• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

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 have a different perspective. I own an 11 year old golden retriever that I love very much and which I'm very much attached and involved with on a daily basis. However, I intuitively feel that human life is much more important than any dog's life regardless of how attached I am and I feel. I would choose to have my dog killed to save nearly any human life, even a HIV positive heroin addict's life has more value than my dog.
 
My sister > your sister, by the same reasoning. I think there are obviously levels at which we think this is true at times, but I think also that most of us realise the incorrectness of such a statement.

No, I think you are like other extending intraspecies relationship and think it applies to interspecies.

Sure if two human being are in distress, i will be much more likely to save the one I love/like/know in this order of preference. But I contend that it does not apply to interspecies. I contend that the people pretending they would save their own dog agaisnt the live of a stranger would not if the situation arose. It is a question of empathy against on of your own species, and I would bet that most people *instanctually* would go forward toward the human.
 
there are some people, nonetheless, who would be none the waur o' a hangin in my opinion.

I've got a little list.

As to the OP, the answers have already been given about the subjective nature of value.

Likewise my species > your species.

This opens up an enormous can of worms if you take a look at another human and decide that they are not a member of our species, yes? :p
 
My criteria is simple. human are my species. Other species are not. [..]

This species thing is conventional

If I gotta kill 4,000 deer, 10,000 squirrels, 20,000 tree grubs and 10,000 brook trout to live from now until I and my loved ones died, I would so do it.

I do not understand why you would have to kill 4000 deers to save your family

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

First, the subdivision between "my species" and "not-my-species" is a conventional one and, second, why do we have to eat hamburgers to survive?
 
I do not understand why you would have to kill 4000 deers to save your family

I was being facetious, but let's say you had a family of 5 and had to kill one deer a week to survive. Over 20 years you'd kill over 1000 deer. (plus you might kill more to use as trade for goods from other people)
 
I suspect, when the chips are down, it's every man for himself, followed by family, then friends....etc Then every single thing that can be consumed to aid in survival becomes viewed as any other animal views it.

So yeah, if it means surviving or not surviving, I reckon everything else is secondary to the individual. If I gotta kill 4,000 deer, 10,000 squirrels, 20,000 tree grubs and 10,000 brook trout to live from now until I and my loved ones died, I would so do it.

Thing is, that logic applies intra-species as well. Or I would say irrespective to a species distinction.
 
I was recently watching a discussion on empathy (and the limits of empathy) that referenced a passage from Adam Smith's incredible Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connexion with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befal himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others? It is not the soft power of humanity, it is not that feeble spark of benevolence which Nature has lighted up in the human heart, that is thus capable of counteracting the strongest impulses of self-love. It is a stronger power, a more forcible motive, which exerts itself upon such occasions. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct. It is he who, whenever we are about to act so as to affect the happiness of others, calls to us, with a voice capable of astonishing the most presumptuous of our passions, that we are but one of the multitude, in no respect better than any other in it; and that when we prefer ourselves so shamefully and so blindly to others, we become the proper objects of resentment, abhorrence, and execration. It is from him only that we learn the real littleness of ourselves, and of whatever relates to ourselves, and the natural misrepresentations of self-love can be corrected only by the eye of this impartial spectator. It is he who shows us the propriety of generosity and the deformity of injustice; the propriety of resigning the greatest interests of our own, for the yet greater interests of others, and the deformity of doing the smallest injury to another, in order to obtain the greatest benefit to ourselves. It is not the love of our neighbour, it is not the love of mankind, which upon many occasions prompts us to the practice of those divine virtues. It is a stronger love, a more powerful affection, which generally takes place upon such occasions; the love of what is honourable and noble, of the grandeur, and dignity, and superiority of our own characters.

Given how human beings actually do behave, I think Smith gets it slightly wrong, especially if we switch out the Chinese for non-humans. But this example also recalls the old joke about how there's some awful natural disaster in a farflung place killing tens of thousands but the headline in the university paper reads, "OXFORD MAN DIES IN EARTHQUAKE."
 
Last edited:
mmmmm, delicious deer! (just gotta watch out for the bears!)

And Bigfoot. ;)

As for the OP, to be completely honest:
Me > everything/everyone else.

Then we move on to a hierarchy of what/who is more important to me ('what' in the sense of other animals). As others have pointed out (better than I could have) not ALL humans are better than ALL other animals.

If someone I loved was being menaced by a tiger and I had the means, I'd shoot that tiger. But if a murderer/rapist were in the same place... hmm. I don't think I could bring myself to shoot the human, but I certainly wouldn't stop the tiger from mauling them.
 
And Bigfoot. ;)

As for the OP, to be completely honest:
Me > everything/everyone else.

Then we move on to a hierarchy of what/who is more important to me ('what' in the sense of other animals). As others have pointed out (better than I could have) not ALL humans are better than ALL other animals.

If someone I loved was being menaced by a tiger and I had the means, I'd shoot that tiger. But if a murderer/rapist were in the same place... hmm. I don't think I could bring myself to shoot the human, but I certainly wouldn't stop the tiger from mauling them.

The it gets really complicated. Was the murderer a mob hitman? a serial killer? would just a common everyday rapist or child molester be given the same treatment? do we even have the time to think these sorts of things through before instinct takes over and we shoot the tiger?
 
Given how human beings actually do behave, I think Smith gets it slightly wrong, especially if we switch out the Chinese for non-humans.


I think he gets its significantly wrong. If anything, the numerous significant natural disasters over the last several years have demonstrated the remarkable empathy and compassion most human beings have for total strangers from alien cultures on the far side of the world. In fact, that shared sense of humanity is usually so profound it manages to overcome even deep, ideological conflicts.
 
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

Assuming facts not in evidence, and animals aren't humans, nor are they a human equivalent, DNA similarities aside.
 
I think he gets its significantly wrong. If anything, the numerous significant natural disasters over the last several years have demonstrated the remarkable empathy and compassion most human beings have for total strangers from alien cultures on the far side of the world. In fact, that shared sense of humanity is usually so profound it manages to overcome even deep, ideological conflicts.

More than two hundred years later, the world's a little more globalized. Plus, we have moving pictures of those disasters, beamed to our living rooms in real-time. Quite different than reading about it in the paper a couple days later. Still, I'd bet most people did nothing in the way of assistance (I know I didn't lift a finger).

His example of someone losing their pinky finger is quite good. If I lost part of my digit, I'd fret and whine, "poor me," never mind thousands of children died today (by the way, somebody should do something about that. Not me though. I'm busy writing on the Internet).

The problem with relying on empathy rather than reason, is that it leads to the wrong moral conclusions. One example given in an exchange between psychologists Paul Bloom and Steven Pinker is that it's easier to empathize with someone who's going to lose their job if we create legislation to combat global warming. It's more difficult to sympathize with Bangledeshi farmers fifty years in the future, or penguins. In the case of animals, we're more likely to sympathize with dogs and cats than pigs and chickens.
 
Still, I'd bet most people did nothing in the way of assistance (I know I didn't lift a finger).

Simply by paying taxes you're doing something. Our governments assist on our behalf. I'm smart enough to know that there's very little practical aid I can offer to anyone in a disaster zone. My best way of assisting is by ensuring part of my taxes go towards maintaining a team of appropriate experts who can be of assistance in such a disaster zone so that my country can send them to help.


His example of someone losing their pinky finger is quite good. If I lost part of my digit, I'd fret and whine, "poor me," never mind thousands of children died today (by the way, somebody should do something about that. Not me though. I'm busy writing on the Internet).

Are you saying that, because something worse is happening to someone else in the world, it's not appropriate to be concerned when bad things happen in your own life? That's... retarded.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom