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

[angrysoba]

I also generally think the entire world would benefit massively from a huge reduction in the number of human beings. Both the remaining people, and the natural world. I think we need a plague, but I'd want it to target people below a certain IQ.

Enough of this suicidal talk!

 

[Polaris]

Yes, it sucks for that species all right.

Humans drive a species to the brink of extinction and then have no problem pushing it into oblivion to save one human.

And then continue to claim we have some special higher value.

 

[Cainkane1]

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

Humans are self aware, adaptable and inventive. No other animal can equal us in those qualities. Animals prey on other animals for food and we do it better than any other predator. Humans are at the top of the food chain.

Hence we are superior to other animals.

 

[Belz...]

Zombies--worth more, or less, than animals?

For box office revenues, more.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

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

Did you hurt yourself stretching that far? I am zero percent religious, and the fact you thought I needed a dusty old book to feel empathy for other humans may be an indicator that you're missing some wiring somewhere.

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.

It's almost like we value other humans even when their is no material benefit to doing so...

If there was a fire, I would rescue my immediate family first. Then I would rescue friends. Then children, followed by neighbors and other acquaintances. Then strangers, starting at youngest and working my way back to old people.

When the last comatose 90 year old was out of the fire, if I was still able, I'd start rescuing pets.

Enough of this suicidal talk!

Bravo, sir.

I'd wager most people who casually talk about the relative worthlessness of humans do not include themselves in the equation.

Humans drive a species to the brink of extinction and then have no problem pushing it into oblivion to save one human.

And then continue to claim we have some special higher value.

Would you volunteer your life to save a species?

If the last pair of Great Whites were about to eat you, would you wave away your rescuers and let yourself be eaten?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Humans are self aware, adaptable and inventive. No other animal can equal us in those qualities. Animals prey on other animals for food and we do it better than any other predator. Humans are at the top of the food chain.

Hence we are superior to other animals.

You bring up an interesting point.

There are people here arguing that there is no moral imperative to protect fellow humans.

What moral imperative do we have to protect any other species? Why should we care if all that's left on the planet are humans, and enough breeding stock of delicious animals to keep us fed?

I'd really liek to see the reasoning behind any answer to this.

 

[Polaris]

Would you volunteer your life to save a species?

If the last pair of Great Whites were about to eat you, would you wave away your rescuers and let yourself be eaten?

To make the analogy work, my rescuers would have to also be about to kill the sharks first. And in that case, yes I would.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

To make the analogy work, my rescuers would have to also be about to kill the sharks first. And in that case, yes I would.

1) Is there a sliding scale on the relative value of particular species?

2) If you were stuck on a conveyor belt leading to slicing blades, alongside the world's last pair of Field Mice, would you volunteer to stay behind and be sliced up so that the mice would survive?

3) How about for the last pair of a kind of insect?

4) Is the contention that uniqueness is worth preserving, whereas any particular human, or large percentage of humans, are everyday and worth less?

5) If someone wanted to hunt you for sport, or eat you as a delicacy, and in exchange he'd pay an extravagant amount to a conservation fund that would save a species, would you volunteer?

 

[Polaris]

1) Is there a sliding scale on the relative value of particular species?

2) If you were stuck on a conveyor belt leading to slicing blades, alongside the world's last pair of Field Mice, would you volunteer to stay behind and be sliced up so that the mice would survive?

3) How about for the last pair of a kind of insect?

4) Is the contention that uniqueness is worth preserving, whereas any particular human, or large percentage of humans, are everyday and worth less?

5) If someone wanted to hunt you for sport, or eat you as a delicacy, and in exchange he'd pay an extravagant amount to a conservation fund that would save a species, would you volunteer?

1.) Yes, there is - I consider keystone species, particularly large predators, to be the most valuable, based on what I've read about ecology.

I freely admit that by and large I'm being subjective for the most part.

2.) Very possibly - those mice are food for a lot of other animals both directly and further up the food chain. (Of course it's easy for me to say, since we'll probably never get rid of field mice).

3.) I suppose it would depend on the insect and how much of an affect the species' disappearance would have on a healthy ecosystem.

4.) The contention is that people aren't nearly worth the esteem in which they hold themselves. It's not so much about uniqueness as a blatant disregard of how different animals fit into food webs and ecosystems, and the targeting of certain others as "thieves" rather than beneficial (in grander sense), even now despite not having ignorance as an excuse.

5. Money up front, and we'll talk. I think the survival of the clouded leopard is worth me, at the very least. But the cannibals eating me might find me a bit too sweet.

 

[I Ratant]

More than once I've heard the "thump-thump" as some poor animal fails Boulevard Crossing 101, and I have no manuvering room.
It would a very large animal to cause me to put my life at risk to avoid it when driving.

 

[Dessi]

umans are self aware, adaptable and inventive. No other animal can equal us in those qualities. Animals prey on other animals for food and we do it better than any other predator. Humans are at the top of the food chain.

Hence we are superior to other animals.

You bring up an interesting point.

Might makes right?

There are people here arguing that there is no moral imperative to protect fellow humans.

What moral imperative do we have to protect any other species? Why should we care if all that's left on the planet are humans, and enough breeding stock of delicious animals to keep us fed?

I'd really liek to see the reasoning behind any answer to this.

I recommend picking up a copy of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer if you have a genuine interest in the subject.

The short and sweet version is that species membership is morally meaningless. It is not an "essential" characteristic of humans or any organism; it does not refer to any actual attribute of any organism whatsoever; its simply the taxonomic grouping which relates organisms together sharing a specific genetic lineage. There's no persuasive argument that one specific taxanomic grouping (homo sapiens) has magic value which applies to no other grouping on the planet without falling back on phantasmagorical gods and demons, or a heavy dose of special pleading.

Arguments against animal rights are problematic because they unavoidably carry over to arguments the human rights. For example, if I make an argument that animals have no rights because they aren't rational moral agents, I must concede that mentally similar humans are no more advantaged; if I argue that non-rational humans have rights, I must concede that rationality is not a prerequisite for moral consideration, and such a principle logically carries over to non-human animals. Nearly all arguments for/against animal rights result in a moral system which raises animals to the status of non-rational humans, or reduces non-rational humans to the status of animals; in either case, animals have no greater or lesser claim to moral value than their human counter-parts at a similar mental level, they are moral equals. If we accept that view, then the imperative to avoid causing harm to humans in all the areas where its reasonable and easy to do so generalizes to mentally similar animals.

 

[IDB87]

For example, if I make an argument that animals have no rights because they aren't rational moral agents, I must concede that mentally similar humans are no more advantaged;

Mentally similar humans are denied moral agency (for the sake of argument) due to a disability or other external influence on their genetic code. Meaning they are eligible, but do not meet the pre-reqs for whatever reason. Cows do not posses the faculties that would allow them to become moral agents in the first place.

It's not quite the same thing to compare the two.

 

[Cain]

or other external influence on their genetic code.

Well, that's an interesting turn of phrase.

 

[IDB87]

Well, that's an interesting turn of phrase.

Ah shucks, try to sound smart and cain replies. I probably stepped in it unawares. Do share

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Of course you would. It's HIS dog. If it were YOUR dog, it may not be the same value equation for you.

 

[mgidm86]

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.

Is that directed just at that specific poster, or are you saying that given the choice of saving another human being or your dog that you would save your dog?

 

[mgidm86]

Of course you would. It's HIS dog. If it were YOUR dog, it may not be the same value equation for you.

Wow. Seriously disturbing.

 

[Kahalachan]

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.

Why wouldn't a social contract extend to the non-rational humans by means of kinship? It doesn't even have to be kinship but the possibility of future kinship. I don't think I'm going to get married with my wife giving birth to pigs anytime soon.

So non-rational humans could very well be implemented into a social contract.

Edit:

Of course you would. It's HIS dog. If it were YOUR dog, it may not be the same value equation for you.

I wouldn't think twice about killing any of my pets to save a human. Plane crash in the wilderness, people can eat my pet before we resort to cannibalism.

Edit again: OK it would be hard and I would think twice, but I'd do it anyways.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Mentally similar humans are denied moral agency (for the sake of argument) due to a disability or other external influence on their genetic code. Meaning they are eligible, but do not meet the pre-reqs for whatever reason. Cows do not posses the faculties that would allow them to become moral agents in the first place.

It's not quite the same thing to compare the two.

You are confusing moral agent with moral patient.

Further, you are trying to introduce some odd distinction with with no established difference.

Why wouldn't a social contract extend to the non-rational humans by means of kinship? It doesn't even have to be kinship but the possibility of future kinship. I don't think I'm going to get married with my wife giving birth to pigs anytime soon.

So non-rational humans could very well be implemented into a social contract.

Kinship and social contract are two very different rules. In fact, it is quite trivial to introduce animals as moral patients through kinship, as many philosophers have done. Wait, no, it looks like you are using the term in the specific blood relation sense... Which again is different from the social contract, but is also very bad and I really don't see how you are using it to extend, rather than retract, the moral circle. I have no Latino kin and will not have Latino progeny (or any), therefore, I owe Latino children no moral obligations.

 

[fuelair]

Humans drive a species to the brink of extinction and then have no problem pushing it into oblivion to save one human.

And then continue to claim we have some special higher value.

We think therefore we ham!!! (and Bacon!!!!!).