Human life vs animal life

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Apemman7
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: September 21st, 2017, 2:04 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Apemman7 »

Greta wrote:
Alias wrote:The Mona Lisa is a thing, not a life. I don't care if a lot of people think it's the most precious thing in the world - it's still just a thing.
Fair enough. Let's change the choice to between a vital piece of medical equipment and an elephant poacher. I'd save the equipment.

Why would I do that if life is more precious? Of course, if put on the spot who knows how we'd react. However, if there is time to reflect then future ramifications must be considered too, such as the example of the baby and aged person. Basically this is all a variant on the trolley problem - the weighing up of rival goods. We won't only consider the value of a life but the value of lives saved or lost afterwards as a result of the decision.

Another spanner in the works: population. As populations grow the value of human life decreases. Consider the import of ten deaths - firstly on a city, then on a tribe of eleven. As population grows, competition becomes more intense and, increasingly, people will death ride their ideological opposites. Not just wishing harm, wanting them eliminated - exiled or dead. Meanwhile, it has been found that in large chimp communities, the first sign that a large community will split is when members start treating each other as they would outsiders.

I am also reminded of the reported aftermath of the Great Plague. One might have expected shell-shocked survivors to slowly piece their lives together like a grieving widow. Not at all. As soon as the danger was over and the bodies cleared there was an explosion of activity, employment, creativity and prosperity. Basically, there had been so many humans that when the numbers reduced, suddenly people had opportunities.
So you support that to save a thousand lives you can kill a hundred and call it morally correct?
User avatar
Apemman7
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: September 21st, 2017, 2:04 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Apemman7 »

Alias wrote:Humans do not consistently act as if life were precious, unless the life in question means something personal to them.
Humans very often act - and make considered, deliberate decisions - as if human life were worth less than things, less than oil, less than money, less than victory, less than even just a momentary political advantage.
On what basis is human life to be considered the highest value?
Because humans are the only species on earth with both intelligence and logic and not purely insticts. That is why mankind became the most ruling species. Also, a pet became a pet, through the interfernce of humans. If humans hadn't tamed cats and dogs, they’d be as wild as a wolf or a lion.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Sy Borg »

Apemman7 wrote:
Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Fair enough. Let's change the choice to between a vital piece of medical equipment and an elephant poacher. I'd save the equipment.

Why would I do that if life is more precious? Of course, if put on the spot who knows how we'd react. However, if there is time to reflect then future ramifications must be considered too, such as the example of the baby and aged person. Basically this is all a variant on the trolley problem - the weighing up of rival goods. We won't only consider the value of a life but the value of lives saved or lost afterwards as a result of the decision.

Another spanner in the works: population. As populations grow the value of human life decreases. Consider the import of ten deaths - firstly on a city, then on a tribe of eleven. As population grows, competition becomes more intense and, increasingly, people will death ride their ideological opposites. Not just wishing harm, wanting them eliminated - exiled or dead. Meanwhile, it has been found that in large chimp communities, the first sign that a large community will split is when members start treating each other as they would outsiders.

I am also reminded of the reported aftermath of the Great Plague. One might have expected shell-shocked survivors to slowly piece their lives together like a grieving widow. Not at all. As soon as the danger was over and the bodies cleared there was an explosion of activity, employment, creativity and prosperity. Basically, there had been so many humans that when the numbers reduced, suddenly people had opportunities.
So you support that to save a thousand lives you can kill a hundred and call it morally correct?
I would call it a trolley style problem. I don't much judge these things, more just observe.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Steve3007 »

Apemman:
So you support that to save a thousand lives you can kill a hundred and call it morally correct?
As Greta said, this is the classic trolley dilemma. A dilemma which will presumably be coming to a driver-less car near you shortly.

Do you support or not-support the concept of killing a few to save many, Apemman?



Another thought about the OP: When we talk about saving or not-saving lives, if we're talking about failing to take action as well as taking action, then everybody who owns a pet dog saves the life of that dog at the expense of human lives every day. I don't. I have a cat.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Alias »

Apemman7 wrote:["Alias" -- Humans do not consistently act as if life were precious, unless the life in question means something personal to them.
Humans very often act - and make considered, deliberate decisions - as if human life were worth less than things, less than oil, less than money, less than victory, less than even just a momentary political advantage.
On what basis is human life to be considered the highest value?]

Because humans are the only species on earth with both intelligence and logic and not purely insticts. That is why mankind became the most ruling species. Also, a pet became a pet, through the interfernce of humans. If humans hadn't tamed cats and dogs, they’d be as wild as a wolf or a lion.
I know that.
I didn't ask why you think human life should be worth more than animal life.
I didn't even ask why pets are rated differently from wild animals.
I didn't ask how you might rate the second-last snow leopard vs 10-20 cats on the death row of every Humane Society prison in North America at this very moment,
or the last breeding pair compared to an organ-legger, though that could be an interesting question.

My question remains unanswered:
On what [philosophical or logical or factual] basis is human life considered the highest value...
... in light of human action vis-a-vis human life throughout recorded human history?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Steve3007 »

Alias:
On what [philosophical or logical or factual] basis is human life considered the highest value...
... in light of human action vis-a-vis human life throughout recorded human history?
I'm sure this has actually been addressed by some previous posters.

Human life is valued by humans more highly than the lives of other animals because humans (being humans) prefer humans. Exactly the same as the reason why I value my child's life more highly than some else's child. It seems pretty obvious to me.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Alias »

Steve3007 wrote:Alias:
On what [philosophical or logical or factual] basis is human life considered the highest value...
... in light of human action vis-a-vis human life throughout recorded human history?
I'm sure this has actually been addressed by some previous posters.

Human life is valued by humans more highly than the lives of other animals because humans (being humans) prefer humans. Exactly the same as the reason why I value my child's life more highly than some else's child. It seems pretty obvious to me.
Instinct. I see.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
Victoribus_Spolia
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: September 26th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Victoribus_Spolia »

I deny that rights are to be imputed based on degrees of sentience, which is the position of biology-based utilitarians. Rather, I affirm that men attribute rights base on empathy, graded by a hierarchy, which is itself grounded in the inherent nature of man to perpetuate himself, his offspring, and his kind.

Thus, a man more closely relates to other men and would typically prefer the company of men if it were not for the sexual impulse to perpetuate, and so, historically, men have given more rights to other men, but have been more willing to die to save women because of a procreative desire that lies deep within their consciousness. Likewise, women are even more like men than children and so women have historically been given more rights than children, but often one will die to save children as a priority over their own wife (though there are exceptions on this debate) in order to fulfill the inherent desire to perpetuate himself through his offspring, and there is hardly a class more instinctively protected than a woman who is also known to be pregnant, regardless of her trimester...... and so on and so forth we could go.

Thus, When acting rationally, a man attributes more rights to anyone considered his family than he does to his dog. Indeed, irrespective of sentience, if a dog acted in such a way to cause his owner's wife to miscarry a first-trimester fetus, many owners would punish or even put down the dog. This is not irrational on the part of the owner; however, a man who has imputed a form of empathy to a dog will often prefer his dog and protect his dog from a human stranger that tries to harm it, but this is the product of familiarity, for if that same dog would maul a stranger's child, most people would feel a sense of obligation, whether imposed or not, to put down the dog, for it violates something in ourselves.This is because any preference shown the dog is an artificial empathy imputed to the dog based on a comfortable familiarity. But when push comes to shove, most sane people know (though this is becoming less the case) that a dog is still just a dog.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Sy Borg »

Obviously anyone, be they human beings, subservient childlike female facsimiles of human beings, or some other species - will save their offspring and partner before they save their pet.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Alias »

Sure. And all of those preferential choices are emotion-based.
You might say DNA-affinity is biology-based, but DNA affinity only works on the closest range, and not reliably, even there: it's not that unusual to kills one's own young.
Any philosophy- or rationally morality-based structure of placing human life at the top of the value system breaks down very quickly.
De jure evaluations of human life place it below God's law, a god's whim, nationalism, secular law, military victory and discipline.
De facto practice puts it below ethnic/racial purity, economic and political interest, collective negligence, convenience and indifference.
Emotional reaction puts it below personal fear, anger, pride, jealousy, ambition and greed. And that includes frequent killing of parents, siblings, spouses and offspring.
Really, all we can say is that other species' lives are of even less significance than humans'.
User avatar
Victoribus_Spolia
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: September 26th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Victoribus_Spolia »

Alias wrote:Sure. And all of those preferential choices are emotion-based.
You might say DNA-affinity is biology-based, but DNA affinity only works on the closest range, and not reliably, even there: it's not that unusual to kills one's own young.
Any philosophy- or rationally morality-based structure of placing human life at the top of the value system breaks down very quickly.
De jure evaluations of human life place it below God's law, a god's whim, nationalism, secular law, military victory and discipline.
De facto practice puts it below ethnic/racial purity, economic and political interest, collective negligence, convenience and indifference.
Emotional reaction puts it below personal fear, anger, pride, jealousy, ambition and greed. And that includes frequent killing of parents, siblings, spouses and offspring.
Really, all we can say is that other species' lives are of even less significance than humans'.
I deny that the idea of imputing rights based on hierarchal empathy is DNA-affinity. I do not credit any biological considerations to the matter whatsoever. Some may call it instincts, I call it the Will to Power, the Domination impulse that serves as the precondition of perceptual intelligibility.

My philosophy does not break down and it places man at the top of the hierarchal scale, the question regarding law, etc., is not that man's life is not valuable, but that the perpetuation of mankind is a collective interest, even at the individual level, which is why self-sacrifice is not inconsistent with the idea of valuing human life at the top of hierarchal evaluations.

Whether one always acts consistently with this domination impulse is a matter entirely different, for the subject under consideration is whether human life is more valuable than animal life, and a consistent expression of human nature would require humans to answer in the affirmative. Plain and simple.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Steve3007 »

Victoribus_Spolia:
Some may call it instincts, I call it the Will to Power, the Domination impulse that serves as the precondition of perceptual intelligibility.
If you had to consider the question, would you expect those who successfully dominate to have more offspring than those who don't? Or fewer? Or would there be no correlation? And do you think that offspring have a tendency to inherit mental and physical characteristics from their parents?
User avatar
Victoribus_Spolia
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: September 26th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Victoribus_Spolia »

Steve3007 wrote:Victoribus_Spolia:
Some may call it instincts, I call it the Will to Power, the Domination impulse that serves as the precondition of perceptual intelligibility.
If you had to consider the question, would you expect those who successfully dominate to have more offspring than those who don't? Or fewer? Or would there be no correlation? And do you think that offspring have a tendency to inherit mental and physical characteristics from their parents?
1. I would say the correlation of offspring production to domination is part of a successful plan, but not a guarantee of it. Collectively speaking, fecundity results in expansive energy in a society that leads to conquest and civilization. Once conquest stalls out and sexual morals changes to promote infertility, civilizations decline. So there is a collective-historical correlation to fecundity and societal success in a general sense over a long period of time. At the individual level over a short span of time this is less easy to see, but we do know that the religious populations are reproducing at a much higher rate than secularists which sociologists believe will result in the end of secular thought in only a couple more generations. the book "Shall The Religious Inherit The Earth" is pretty good on this point.

2. That offspring exhibit mental and physical characteristics from their parents are observed correlations, but that such are grounded in a theory of physical causation would be a fallacious claim (cum hoc ergo propter hoc/ post hoc ergo propter hoc) because causation cannot be inferred from observed correlation or sequence, no matter how commonly it occurs.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Human life vs animal life

Post by Alias »

Victoribus_Spolia wrote: I deny that the idea of imputing rights based on hierarchal empathy is DNA-affinity. I do not credit any biological considerations to the matter whatsoever. Some may call it instincts, I call it the Will to Power, the Domination impulse that serves as the precondition of perceptual intelligibility.
Since a domination impulse exists and operates on evolutionary levels far below the intelligence of humans - i.e. crocodiles; Siamese fighting fish - I'd say it was a fanciful name for instinctive and biological drives.
My philosophy does not break down and it places man at the top of the hierarchal scale, the question regarding law, etc., is not that man's life is not valuable, but that the perpetuation of mankind is a collective interest, even at the individual level, which is why self-sacrifice is not inconsistent with the idea of valuing human life at the top of hierarchal evaluations.
I didn't say self-sacrifice; I was referring to the commitment of armies and the capital punishment of crimes. That's perfectly consistent with domination, but not with human life as the highest value, because neither shooting deserters nor allowing children to die of leukemia in order to make a uranium mine more profitable is particularly conducive the collective interest of humanity.
Whether one always acts consistently with this domination impulse is a matter entirely different,
It just mean some of us value life above those other considerations, while some don't. We're inconsistent.
for the subject under consideration is whether human life is more valuable than animal life, and a consistent expression of human nature would require humans to answer in the affirmative. Plain and simple.
Right. Most humans, most of the time.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021