So you support that to save a thousand lives you can kill a hundred and call it morally correct?Greta wrote:Fair enough. Let's change the choice to between a vital piece of medical equipment and an elephant poacher. I'd save the equipment.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.
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.
Human life vs animal life
- Apemman7
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: September 21st, 2017, 2:04 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
- Apemman7
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: September 21st, 2017, 2:04 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
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.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?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
I would call it a trolley style problem. I don't much judge these things, more just observe.Apemman7 wrote:So you support that to save a thousand lives you can kill a hundred and call it morally correct?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.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
As Greta said, this is the classic trolley dilemma. A dilemma which will presumably be coming to a driver-less car near you shortly.So you support that to save a thousand lives you can kill a hundred and call it morally correct?
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.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human life vs animal life
I know that.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 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?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
I'm sure this has actually been addressed by some previous posters.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?
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.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human life vs animal life
Instinct. I see.Steve3007 wrote:Alias:I'm sure this has actually been addressed by some previous posters.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?
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.
- Victoribus_Spolia
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 26th, 2017, 4:18 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
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.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human life vs animal life
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'.
- Victoribus_Spolia
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 26th, 2017, 4:18 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
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.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'.
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.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
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?Some may call it instincts, I call it the Will to Power, the Domination impulse that serves as the precondition of perceptual intelligibility.
- Victoribus_Spolia
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 26th, 2017, 4:18 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
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.Steve3007 wrote:Victoribus_Spolia: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?Some may call it instincts, I call it the Will to Power, the Domination impulse that serves as the precondition of perceptual intelligibility.
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.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human life vs animal life
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.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.
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.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.
It just mean some of us value life above those other considerations, while some don't. We're inconsistent.Whether one always acts consistently with this domination impulse is a matter entirely different,
Right. Most humans, most of the time.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.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023