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

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In establishing that kids are off limits, we protect future rational adults that would be members of our social contract. So which dog is going to grow up to be a thinking human?

This isn't social contract theory. Propagation and continuation of the social contract as an end in itself is a value you have assumed.

If such was never established to protect kids, the social contract would be absolutely pointless as it would be perfectly fine to cause our own extinction by killing each other's offspring.

There is a reason we include kin in our social contract as an extension of our being.

You skipped between other's children and your own here. If they are an extension of your being, like property and animals, then you can abuse your own as you see fit.

We protect the mentally disabled because it could've been us. It could've been someone we love. I couldn't have been a bear.

I do not see where this value comes from.

 

[Arcade22]

It upsets people.

There's really no other rational reason.

Actually there is a perfectly well-thought and rational reason: people who purposely abuse, torture and kill non-human animals are more likely to abuse, torture and kill humans. Since i and presumably most people do not want to be abused or killed by jackasses there's a perfectly rational reason to lock up psychopaths and people with rage problems.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Actually there is a perfectly well-thought and rational reason: people who purposely abuse, torture and kill non-human animals are more likely to abuse, torture and kill humans. Since i and presumably most people do not want to be abused or killed by jackasses there's a perfectly rational reason to lock up psychopaths and people with rage problems.

You're right, although we don't tend to arrest people on the basis of "more likely," so it's more a cause for monitoring rather than direct causation. But I agree with the general reasoning.

But then I'd consider people who value an animal over human life to be a potential risk to the community also. That's when you get A.L.F. types.

A sociopath of psychopath is certainly more of a direct danger to any community, but in this very thread people have casually professed a belief that millions of humans are disposable. That is some chilling stuff.

 

[Dessi]

In establishing that kids are off limits, we protect future rational adults that would be members of our social contract. So which dog is going to grow up to be a thinking human?

So, the potential person argument. Children are potential members of the social contract, so we treat them as actual members of the social contract. Fair enough... except that children aren't equal to rational adults anymore, not even in principle. Children have no value in themselves, only their future selves do, because children have no actual contractual agreements with anyone. So, in what sense does killing a child cause harm to anyone? It doesn't violate agreements with the child because no such agreements exist, and it doesn't violate agreements with a future person because those future agreements will never exist in the first place. Killing children in this system is not morally distinguishable from using birth control. The conclusion is that killing a child does not cause any harm at all, it only prevents a future person from existing, and you can't harm people who will never exist to experience harm. Potential person arguments are an argument for killing children, not against it.

Again, this view reduces children to the status of animals because potential people have potential rights, they have no actual rights and they absolutely have no actual agreements with anyone.

This argument does not support the view you claim it does.

If such was never established to protect kids, the social contract would be absolutely pointless as it would be perfectly fine to cause our own extinction by killing each other's offspring.

Social contracts have existed which give absolute power to kings to do whatever they want, without respecting the right to life for all humans. Social contracts have even been used to defend slave classes of people. It is not necessarily a theory of universal human rights, or even a view that all humans are necessarily "equal" with all others.

We humans ought to be stewards to animals, but they are not our equals.

I think you're trying to shoehorn children into a social contract theory where they don't fit any more or less than animals would.

 

[Meed]

Actually there is a perfectly well-thought and rational reason: people who purposely abuse, torture and kill non-human animals are more likely to abuse, torture and kill humans.

So if you were to observe someone torturing a dog just for the hell of it, your only thought would be "Ugh this is upsetting because it means this person might hurt a human some day"? Or if I go even further down the rabbit hole of this insane understanding of morality and values, would it be "This is upsetting because it means this person might hurt ME some day"? I think you will find yourself a minority on this one. Most people are capable of empathy toward both humans and non-humans and would think this was wrong because of suffering inflicted on the dog.

Since i and presumably most people do not want to be abused or killed by jackasses there's a perfectly rational reason to lock up psychopaths and people with rage problems.

What's psychopathic is deriving values purely based on calculated self interest while discounting empathy completely. Most people don't do this. I suspect you don't either.

 

[Polaris]

Are you aware that thousands of species go extinct per year?

Yep. I explained that my position includes a sliding scale, but that post got dumped into AAH.

 

[StevenLeonCooper]

Re: The original post

Importance is purely a matter of perspective so the answer to that question is completely dependent on the sentient being you ask.

We don't have evidence that most animals are aware of themselves in a special sense, as in they don't understand that they exist all over the world as a species. Rather they are aware of themselves as individuals, groups in a region and possibly many groups within large regions, but not in a sense that they understand what a species is or that they are a part of one. If that's true we can probably assume that most animals wouldn't really grasp the concept of choosing to save a being of their own species over a being from a different species but they would comprehend protecting a same-species being if it were part of their family or group.

The point is that it's likely only humans comprehend the concept of "Human lives vs Animal Lives" because we have the ability to comprehend the many types of life that are on earth in a conceptual way rather than a familiar way. Because of that we tend value our own species above all others, for no particularly compelling reason other than that we are a part of that species so it makes sense for us to value our own kind in the interest of continued survival. It's possible that animals might feel the same way though; they may be able to empathize with same-species beings because they identify their physical properties. I imagine that most sexually-reproducing animals, us included, have evolved to want to protect individuals that are very much like themselves because those individuals are candidates for reproduction.

Anyway, as I started out saying, the answer to this question is purely subjective. I would argue that most living things value members of their own species higher than others because that behavior has a huge survival benefit. My own view is that there's no particular reason to value any kind of life over another but it's not practical to try and treat every species equally; It's justifiable and logical to prioritize your own species. That being said I would discourage deliberate harm of other species unless it's necessary to protect or save human lives.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Its a response to Kahalachan. He suggests our obligation to protect infants from harm does not carry over to animals because infants are members of a social contract -- which they are not. Infants have no advantage over animals in social contracts. I'm not drawing any policy from it, only showing that Kahalachan's argument doesn't support the view he claims it does.


No they don't. Infants have not made an agreement to allow another to act as their "guardian". They don't even tacitly consent to guardianship because, again, they have no greater or lesser understanding of this concept than animals.

If you feel that members of the social contract can simply declare their guardianship over others and make agreements for them, then I declare myself guardian of non-rational animals and choose to grant animals membership in the social contract on their behalf. Done. Animals are equal to humans.

Errrrm, maybe not. Neither I nor guardians can manifest someone's consent to the social contract by will alone. (Seriously, imagine the implications that would have. "Yes, judge, I admit to touching her there. And I also admit she was a child. But as a guardian, I 'consented' on her behalf." I don't think it would get very far.) Infants don't fit in social contract theories because they fail to meet the rationality prerequisite; no agreements exist between them and their guardians, much less the rest of society. But we still treat them humanely, why? Because they suffer.

Is that why? I don't think so. One can snuff out a baby painlessly and it will never suffer. The social contract allows the killing of deformed baby animals, that they will not suffer, but preserves deformed human babies at great expense, sometimes consigning them to fruitless lives of great suffering in sterile institutions.

I think we do this because we don't trust each other to make certain decisions on a case-by-case basis. We draw bright lines. We frame our social contracts around fear and interests. Moral/religious treatises come at the back end. That is why I suggest moral arguments like the ones you advance have little practical value.

 

[I Ratant]

Is that why? I don't think so. One can snuff out a baby painlessly and it will never suffer. The social contract allows the killing of deformed baby animals, that they will not suffer, but preserves deformed human babies at great expense, sometimes consigning them to fruitless lives of great suffering in sterile institutions.

I think we do this because we don't trust each other to make certain decisions on a case-by-case basis. We draw bright lines. We frame our social contracts around fear and interests. Moral/religious treatises come at the back end. That is why I suggest moral arguments like the ones you advance have little practical value.

.
It's a very difficult position for the care-giver and the parent...
We've seen the destruction of "unsuitable" grown people in our life time.
That destruction included "useless eaters"... damaged new-borns, and old farts...
I see parents of extremely stricken children caring for them with all the love and tenderness they can. It's their burden, and not up to anyone else to decide the child's fate.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.......

I do not see where this value comes from.

Argument from ignorance ?

 

[Meed]

We don't have evidence that most animals are aware of themselves in a special sense, as in they don't understand that they exist all over the world as a species.

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems certain that many animals are aware that other members of their species exist outside of their immediate environment. It is common for animals to seek out mates and mark their territory to ward off rivals of the same species. They are not aware of "the world" in the sense that humans are, but then again, neither were humans until certain advances in science, exploration and cartography took place.

Anyway, as I started out saying, the answer to this question is purely subjective. I would argue that most living things value members of their own species higher than others because that behavior has a huge survival benefit.

Except many animals tend to be very aggressive toward members of their own species. The reason for this is that two animals of a given species are likely to subsist on the same types of food. Thus, since food tends to be limited in supply, they have good reason to be rivals. Additionally they may be in competition for the same mating partners. Animals who live together in groups often treat other groups of the same species as the enemy. Humans have certainly been prone to this as well.

My own view is that there's no particular reason to value any kind of life over another but it's not practical to try and treat every species equally; It's justifiable and logical to prioritize your own species. That being said I would discourage deliberate harm of other species unless it's necessary to protect or save human lives.

I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Cain]

Actually there is a perfectly well-thought and rational reason: people who purposely abuse, torture and kill non-human animals are more likely to abuse, torture and kill humans. Since i and presumably most people do not want to be abused or killed by jackasses there's a perfectly rational reason to lock up psychopaths and people with rage problems.

In addition to what cornsail said about this pretzeled logic...

If this were the real reason, then why should it be treated as anything other than a giant red flag? Just as red flags would be raised when it comes to a young person who draws disturbing images, is relatively intelligent but anti-social and misogynistic...

In any event, it's easy to remove the serial-killer angle if we consider dog-fighting, cock-fighting, bull-fighting, or other such "sports." Then what's the reason? "Uhhhhh, those activities involve gambling."

 

[StevenLeonCooper]

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems certain that many animals are aware that other members of their species exist outside of their immediate environment. It is common for animals to seek out mates and mark their territory to ward off rivals of the same species. They are not aware of "the world" in the sense that humans are, but then again, neither were humans until certain advances in science, exploration and cartography took place.

Well I mean to say that animals don't understand the concept of species. As I alluded to later on, animals probably recognize physical traits that identify other beings as being "the same" as them, otherwise it'd be near-impossible to properly know how to mate, etc. I would assume animals are much like early humans: they're not aware of their species in a global scope, only a local scope. I just don't think the concept of a hypothetical member of their species, not specifically tied to an extant individual, would make sense to a non-human. I have no idea what the truth of the matter is (it would make a fascinating study) but I would hypothesize that most non-humans on earth lack the capacity to think hypothetically so they wouldn't comprehend the question, "is your species more important than another?" Rather you would be forced to change the question to, "Is your group of similar living beings more important than any other group of living beings?" I just think the scope probably wouldn't make sense to them.

Except many animals tend to be very aggressive toward members of their own species. The reason for this is that two animals of a given species are likely to subsist on the same types of food. Thus, since food tends to be limited in supply, they have good reason to be rivals. Additionally they may be in competition for the same mating partners. Animals who live together in groups often treat other groups of the same species as the enemy. Humans have certainly been prone to this as well.

I imagine that there is a balance between surviving by taking care of same-species individuals and competing with them. It's a sort of homeostasis that gets naturally maintained. If inner-species competition gets too extreme the overall numbers are reduced because no one can mate and if inner-species relationships become too self-centered or apathetic then the species is overtaken by a competing or predatory species. Successful species survive because they attain the right mixture of sticking together and competing for resources/sexual partners.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

.
It's a very difficult position for the care-giver and the parent...
We've seen the destruction of "unsuitable" grown people in our life time.
That destruction included "useless eaters"... damaged new-borns, and old farts...
I see parents of extremely stricken children caring for them with all the love and tenderness they can. It's their burden, and not up to anyone else to decide the child's fate.

My mother languished with Alzheimer's for 15 years. The last 5 or so she was a bedridden vegetable. She wouldn't have wanted that when she was of sound mind. She would have wanted someone to smother her with a pillow if she ever ended up like that. She told me so. I feel the same way about myself.

But that can't be allowed, because we can't trust each other not to abuse any social contract that allows it. So we draw lines. Then we bring in the religious and social philosophers. Their job is to transmute crude expedience into a moral code, so we can feel better. That in my opinion is the only value of moral reflection: to make us feel better about what we do for the sake of expedience. A social contract that allows wanton cruelty to any living creature is dangerous to all of us. So we try to keep animal cruelty in check. But no way is society going to extend the same "rights" to animals that we extend to each other. It's not in our interest, and it's not at all clear what policies would achieve that aim if we decided it was in our interest.

 

[Arcade22]

If this were the real reason, then why should it be treated as anything other than a giant red flag? Just as red flags would be raised when it comes to a young person who draws disturbing images, is relatively intelligent but anti-social and misogynistic...

I don't get what your objection is about. If someone draws "disturbing images" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and displays anti-social behavior that is in my opinion a perfectly reasonable reason to institutionalize them, especially since anti-social behavior is often a key indicator of future violent behavior.

In any event, it's easy to remove the serial-killer angle

"Serial killer angle"? This doesn't just apply to serial-killers, it applies to all kinds of petty abusers and jerk asses.

if we consider dog-fighting, cock-fighting, bull-fighting, or other such "sports." Then what's the reason?

Again, i don't see how this is supposed to be any objection. Such sports could very likely have a brutalizing effect, not just on the animals involved, but also the spectators and "trainers" (or whatever people call them).

 

[Kahalachan]

This isn't social contract theory. Propagation and continuation of the social contract as an end in itself is a value you have assumed.

You skipped between other's children and your own here. If they are an extension of your being, like property and animals, then you can abuse your own as you see fit.

I do not see where this value comes from.

Then the existing theory is too limited and needs revision. A driving principle should be that the social contract is able to continue to exist, which means keeping rational thinkers around. If children are omitted, we can freely cause our own extinction as we can just kill whatever kids we want without violating the contract.

So "tearing up" this contract should also be disallowed.

As an extension of us, but not entirely us, children ought to be included. They are provisional or possible members. As the possibility it may have been us or our children, the mentally enfeebled are included.

We would be primitive in our morality when meeting an alien race and then agreeing not to kill them, but then committing infanticide under the claim that their offspring are not as rational as the adults.

Those who are currently not included in the social contract are trained to do be in it. We raise our children accordingly and provide assistance to the mentally disabled to do so.

To a small degree, this is extended towards dogs. They must poo in designated areas, not attack other humans or dogs, and so forth. They've evolved alongside humans long enough to have a predisposition to work with us so they are.......shall we say clauses in the social contract?

I wouldn't go hunt someone's pit bull for food under the provision that they have trained their companion to abide by the minor clauses of the contract to the degree of feigned membership. Dogs do reciprocate in their own way, what humans do to them and return acts of kindness.

Any animal capable of this, should also be consideration. A chimpanzee that speaks with sign language. Pet cats. And whatever other animal can be trained or almost nearly understand the reciprocity humans possess.

Think of it as a temporary pass to a military installation as opposed to a military issued ID card. Children have the pass until they are adults and have the full on ID. Animals will forever have the temporary pass until revoked.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You just said you see nothing wrong with valuing the life of your cat over a human being who is not related to you, then finished up by tutting someone else for their morality?

If karma was a real thing, you'd be stuck in a burning building while firemen shrugged and walked past, and your cat jumped over you to save itself.

I think you might have misunderstood my response to 12AX7. I wasn't tutting him/her. I was pointing out that their saying their choice to hit someone else's dog rather than another motorist is trivially easy to make; making the choice between their own dog and a stranger may not be as easy.

You, however, are most definitely passing moral judgment on me, without reservation, going so far as to wish harm upon me for not sharing your view? By what right do you justify your condescension?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd also dispute the bolded contention.

Fair enough. I would rephrase and say "For many people in the US..."

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

You, however, are most definitely passing moral judgment on me, without reservation, going so far as to wish harm upon me for not sharing your view? By what right do you justify your condescension?

I didn't say I wish karma was real so you could "get your comeuppance". I merely stated that if you value animals over humans you don't know, and karma was real, you'd die while humans ignored you, and your precious animals would also let you die, because (unlike most humans) they don't even feel a notion that they should maybe help you.

 

[Cain]

I don't get what your objection is about. If someone draws "disturbing images" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and displays anti-social behavior that is in my opinion a perfectly reasonable reason to institutionalize them, especially since anti-social behavior is often a key indicator of future violent behavior.

The distinction is not subtle: A person who has abused animals has already done something wrong.

Again, i don't see how this is supposed to be any objection. Such sports could very likely have a brutalizing effect, not just on the animals involved, but also the spectators and "trainers" (or whatever people call them).

And so maybe the government should keep tabs on people who participate in and follow boxing, as well as mixed martial arts.

You're essentially advocating a magical world-view. It's like saying we should not mistreat slaves because, hey, that abusive behavior could transfer over to real people. Not only is it empirically suspect, but its reasons are all wrong. There are people who perfectly capable of watching violent and pornographic movies, or abusing animals/their children/people of another race etc, all while maintaining an otherwise clean record.

A person with a habit of abusing dogs isn't just a threat to people. He's a threat to other dogs. Like the Ptolemists, you're trying to accommodate the data to fit a pre-conceived conclusion, but instead of geo-centrism you're advocating anthro-centrism.