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

[StevenLeonCooper]

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.

I think you can't possibly mean that in the way that it reads ... by that logic I should have been institutionalized as a teenager because I dressed up in black makeup, drew gruesome pictures and had very few friends.

The only acceptable reason to take away someone's bodily sovereignty by institutionalizing them is if they become a danger to other people. I don't even support long-term treatment programs for people who are only dangerous to themselves unless they have family members to provide support for them. I don't usually partake in "slippery slope" arguments because they tend to distort the facts but it's a very dangerous game we play when we try to quantify peoples' sanity and determine how far off the norm they can be before we start locking them up against their wills and "treating" them. People should be allowed to act and live in whatever way they want and we should only encroach on their right to do as they wish when their actions begin to encroach on the rights of others; it's the only reasonable way to maintain our human rights. When you say, "This guy acts strange and he's anti-social, we should lock him up and medicate him" you're but a hop, skip and a jump away from "It"S DIFFERENT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!"

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

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.

Once someone comes up with universal definitions of "disturbing" and "anti-social" you might be one to something, until then this is actually code for doing it to people who draw things you personally find disturbing, or displaying activity you personally find anti-social.

I know you will just hand wave this away, but 50 years ago they would lock you in an institution for drawing pictures of naked men making love, or being a naked man actually making love. You were mentally ill, and the mores of society said of course you were disturbing and anti-social, it was beyond the need to even discuss.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

By what right do you justify such moral condescension?

A human infant also has no notion that they should maybe help me. Does that then justify sacrificing my own infant in order to help an adult?

 

[Kahalachan]

By what right do you justify such moral condescension?

A human infant also has no notion that they should maybe help me. Does that then justify sacrificing my own infant in order to help an adult?

I may scream "No go save your baby first!"

Would you say "Not me! Save the cat!"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I may scream "No go save your baby first!"

Would you say "Not me! Save the cat!"?

Did you read any of my other posts in this thread, or are you just reacting to the last three posts as if that's all there is?

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.

Ranking of values matters. I value my life above that of my cat. I value the life of my husband above my cat, as well as the lives of my close friends and family. But realistically, I most likely value the life of my cat above the life of a complete stranger, and definitely above the life of someone I think might intend me harm.

If you place me in a situation where I am asked to choose between passively allowing my cat to die in order to actively save the life of an innocent human, I'll *probably* choose the human.

If you ask me to actively kill my cat to save an innocent human, I'll *probably* save my cat.

If you ask me to passively allow my cat to die to save a murderer or rapist... well, that murderer isn't going to last long because I definitely love my kitty more.

 

[Kahalachan]

Did you read any of my other posts in this thread, or are you just reacting to the last three posts as if that's all there is?

Ranking of values matters. I value my life above that of my cat. I value the life of my husband above my cat, as well as the lives of my close friends and family. But realistically, I most likely value the life of my cat above the life of a complete stranger, and definitely above the life of someone I think might intend me harm.

If you place me in a situation where I am asked to choose between passively allowing my cat to die in order to actively save the life of an innocent human, I'll *probably* choose the human.

If you ask me to actively kill my cat to save an innocent human, I'll *probably* save my cat.

If you ask me to passively allow my cat to die to save a murderer or rapist... well, that murderer isn't going to last long because I definitely love my kitty more.

No I just read the stuff after my most recent reply. I forgot that earlier post you made.

Active and passive killing makes a huge difference. Many people wanting death or rape of a prisoner would not do it themselves.

So it's understandable that some people may not have the stomach to actively kill something. When I went fishing I was a bit surprised at how many people couldn't cut off its head and gut it and all that. I had to do most of it until the fish looked like what people buy at the stores.

With all things equal and if it's just a button that says "My cat" or "Innocent human" I don't see how anyone could choose the cat under the understanding you would want to live if someone had their finger on the button. If I could push one out of traffic to save their life, it would be a blind man and not his seeing eye dog.

Anyone doing the opposite would just appear to be this highly immoral idiot to me. This is not an Ad Hom, just a statement of how unfathomable it is for me to put animals above humans.

 

[Meed]

I think pretty much any non-human animal that is capable of bonding would save an animal of a different species that it had a bond with over a member of its own species who was a stranger. That is, assuming sufficient know-how and understanding of the situation to make that choice.

 

[angrysoba]

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.

The vast majority of species have gone extinct with no help from mankind. The vast, vast majority.

It doesn't mean that humans should be indifferent to animal species going extinct, but what you are proposing sounds insane to me, which is not merely questioning anthropocentrism or the "special higher value" of humans which you say others are claiming, but you have specifically said that you would have no problem with "millions" of humans being sacrificed for an endangered species. Sorry, but I can't think of a single species worth that, and if there are any they are probably not likely to be the large predator types but more likely some insect or bacteria type.

 

[I Ratant]

Humans saved before any goddamned cat!
Jesus... there is a QUESTION?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No I just read the stuff after my most recent reply. I forgot that earlier post you made.

Fair enough. I appreciate you admitting that

Active and passive killing makes a huge difference. Many people wanting death or rape of a prisoner would not do it themselves.

So it's understandable that some people may not have the stomach to actively kill something. When I went fishing I was a bit surprised at how many people couldn't cut off its head and gut it and all that. I had to do most of it until the fish looked like what people buy at the stores.

With all things equal and if it's just a button that says "My cat" or "Innocent human" I don't see how anyone could choose the cat under the understanding you would want to live if someone had their finger on the button. If I could push one out of traffic to save their life, it would be a blind man and not his seeing eye dog.

Anyone doing the opposite would just appear to be this highly immoral idiot to me. This is not an Ad Hom, just a statement of how unfathomable it is for me to put animals above humans.

I can understand that... The point I was trying to make to Jekyll's Guest (prompted by schplurg's comment) was that there's a bit of a difference in the equation when it's the choice between someone else's pet and your own pet. The closeness of the connection makes a difference.

If I were choosing between a blind stranger and his seeing eye dog, I would absolutely save the blind man.

If I were choosing between a blind stranger and my spouse's seeing eye dog? That's a much harder choice to make.

If it's between a blind stranger and my own seeing eye dog, there's a good chance that my dog will win that contest.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think pretty much any non-human animal that is capable of bonding would save an animal of a different species that it had a bond with over a member of its own species who was a stranger. That is, assuming sufficient know-how and understanding of the situation to make that choice.

Actually, this is a good point. My Family/Tribe/Pack/Clan is a pretty powerful attachment. I don't know that a higher-brain understanding of the situation is required though - I think some degree of instinct will often suffice.

I suspect there are many cases where domestic dogs have accepted non-canines into their packs and will defend them from other dogs who are not part of their pack.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Humans saved before any goddamned cat!
Jesus... there is a QUESTION?

Yes, here's a question:

Do yo believe I should sacrifice the life of my beloved kitty to save the life of a murdering child rapist?

 

[Cain]

Yes, here's a question:

Do yo believe I should sacrifice the life of my beloved kitty to save the life of a murdering child rapist?

Depends on whether or not he makes great movies. Please tip your servers, I'm here all week!

 

[12AX7]

Humans saved before any goddamned cat!

Agree.

Jesus... there is a QUESTION?

Apparently:

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 Ratant]

Yes, here's a question:

Do yo believe I should sacrifice the life of my beloved kitty to save the life of a murdering child rapist?

.
Is that after the trial?

 

[I Ratant]

I've worked with a couple of people I would take no pains to save, but that's only theoretical.
The opportunity has not (and better not) arise!

 

[often mrunderstood]

Extremely enlightening thread. I wish the opt outs were easy to recognize in the real world. Even then my instincts would save their sorry asses before an fn pet. JREF, I swear.

 

[Tassman]

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.

It’s a tribal thing. In times past it was “my tribe vs. your tribe”. Then “my nation vs. your nation”! Now the “tribe” is, as it were, is planet-wide. It’s now in our best interest to protect the entire species and this has been recognized by such documents as The Universal Declaration of Universal Rights of which most nations are signatories.

 

[Cain]

It still is "my tribe vs. your tribe." I'm not sure why people in these threads can only justify behavior as "rational" if it contains a generous dose of self-interest. The side discussions over contractarianism bear this out (and the greatest contemporary social contract theorist, John Rawls, famously contrives an "original position" where we act as rational egoists behind a "veil of ignorance").

What's in any group or individual's self-interest is to trick everyone else into think they're cooperators whilst still pursing their own narrow self-advantage. Maybe this is what motivated countries to sign a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the authors of the document, the people who actually believe in it, wanted to recognize the rights of others because it's the right thing to do, not because it will save all of humanity (including themselves).

But here, when it comes to animals, people need to talk themselves out of it. It's as though you were offered the option of bludgeoning a homeless man to death, but hesitate on the grounds that you might get blood on your shirt. Or you have to wake up early tomorrow. Or "what will the neighbors think?"

 

[12AX7]

Extremely enlightening thread. I wish the opt outs were easy to recognize in the real world. Even then my instincts would save their sorry asses before an fn pet. JREF, I swear.

Yep.

The radical doggie lovers make me facepalm on a regular basis.