Is human life much more valuable than other animals` life?

[Soapy Sam]

I take pretty much the same view regarding my family and race (a kind of extended family). Given the number of genocides throughout history, it's in my rational self-interest to make sure my race keeps and maintains its power. That's just science.

Whatever it is, it's not science.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Or going by capacity to suffer: mouse == cat == newborn == me.

That doesn't even compile unless capacity is boolean.

Not to mention most languages just don't express transitivity.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

In the past, I would have never thought about asking a question like this..

How much is human life much more important than other animals` life?
I assume that we would all agree that the life of one human being is more valuable than the life of a dog or a cat.
But what about the life of one human being against the life of ten dogs?
Against the life of 100 dogs?

Some people may argue that one human life may be more valuable than the life of all animals living on Earth, but .. one the basis of what?
We share most DNA we have with animals and animals also suffer and want to avoid death as we do.

If for example we assume than one human life may be worth, say, the life of 7 pigs, then it would make sense to consider to prohibit humans to eat pork, or even threated violent actions against people who eat pork meat

Your questions is starting off wrongly. Before you even ask that, you must first ask: Who gets to decide whose life is more valuable?

Before you even try to answer that, try to picture different scenarios between humans and animals. For example animals caged in zoos, or animals injecting their venom on innocent young and helpless children, or animals as household pets, or animals on the loose in a forest preying on some human beings who got lost in an expedition. That should help you realize how difficult, if not impossible, it is to find a "right" answer.

 

[Edx]

We are conditioned by law to value human life, because the penalty for murder is higher than for slaughtering an animal. The very language implies that killing a human is a different kind of action from killing (say) a sheep. This may be because lawyers are (putatively) human and know they are already on thin ice.

I think we have a biologically propensity to value human life more because back in our past we had to kill animals to survive (as in animals were one of the best sources of nutrients) and if we thought about a pig the same as a human we might have felt worse killing it and so maybe we wouldnt have. Therefore our ancestors who valued animals less was a survival advantage.

Now whether its ethical to feel like this, is another matter.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Two ways we implicitly value things seem apparent to me: Does something plan for the future? Does it form emotional bonds such that something else would miss it.

Or going by propensity to slaughter their own kind indiscriminately: lions < humans < penguins.

Somehow I thought this example might be more powerful if penguins were replaced with some species more clearly capable of slaughtering their own kind. I've been imagining millions of penguins frustrated by the thought that they just can't kill that penguin that butted in line ahead of them. I suppose my naive childish illusions will be shattered if I google penguin domestic violence.

 

[Crocoshark]

Somehow I thought this example might be more powerful if penguins were replaced with some species more clearly capable of slaughtering their own kind. I've been imagining millions of penguins frustrated by the thought that they just can't kill that penguin that butted in line ahead of them.

I think butterflies would also be in that camp to, if they could think. I read about one African species of butterfly that is hyper-aggressive and will beat its wings against people that come near it. I can only imagine two male butterflies beating their wings against each other (which is what they do) thinking "Dammit, if only I had nothing but these soft wings I could do some damage." Butterflies are insects after all, and insects are often all about sucking the fluids out of things with no mercy.

Many insects act like monsters
As much as nature will allow
Butterflies wish they could do it
But they don't know how

I suppose my naive childish illusions will be shattered if I google penguin domestic violence.

I googled penguin domestic violence and all I got was cartoon penguins spreading awareness about the problem.





Edit: To correct my own poem, there's a butterfly that sucks blood from corpses.

 

[superfreddy]

I was thinking about this today after someone in my office said "life is precious". I thinking life is not that precious at all, death is around us all the time. I then proceeded to step on a bug.

 

[theprestige]

I just don't think this is true. Kinship relations dominate in biology--until the last few centuries, nobody gave a **** about the brotherhood of man. Genocide goes back just about as far as humans do. That tribe next door pissed you off? Slaughter the men and boys, kill the women who have known men, keep the virgins for yourself. Hill tribe good, valley tribe bad.

I don't know where you get that evolutionary standpoint from, but organisms compete with members of their own species all the time. There's no evolutionary inconsistency with some population of humans sectioning off a portion of their population to be exploited and used for the advantage of the privileged group.

All I meant was that we don't see very many (any?) species that tend to extinguish themselves to the benefit of competing species. Indeed, the typical pattern is quite the opposite: each species expands its footprint to the limit the resources allow, and to the detriment of every competing species.

Those other species survive either by successfully resisting such encroachments and imposing their own self-interest, or by evolving a mutually-beneficial arrangement.

Intra-species competition notwithstanding, I don't think that humanity as a whole shows any sign of being different from other species in that regard.

This also isn't true. Hell, most species on Earth aren't capable of valuing anything. But they, too, will care about kin more than kind. There's just no mechanism in evolutionary biology that would drive species-wide concern.

Luckily for me, that's not what I meant. What I meant was simply that each species expands its footprint at the expense of other species. This is not, except among humans, usually a mindful behavior.

"Evolutionary status quo"is something of an oxymoron,

LOL. Good point.

but we've had this thing called 'culture' for the past 150,000 years or more, so I think that ship sailed a long time ago. In fact, you're just arguing for complacency here. "The moral circle has expended this far, and that seems far enough to me."

I'm sorry you think it's an argument for complacency. It's not what I meant to imply.

I don't know where you get that evolutionary standpoint from, but organisms compete with members of their own species all the time. There's no evolutionary inconsistency with some population of humans sectioning off a portion of their population to be exploited and used for the advantage of the privileged group.

Like I said, intra-species competition doesn't change the fact that all current species have survived by evolving behaviors that privilege their interests above the interests of other species.

You can appeal to evolutionary as a normative moral theory, just not a human rights moral theory. There's nothing evolutionary inconsistent with the 1000s of years of genocide, slavery, or any manner of harm humans cause to other humans.

And I never said there was. There's also nothing evolutionarily inconsistent with humanity as a whole consistently exploiting the environment for the benefit of humans, at the expense of other species.

I'm not sure why this is such a strange idea: Each species thrives at the expense of other species; with each species, each individual thrives at the expense of other individuals. To the extent that any valuation of humanity exists at all, I think it exists in that.

If you don't see it there, that's fine. I'm not out to convince you. If you see it somewhere else, that's fine too.

HTH. HAND.

 

[CaptBang]

They would both be my food source. I'm with Piggy, ehcks and Skeptical Greg here. There are individual animals and individual humans that make broad statements like the OP invalid in my opinion.

It is assumed. But, cannibalism always comes second.

The OP is absurdly broad.

 

[Arcade22]

I assume that we would all agree that the life of one human being is more valuable than the life of a dog or a cat.

Why would i value people I've never met, talked with or even just seen with my own eyes over a pet that i like? Why would anyone? That they are human isn't worth **** to me.

 

[balrog666]

Me, yes; you, not so much ...

 

[jj]

Yes human life has higher standing, other life can't build spaceships and get us off this planet before we wreck it completely.

 

[gumboot]

In the past, I would have never thought about asking a question like this..

How much is human life much more important than other animals` life?
I assume that we would all agree that the life of one human being is more valuable than the life of a dog or a cat.
But what about the life of one human being against the life of ten dogs?
Against the life of 100 dogs?

Some people may argue that one human life may be more valuable than the life of all animals living on Earth, but .. one the basis of what?
We share most DNA we have with animals and animals also suffer and want to avoid death as we do.

If for example we assume than one human life may be worth, say, the life of 7 pigs, then it would make sense to consider to prohibit humans to eat pork, or even threated violent actions against people who eat pork meat

I think the range of answers you've received in this thread perfectly illustrates the problem with trying to make any broad statements on the topic. Humans are a varied bunch, and value is an inherently subjective matter.

There are some who are so extraordinarily selfish they put no value on any lives other than their own. Some rank value only in accordance with their own personal interests - putting a dog's life above that of a stranger.

Others have demonstrated extraordinary selflessness in sacrificing their own lives to preserve the life of a total stranger.

For most, context is a rather powerful thing, that will dictate much about how we value something.

The only thing I would add is that while many people will bluff and bluster about which life does or doesn't have value to them, I think until you're actually in a situation where you have to choose, you don't know what's more important to you.

I've witnessed enough such situations to know that most people's perception of how they would behave in such a situation is quite removed from the reality.

 

[River]

"Is human life much more valuable than other animals` life?"

I'm quite positive there are many animals that have sold for more than humans have. I guess it depends on which animal, and which human.

 

[Aepervius]

To be brutally honest, your life is less valuable to me than my dog's life is.

If either you or my dog were going to be killed, I'd save my dog.

I differ. If you were in a life threatenning situation with my cats, I would be heart broken but I would still save you first. maybe I am an idiot who knows.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't know where you get that evolutionary standpoint from, but organisms compete with members of their own species all the time. There's no evolutionary inconsistency with some population of humans sectioning off a portion of their population to be exploited and used for the advantage of the privileged group.

You can appeal to evolutionary as a normative moral theory, just not a human rights moral theory. There's nothing evolutionary inconsistent with the 1000s of years of genocide, slavery, or any manner of harm humans cause to other humans.

Because even inc ase when member of a specie fight agaisnt each other, they usually turn against an itntruder species immediately on intrusion.

You are confusing (intentionally?) two action : what are the interspecies relationship with intraspecies relationship. They are quite different.

 

[Corsair 115]

Somehow I thought this example might be more powerful if penguins were replaced with some species more clearly capable of slaughtering their own kind. I've been imagining millions of penguins frustrated by the thought that they just can't kill that penguin that butted in line ahead of them. I suppose my naive childish illusions will be shattered if I google penguin domestic violence.

I could have sworn penguins really only did two things:

1. Eat fish.
2. Frolic.

I was thinking about this today after someone in my office said "life is precious". I thinking life is not that precious at all, death is around us all the time. I then proceeded to step on a bug.

The bug had it coming. He was eyeballing you and looking for a fight!

 

[Wudang]

I could have sworn penguins really only did two things:

1. Eat fish.
2. Frolic.

Item 2 in such ways as to shock the Scott expedition. Those of a tender disposition should not google "penguin depravity".

 

[Seismosaurus]

I am in the "My species > Not my species" camp. Why? Merely because it is my species.

 

[zeggman]

By almost every measure that we'd judge human life more valuable than animal life, we have an identical measure to judge some human lives more valuable than other human lives, and some animal lives more valuable than humans.

Religious people would argue that humans are made in the image of God, and animals are not. My apologies if someone else already raised this point between your post and my response.