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

[Skeptic Tank]

If there is anything most people in this thread can agree on, it is that the criteria you listed for humans are morally irrelevant. Is this thought what you would call "enlightened"? This isn't about weighing animal life at all, but your judgment of humans to be beneath you and your fellow "educated, productive, kind and enlightened people living in first world countries". It is morally repugnant.

Explain how the criteria I listed are "morally irrelevant" ?

Are you honestly trying to tell me you don't regard yourself as better than *anyone* on this planet? Not even someone with a 78 IQ who rides around in Sudan in a pick up truck with an AK-47 raping and killing people?

Not all human life is equally valuable, and some human life is completely worthless.

Your attitude shows you to conclusively be one of the very valuable types of people I referred to. Unfortunately such people are almost never able to perceive their own value or accept that others are just inherently less intelligent and less genetically fit than them. It is hard not to imagine that the experience of being any random person on the planet is the same as your experience. What I mean is, the experience of thinking and feeling and perceiving the world around you. You naturally assume everyone THINKS like you do. I assure you, the vast majority of humanity has nowhere near the brain power you take for granted.

 

[Xulld]

Value is subjective.

/thread

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.

If going by intelligence: newborn < horse < adult human.

Or going by proficiency in language, monolinguals < bilinguals < trilinguals < etc.

Or going by ability to overpower others, some women < some men.

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

Or going by genetic similarity: rat < chimpanzee < your immediate family < my immediate family < me.

Or going by lifespan: humans < sea tortoises.

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

Or going by propensity to destroy other species to the point of exinction: giant fricken asteroid < humans < anything else.

The trick here is whether accepting that organisms are "more valuable" than others entitles superior organisms to exploit inferior organisms for whatever purpose. Or whether we can accept that some people have more proficient traits with one another, without taking that as an argument for specieism are eugenics. That's kind of the rub with arguments categorizing others into superior or inferior groups.

Creating a framework makes it no less subjective nor less arbitrary, you just move back one step making which framework chosen the point of subjectivity. Choosing intelligence is arbitrary, what about number of toes? Ability to balance on a rope? What about sausage making? I do love sausages!

@Dessi. I am glad that you said almost.

My criteria is simple. human are my species. Other species are not. Therefore when it comes down to protecting, preserving, or helping a member of my species, versus another species, my species member will always be protected first and formost (although I am still split on PETA/ALF ... - just kidding I would even protect those). And it is the same for other species by the way.

The only criteria you need is : My species>Not My species. And yes it is quite binary.

BIAS!, yep that is subjective as well.

So, yeah, I think it goes back to natural selfishness. It's not that other animals are less valuable than humans, it's that things you like are subjectively more valuable than things you don't.

Post #7 and we have a winner.

Example: I think we'd all agree that a homeless person on the street has less value to society than an accomplished inventor.

I think you would be wrong to assume that, at any given moment a person may or may not value that homeless person more than any other person based on subjective criteria built through their experience of the world, or the last chapter of the novel they just read, or because of poop.

There's no objective way to measure the value of different animals, the concept isn't even coherent. Of course that's not the same as saying we're all objectively equally valuable either.

Well yes and no.

Anyone can create an objective framework, its just that no one needs to agree with it. However for you and anyone who does, you certainly can create objective value.

Say the framework is setup such that the being with the greatest ability to sort letters alphabetically has more value. Humans would win, and within that set certain humans would have more value for the task at hand than others would. A computer would out value everyone within such a framework.

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.

What exactly is your argument here?

Are you really arguing that taxes taken at gun point and used for what you consider to be a moral cause makes me moral, in this regard, for having had my money so taken?

Not sure this is your point, but I am not following otherwise.

 

[Polaris]

If the last lion on earth was going to eat someone, I would kill it and cause the extinction of a species to save a human life.

To me it is extremely morally wrong to even consider putting an animal's life over a human in any situation. I mean you could probably think of some mass murderer vs. a family pet and I'd probably pick the family pet. That's the most extreme circumstance where I would knowingly kill a human to save an animal.

Otherwise, one human > ever single other animal on the planet combined.

Edit: I'll clarify. We're talking just the value of life vs. life. If someone wants expensive furs and to skin animals alive for them, they are putting something superficial over life and the animal wins.

That's something we'll never agree on. In fact, if a few million people need to get bumped off to prevent a species from going extinct, them's the breaks.

 

[Emily's Cat]

AS Xulld said, value is subjective. What I value and what you value aren't going to be the same, so trying to generalize it into some sort of rule is going to be difficult.

What I have observed from years of watching Animal Planet and various nature shows is that most mammals will protect their own lives first and foremost*, their progeny second, then their kin, lastly their tribe or clan. On rare occasions, they may join with other animals against a shared threat from an interloper... but very rarely, and I seem to recall this being something that happens only with herd animals.

For humans, I don't think it's much different. We protect our own lives, the lives of our children and family, our close friends, our community, our nation, our species. We're capable of forming larger and more abstract attachments than other animals, so we can expand our circles of interest to much larger groupings. And because we're better at abstraction, we're more likely to include pets and beloved animals in the family and close friends ranges.

We also tend to make abstractions in terms of immediate protection versus long-term protection. We might very well kill a thief, not because he threatens the lives of our family now, but because by taking our property he threatens our livelihood and our ability to continue living long term. He threatens our safety and well being. Because of our ability to make this abstract leap, there are probably many people who would expand their circles to include working animals and property animals above the lives of humans who threaten those animals.

So at the end of the day, the rankings you get are going to be very personal. They'll reflect the values and beliefs of each individual.

*There are probably some exceptions with respect to mothers and children. There have been documented cases of mother mammals sacrificing themselves to save their children. There have also been cases of mothers allowing their children to die to save themselves. I don't know where the line is.

 

[Caper]

@Dessi. I am glad that you said almost.

My criteria is simple. human are my species. Other species are not. Therefore when it comes down to protecting, preserving, or helping a member of my species, versus another species, my species member will always be protected first and formost (although I am still split on PETA/ALF ... - just kidding I would even protect those). And it is the same for other species by the way.

The only criteria you need is : My species>Not My species. And yes it is quite binary.

Kind of but not really.... I don't have a dog... but if I did I would probably pony up 1k for life saving surgery..... though I'm sure 1k could save at least some human life somewhere else.... but then again... if I was to make a direct choice between my dog and that hypothetical human I could have saved with the 1k... like say.... in a burning house, I would save the human.... unless of course the human was someone I thought was evil.... like a child rapist... in that case I would save the dog.

 

[Tiktaalik]

In my mind, dogs and other animals are innocents, and, like children, they deserve to be protected in situations they couldn't have caused. Therefore, I often have less sympathy for adult humans, and in certain situations would choose to protect the animal. (And if it's one of my dogs...watch out. I think my response would be almost instinctive.)

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

That's something we'll never agree on. In fact, if a few million people need to get bumped off to prevent a species from going extinct, them's the breaks.

I find the fact that sociopaths get the benefits of the human herd mentality to be a great waste of resources. Hopefully in the future we can identify such individuals while they are still in the womb.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

In my mind, dogs and other animals are innocents, and, like children, they deserve to be protected in situations they couldn't have caused. Therefore, I often have less sympathy for adult humans, and in certain situations would choose to protect the animal. (And if it's one of my dogs...watch out. I think my response would be almost instinctive.)

I've had a bunch of pets over the years that I would have probably stupidly risked my life to save in the event of a fire or natural disaster, but if I grabbed my dog and left a man to die, I would be a monster.

 

[12AX7]

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.

And this is what's wrong with the world. We value a dog more than a fellow human being.

To be brutally honest, if your dog were in the road and it was either hit your dog or hit another motorist and/or crash my car and injure myself or my family, your dog will become a smear in the pavement without hesitation.

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.

Congratulations! You're part of the problem! See above.

I've had a bunch of pets over the years that I would have probably stupidly risked my life to save in the event of a fire or natural disaster, but if I grabbed my dog and left a man to die, I would be a monster.

This. ^^^^

 

[Tiktaalik]

I've had a bunch of pets over the years that I would have probably stupidly risked my life to save in the event of a fire or natural disaster, but if I grabbed my dog and left a man to die, I would be a monster.

Why?

 

[Vortigern99]

I'm trying to understand what the OP's point is. Anti-meat?

 

[Cain]

It looks like I failed to reply to a post...

Sure, but it's not compulsory how much you pay or what it gets spent on.

Yes it is, especially in the short-term.

I don't know what this even means.

Someone behaving in their self-interest can unintentionally aide others, but that doesn't make selfish behavior morally praiseworthy.

Evidence?

Evidence?

I'll just assume you're being intentionally daft... which may explain why I didn't bother reply to this post after all...

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Why?

Well it's an inbuilt biological imperative in most humans, but to explain it in robot terms...

We have a social contract where it is beneficial for humans to look out for each other. There is the expectation that we will (within reason) look out for each other, and value each others continued existence.

I want to be able to expect that when a fireman or policeman comes upon a catastrophe at my home, they will try to rescue me and my offspring, and not my pets. That if my son is walking my dog and they break through ice, the passersby will rescue my son before my dog.

It's an incredibly successful system, and it's taken us from cave huddling, to masters of the planet. The best bit is it's an instinctual thing for most people. For those who don't have that human empathy, well, they're reaping the benefits of a system they do not help to support.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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?

You're assuming it is.

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.

Depends on the human.

 

[fuelair]

It actually is an interesting question.

We value intelligence and out own species. But within out own species, we ALWAYS put kids (less intelligent) above all else.... the kids are the first in the life boats.

But many times I see a hundred stories about murders and not really flinch... and then read a story about animal cruelty that will haunt me for days.

I may think human life is of more value.... but when I hear stories about 3 or 4 elephants getting killed for their tusks.... I want to hear how the elephants stomped the poachers.

I think that if we actually don't like the people.... we assign more value to the animal.

I thoroughly agree with you on trampled poachers. Would not even mind seeing the poachers poached in a nice big boiling kettle.

 

[theprestige]

I'm trying to understand what the OP's point is. Anti-meat?

As I recall, it was an attempt to bring in skeptical support for some jackass conspiracy theory through the side door. The CIA is trying to assassinate Julian Assange by framing him for sex crimes in Sweden, or some idiocy like that. You'll have to go back and read the body of work that he created prior to being banned, I suppose.

 

[Kahalachan]

Zombie thread eats your brains !!!

Hah indeed! Didn't notice the dates at first.

That's something we'll never agree on. In fact, if a few million people need to get bumped off to prevent a species from going extinct, them's the breaks.

Yeah we are Polar opposites. Hah no semi-pun intended with your username.

But whatever theoretical scenario you want to throw at me, with the exception of a human who already deserves to die, I'm going to pick one human over all other animal life combined. I would say plant life but we sorta need them to survive. So causing mass human extinction to save one human is going to be different. That's a whole nother topic.

What's really cool is that these morals just sprung up for both of us. I can't think of any religious influence. There's social influence that humans come first and that we have to protect the environment and conserve life. But in our first world lifestyle, these situations never conflict.

We just feel this way for whatever reason and I'm strongly for humans first no matter how many animals go.

 

[Arcade22]

We have a social contract where it is beneficial for humans to look out for each other.

No we don't. Keep believing you do though. I'm sure its good for your eternal soul or something.

 

[Dessi]

We have a social contract where it is beneficial for humans to look out for each other. There is the expectation that we will (within reason) look out for each other, and value each others continued existence.

Except that social contracts exclude the entire class of non-rational humans (infants, children, mentally handicapped, etc) who can neither tacitly consent nor understand what it is. Non-rational humans have no greater or lesser advantage over animals in any social contract.

 

[angrysoba]

That's something we'll never agree on. In fact, if a few million people need to get bumped off to prevent a species from going extinct, them's the breaks.

Yes, it sucks for that species all right.