I also appreciate your honesty, and I'll try to address your points.
Many people would save the life of a pigeon. They're just not very consistent about it.
One issue is how we measure progress.
We would generally think that a school program that increases the average performance of a school is a good thing. If it does this by expelling the low scoring students, then it is not an educational program. It does not make the school better, it just makes it look better.
So having no homeless in a city doesn't necessarily make that city a nicer place to be. It can still have the same weak economy and bad infrastructure. It's the difference between rebuilding a wall and repainting it.
A hypothetical city that achieves zero homeless with a great job market, low cost housing, and easy access to perfect psychological treatment is clearly better than a city that eats everyone making under 50k.
I think a more realistic city that reduces some of the impact of homelessness by having adequate shelters is better than a city without that net.
The first city solves the problems of the people in the city, while the second city does not. In the end, we have cities because they are tools. Better tools work more consistently.
Your Species is Irrelevant.
Personhood matters though, I think a person dying is a tragedy. I'm not sure 'obligation' is the right term, but I think if you were actually faced with the death of a person, you would value their life more. I'm not trying to make an 'I know better than you' argument here, just saying that a lot of our values are context sensitive and inconsistent. (as with pigeons)
Many people would save the life of a pigeon. They're just not very consistent about it.
One issue is how we measure progress.
We would generally think that a school program that increases the average performance of a school is a good thing. If it does this by expelling the low scoring students, then it is not an educational program. It does not make the school better, it just makes it look better.
So having no homeless in a city doesn't necessarily make that city a nicer place to be. It can still have the same weak economy and bad infrastructure. It's the difference between rebuilding a wall and repainting it.
A hypothetical city that achieves zero homeless with a great job market, low cost housing, and easy access to perfect psychological treatment is clearly better than a city that eats everyone making under 50k.
I think a more realistic city that reduces some of the impact of homelessness by having adequate shelters is better than a city without that net.
The first city solves the problems of the people in the city, while the second city does not. In the end, we have cities because they are tools. Better tools work more consistently.
Your Species is Irrelevant.
Personhood matters though, I think a person dying is a tragedy. I'm not sure 'obligation' is the right term, but I think if you were actually faced with the death of a person, you would value their life more. I'm not trying to make an 'I know better than you' argument here, just saying that a lot of our values are context sensitive and inconsistent. (as with pigeons)