Human life vs animal life
- Apemman7
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: September 21st, 2017, 2:04 pm
Human life vs animal life
Is it wrong to say that the life of a human is worth more than the life of an animal?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Human life vs animal life
A couple of things:Apemman7 wrote:Imagine that you have a choice between saving your own pet or a random human, whom you have never met before and know nothing about him. Who do you choose to save and who do you live to die?
Is it wrong to say that the life of a human is worth more than the life of an animal?
1- It is common courtesy to give your own opinion before soliciting others
2- I would caution you against the use of the simple label "wrong" to categorize behaviors, since Real Life actions are performed in a vacuum, that is their qualities are best judged in relation to reasonable alternatives, not in isolation.
As to your questions, since my dog is near the end of life right now, I would save the human and no it is not very "wrong" (lame term).
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Human life vs animal life
I don't think it's wrong to say a human life is worth more than an animal life, but perhaps it would be wrong to save the pet over the human....
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human life vs animal life
One simply responds.
That's why most of us don't know what we're capable of; how brave or cowardly we really are, or what action we'd take now and justify later.
It also depends on which of my pets: I don't love them equally. I'd save Brat or Pops, but probably choose a human - with obvious exceptions - over the annoying howler, Browncat.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Human life vs animal life
This is why I had been proposing there must a Framework and System to guide and control Morality and Ethics on a continuous improvement basis.Alias wrote:In the heat of an emergency, one may not calculate degrees of rightness and wrongness, or how one will eventually be judged, or even the actual risk being taken.
One simply responds.
That's why most of us don't know what we're capable of; how brave or cowardly we really are, or what action we'd take now and justify later.
It also depends on which of my pets: I don't love them equally. I'd save Brat or Pops, but probably choose a human - with obvious exceptions - over the annoying howler, Browncat.
The most important process is to establish Absolute Moral Standards using the highest reasoning power of the collective at any time.
Then within Ethics [Applied] variations are acceptable under various conditions.
So the practical is, in the heat of an emergency, one must do one's best optimally within time and whatever constraints. Thereafter one must check one real actions against the Absolute Moral Standards and take corrective actions to ensure there is improvements the next round one is faced with the same or other emergency.
Re the question of humans or pets, the primary criteria is the concept of basic human dignity. The Absolute Moral Standard [to be debated] is the basic human dignity of an individual human must take priority and be respected.
The point is, if one do not respect and give consideration to the basic human dignity of others they are insulting their own self as human being since all humans has the same generic basic human dignity.
In terms of basic human dignity, it must take priority over the basic dignity of other living things.
As such the Absolute Moral Law, is basic human dignity must be given priority at all times.
In the above moral casuistry, given no choice, by the absolute moral standard, the human must be saved and not one's favorite pet.
Now if one happened to kill the stranger and saved the pet in an emergency, then the Framework and System of Morality & Ethics [auto-control system] will guide one to reflect one's judgment and actions, and where necessary take corrective actions to ensure alignment with the Absolute Moral Standard, i.e. Human life must take priority over animal life [even one's favored pet, guide dog, etc.].
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
Whose life? A child or a nonagenarian?
Whose life? A beetle or a lizard?
I expect most people would answer the above similarly. There is a logical principle behind those decisions; they are not arbitrary values. Rather, the decisions stem from our unconscious assessments of relative sophistication and potential. To that end, human v dog is a no-brainer. However, but once there is a relationship then losing the dog is like losing part of yourself. So to some extent the decisions then become between your welfare and that of another, although the stakes are most uneven (loss of animal friend v loss of life).
Now to complicate the situation further:
Whose life? A dog's or a giant redwood's?
Which do you save from a fire? Your pet or the Mona Lisa?
Despite the presence of non-feeling players in the decision, each of those decisions would be agonising. It comes down to, not only individual entities, but what could be thought of as public entities, whose absence would affect many people and/or animals.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human life vs animal life
As for people: if somebody perfects the human race to the point where every member of it has the same dignity and shows as much respect for others as the average family dog does, I'll grant humans that same standard of respect. But as long as they keep acting destructively and disrespectfully toward one another and the rest of the world, I reserve the right to pass them over on moral grounds. I'll save the gorilla rather than the poacher; the loyal cockatoo, rather than the poisoner of rivers; a child's bunny, rather than the helicopter strafer of children; the the grizzly bear cubs rather than the man who gave the executive order for their extermination.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Human life vs animal life
Well put...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.
As for people: if somebody perfects the human race to the point where every member of it has the same dignity and shows as much respect for others as the average family dog does, I'll grant humans that same standard of respect. But as long as they keep acting destructively and disrespectfully toward one another and the rest of the world, I reserve the right to pass them over on moral grounds. I'll save the gorilla rather than the poacher; the loyal cockatoo, rather than the poisoner of rivers; a child's bunny, rather than the helicopter strafer of children; the the grizzly bear cubs rather than the man who gave the executive order for their extermination.
- Apemman7
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: September 21st, 2017, 2:04 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
1. As you may have surmised I am new to the forum, so thank you for informing about this. I’ll try to keep that in mind in the futureLuckyR wrote:A couple of things:Apemman7 wrote:Imagine that you have a choice between saving your own pet or a random human, whom you have never met before and know nothing about him. Who do you choose to save and who do you live to die?
Is it wrong to say that the life of a human is worth more than the life of an animal?
1- It is common courtesy to give your own opinion before soliciting others
2- I would caution you against the use of the simple label "wrong" to categorize behaviors, since Real Life actions are performed in a vacuum, that is their qualities are best judged in relation to reasonable alternatives, not in isolation.
As to your questions, since my dog is near the end of life right now, I would save the human and no it is not very "wrong" (lame term).
2. The purpose of this post is neither to categorize behaviors nor to decide what’s right or wrong. I apologize if that misconception is a result of my poor wording, but English is not my native language. Rather, the purpose of this post is to discuss these two options and weigh the pros and cons of both choices and how both can be highly criticised and equally praised.
- Apemman7
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: September 21st, 2017, 2:04 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
For the purpose of this theoretical scenario, let’s say that we have been given plenty of time before we make a decision so as to avoid a heat of the moment decision. Furthermore the purpose of the post I had in mind was more to discuss how one might be judged and less the limits of oneself. That s why this is purely a theoritical scenarioAlias wrote:In the heat of an emergency, one may not calculate degrees of rightness and wrongness, or how one will eventually be judged, or even the actual risk being taken.
One simply responds.
That's why most of us don't know what we're capable of; how brave or cowardly we really are, or what action we'd take now and justify later.
It also depends on which of my pets: I don't love them equally. I'd save Brat or Pops, but probably choose a human - with obvious exceptions - over the annoying howler, Browncat.
-- Updated September 26th, 2017, 5:29 pm to add the following --
There lies the difficulty of the decision for me. As you have to choose between your own pet, with which you most likely have a pretty strong emotional attachment, and a random human being you have to consider every probability. A human being has a much more profound effect on the lives of people. He is most likely somebody’s father, or someone else’s daughter, she/he may be the only source of income for an entire family. On the other hand a pet has an effect only on your family, so purely from a logical point of view the choice is pretty clear for me.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.
As for people: if somebody perfects the human race to the point where every member of it has the same dignity and shows as much respect for others as the average family dog does, I'll grant humans that same standard of respect. But as long as they keep acting destructively and disrespectfully toward one another and the rest of the world, I reserve the right to pass them over on moral grounds. I'll save the gorilla rather than the poacher; the loyal cockatoo, rather than the poisoner of rivers; a child's bunny, rather than the helicopter strafer of children; the the grizzly bear cubs rather than the man who gave the executive order for their extermination.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Human life vs animal life
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.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human life vs animal life
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
Natural selection. Social or eusocial animals do not tend to favour members of other species over each other unless that other species is an important resource.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?
By the same token humans also favour more humanlike species (generally based on sophistication) over others. So, for instance, we will almost always tend to value a guinea pig over a beetle. Each can be delightful in its own way but, as a mammal, we can more readily relate to other mammals over other classes of animals, thus more to vertebrates than invertebrates, and so on.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Human life vs animal life
There is no way you can expect an ideal state to be achieved. It has to evolved and improved over time, planning, processes and controls. This is where I proposed an effective Framework and System of Morality & EthicsAlias 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.
As for people: if somebody perfects the human race to the point where every member of it has the same dignity and shows as much respect for others as the average family dog does, I'll grant humans that same standard of respect. But as long as they keep acting destructively and disrespectfully toward one another and the rest of the world, I reserve the right to pass them over on moral grounds. I'll save the gorilla rather than the poacher; the loyal cockatoo, rather than the poisoner of rivers; a child's bunny, rather than the helicopter strafer of children; the the grizzly bear cubs rather than the man who gave the executive order for their extermination.
Within an effective Framework and System of Morality & Ethics, based on the concept of basic human dignity, the Absolute Moral Law as guide and control, human lives must take priority over lives of other species.
If you saved the gorilla rather than the poacher, you [personally*] may have committed a practical right in a certain circumstances but you have committed a very serious moral wrong. In this case there is a Moral Gap between the Moral [theory] and the Practical.
* The preference is for humans actions to be guided [not enforced] by an effective Framework and System of Morality & Ethics rather then the person be judge, jury and executor.
With an effective Framework and System of Morality, its self-regulating mechanism invokes one [or collective] to take corrective actions to close the Moral Gap. The solution to ensure the Absolute Moral Law that basic human dignity must take priority is to ensure there are sufficient gorillas [animal conservation] in the world and humanity must resolve the evils [Problem of Evil] of poaching [tru various means].
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human life vs animal life
Does this confer a biological advantage? By what mechanism?Greta wrote: [On what basis is human life to be considered the highest value?]
Natural selection. Social or eusocial animals do not tend to favour members of other species over each other unless that other species is an important resource.
That's what they say; that's what they write; that's the philosophical position. But, in fact, they treat baboons and elephants just as badly as they do alligators and songbirds, if those species get in the way of highway building or agri-business. They'll tell their children pretty stories about Charlotte's friend the pig, and then turn around and give those same children porkchops for dinner, and not give a damn by what route the piggy came to its youthful demise.By the same token humans also favour more humanlike species (generally based on sophistication) over others. So, for instance, we will almost always tend to value a guinea pig over a beetle. Each can be delightful in its own way but, as a mammal, we can more readily relate to other mammals over other classes of animals, thus more to vertebrates than invertebrates, and so on.
People are very good at deception and self-deception, illusion and self-delusion, one narrative over another substance.
All our pants are on fire all the time. Being able to thrive on the lies - double-think - is the real selective advantage.
-- Updated September 26th, 2017, 9:35 pm to add the following --
Then you can't expect an ideal response.Spectrum wrote: There is no way you can expect an ideal state to be achieved.
I'll wait.It has to evolved and improved over time, planning, processes and controls. This is where I proposed an effective Framework and System of Morality & Ethics
I'll go to confession - maybe next Sunday, maybe the one after, unless I forget and have breakfast again.If you saved the gorilla rather than the poacher, you [personally*] may have committed a practical right in a certain circumstances but you have committed a very serious moral wrong.
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