But I’m sure you want to help the person who is suffering more before you help the person who is suffering less yes? The idea that “suffering is suffering” is almost sociopathic.
Do we need to stop tending for people's mental health because many are not eating?
Maybe the effort involved in categorising, understanding and prioritising suffering would be better used... well... actually reducing suffering.
Because when we think like this we risk dismanteling efforts that are really important, like protecting other animals from abandonment or abuse, or protecting the environment, because we risk putting them in lower hierarchical priority compared to our own most immediate form of suffering.
But yes, many people would rather protect and house animals than protect and house people. So I guess as humans we should have the same priorities, no?
But if you think protecting the environment is more important than providing people shelter I don’t know what to say. And in fact, I am going to state that it is easier to care about the climate than to provide people with housing, which is why people focus on the formal rather than the later.
I'm somewhat troubled by this line of thinking. Some people suffer due to war, climate change, hunger and so on, and others because their mother passed away peacefully at age 90. These are absolutely not the same and saying suffering is suffering greatly devalues the (somewhat preventable) suffering caused by unmet material needs, political actions and the like.