It would do something, but it wouldn't kill it, and considering the number of things that humans have managed to survive dicking around with so far, I'd say we're pretty good at survival.
And, as I said, by the time you'd killed enough ants to consider the possibility of finishing the species off (if we're going to be "realistic"), you'd already have caused massive harm to the ecosystem.

It would do something, but it wouldn't kill it, and considering the number of things that humans have managed to survive dicking around with so far, I'd say we're pretty good at survival.


We've lasted 100,000 years and have seen nothing more traumatic than a volcanic eruption. That's not "good at survival". That's pretty much every other species on earth.

The fact that those things can't reciprocate. A human isn't required to respect the rights of a wolf or a tree, because the wolf or tree is incapable of doing the same in return.

once again, small children. the above position claims, at best, that you only have limited moral obligations to small children, due to their cognitive inability to fully engage in the moral system. but clearly we all feel exactly the opposite - intuitively, we have extra moral obligations to children.

We've lasted 100,000 years and have seen nothing more traumatic than a volcanic eruption. That's not "good at survival". That's pretty much every other species on earth.
The Indigenous peoples of America survived about 90% of their population being wiped out by disease and the other 10% saw their environment entirely remade as entire species were driven extinct and new ones arrived. They were then subjugated for centuries by an invading force, but they're still here.
A few centuries before, Europe saw 1 in 3 people destroyed by an unstoppable plague, entire towns were destroyed and crops failed as the people responsible for tending them either died or were driven to far into depression and madness to tend them. Many people believed that the world was coming to an end, but it didn't.

That all seems pretty traumatic to me.

once again, small children. the above position claims, at best, that you only have limited moral obligations to small children, due to their cognitive inability to fully engage in the moral system. but clearly we all feel exactly the opposite - intuitively, we have extra moral obligations to children.
Yes, that would be why we allow them to be spanked, subjected to involuntary labor, have their diets regulated, be moved about on the whims of their parents and herded into containment centers.
Children don't have the same rights as adults, and this is quite natural because they are children and not morally the same as adults.

The Indigenous peoples of America survived about 90% of their population being wiped out by disease and the other 10% saw their environment entirely remade as entire species were driven extinct and new ones arrived. They were then subjugated for centuries by an invading force, but they're still here.
A few centuries before, Europe saw 1 in 3 people destroyed by an unstoppable plague, entire towns were destroyed and crops failed as the people responsible for tending them either died or were driven to far into depression and madness to tend them. Many people believed that the world was coming to an end, but it didn't.

That all seems pretty traumatic to me.

Unless the American Indians are a different species than the rest of us, the first example means jackshit since it's not the global population. Ditto for Europe.

Yes, that would be why we allow them to be spanked, subjected to involuntary labor, have their diets regulated, be moved about on the whims of their parents and herded into containment centers.
Children don't have the same rights as adults, and this is quite natural because they are children and not morally the same as adults.

who is talking about rights? i'm talking about moral obligations.

who is talking about rights? i'm talking about moral obligations.
The additional obligations are simply required to insure that the child's right to life is protected, since the child isn't able to provide for its own sustenance, protection or medical care.

The additional obligations are simply required to insure that the child's right to life is protected, since the child isn't able to provide for its own sustenance, protection or medical care.

but they exist. thus moral obligations explicitly do not require reciprocity.

but they exist. thus moral obligations explicitly do not require reciprocity.
(1) I've already stated that children are a special case because, while they can't currently reciprocate, they will be capable of such at a later date.
(2) To say that a beggar has a moral obligation to feed a rich man would be insane, correct? Both men have a right to live, but they honor this right in different ways. The rich man by providing the beggar with food so that he doesn't starve, and the beggar by not stabbing the rich man to death and stealing his wallet.

(1) I've already stated that children are a special case because, while they can't currently reciprocate, they will be capable of such at a later date.

but why should that then create extra moral obligation that we don't have for people who can fully reciprocate?

and taking another tack, can we ethically use people with significant brain damage that are comatose as punching bags? should we morally approve of having sex with your dead grandmother's body?

(2) To say that a beggar has a moral obligation to feed a rich man would be insane, correct? Both men have a right to live, but they honor this right in different ways.

a right to life is only tangentially related to moral obligations in general

but why should that then create extra moral obligation that we don't have for people who can fully reciprocate?
Because the child is incapable of providing for itself, and would die were these extra obligations not honored. Did you not understand the point of my Beggar/Rich-Man example?
Even without considering the moral angle, it is in the best interests of the current generation to insure that a properly socialized younger generation exists to run the hospitals and nursing homes when they need to use them.
and taking another tack, can we ethically use people with significant brain damage that are comatose as punching bags? should we morally approve of having sex with your dead grandmother's body?
If the brain damage is such that it cannot be repaired and prevents them from qualifying as "intelligent", then, yes.
As to the dead body: Hell, yes. I've argued on here countless times that necrophilia should be decriminalized and that this bizarre fixation the West has on the sanctity of rotting meat is a sign of misplaced priorities.
a right to life is only tangentially related to moral obligations in general
But all moral obligations descend from an agreed upon set of rights that each person is supposed to have, whether to life, self-determination, freedom from harm, or whatever society sees as important enough to protect.

(1) I've already stated that children are a special case because, while they can't currently reciprocate, they will be capable of such at a later date.So does this mean that nobody is ever altruistic unless they expect their altruism to be reciprocated, or does it mean that altruism isn't moral?

Because the child is incapable of providing for itself, and would die were these extra obligations not honored.

that might explain why the parents and direct relatives of a child would take care of it. but it doesn't really touch on why we recognize a general obligation to, for example, pull a child out of the street.

If the brain damage is such that it cannot be repaired and prevents them from qualifying as "intelligent", then, yes.
As to the dead body: Hell, yes. I've argued on here countless times that necrophilia should be decriminalized and that this bizarre fixation the West has on the sanctity of rotting meat is a sign of misplaced priorities.

scary

but it doesn't really touch on why we recognize a general obligation to, for example, pull a child out of the street.

Generally because we don't think that the child is responsible for being on the street, and we recognize her as a being especially vulnerable in such circumstances.

Neither of those considerations are child-specific.

that might explain why the parents and direct relatives of a child would take care of it. but it doesn't really touch on why we recognize a general obligation to, for example, pull a child out of the street.
(This is assuming that you mean out of the way of traffic, as opposed to providing shelter)
Most people, when seeing someone who is about to suffer harm, would intervene regardless of the age of those involved. That's why people have to be specifically told not to go out and attempt to rescue a drowning man.
scary
As I suspected, you're a rank sentimentalist.

As I suspected, you're a rank sentimentalist.

There's also the fact that it's monstrously unhealthy and you're desecrating the remains of a person as well as damaging the casket and other items left by the family during the funeral. It's a combination of vandalism, disrespect, and public health hazard.

I would be furious if someone desecrated my family member's corpse for their sick perversion.

(This is assuming that you mean out of the way of traffic, as opposed to providing shelter)
Most people, when seeing someone who is about to suffer harm, would intervene regardless of the age of those involved.

yeah, i could have phrased that better.

anyways, what i'm driving at is that everybody has a recognized moral (and legal, for that matter) obligation to protect children above and beyond that which they have for adults. we are less morally culpable for an adult who walked into our yard and drowned in our pool than we are for child who did likewise. in the instance of the child we would bear moral responsibility because we did not take greater precautions on their behalf and we should have, despite the fact that it's not our child and we may not even like children.