A question of equality

The Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss once said that "...the right of all forms [of life] to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species."

In order for this to be an acceptable philosophy, can anyone think of a reason that this should not be the case?

[Scott]

Does she have any argument to support that claim? If not, then I see no reason to believe it and coming up with arguments against seems to be an instance of the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

Anyway what does she mean by a right?

As I referenced in my article about freedom, a universal right must be consistent. For instance, it is illogical to say one person has the right to punch whoever he wants but another man has the right to not be punched. In that way, in any sense of the word right, a right also entails a corresponding restriction. With that understood I think we can see that the right of grass to live is logically inconsistent with the right of cows to eat grass which they apparently need to do to live; thus both cannot have a right to life in the positive sense. It might be logically consistent at least for them both to have it what could be called the negative sense but which might be more clearly described as the right to not be killed by another lifeform's actions' as opposed to the right to life. Of course, giving all life the right not be killed by other life would seem to sentence to death almost all the forms of life on Earth except those that feed through photosynthesis. I neither see any reason to want such a thing to be the case nor to believe that it is the case.

Does she have any argument to support that claim? If not, then I see no reason to believe it and coming up with arguments against seems to be an instance of the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

Anyway what does she mean by a right?

As I referenced in my article about freedom, a universal right must be consistent. For instance, it is illogical to say one person has the right to punch whoever he wants but another man has the right to not be punched. In that way, in any sense of the word right, a right also entails a corresponding restriction. With that understood I think we can see that the right of grass to live is logically inconsistent with the right of cows to eat grass which they apparently need to do to live; thus both cannot have a right to life in the positive sense. It might be logically consistent at least for them both to have it what could be called the negative sense but which might be more clearly described as the right to not be killed by another lifeform's actions' as opposed to the right to life. Of course, giving all life the right not be killed by other life would seem to sentence to death almost all the forms of life on Earth except those that feed through photosynthesis. I neither see any reason to want such a thing to be the case nor to believe that it is the case.

Valid points, in so far as the fact that life only survives as a result of death, with the exception of most plants, as you point out.

Perhaps I should've shown the context of the quote, which is the laboratory testing of animals, and in this light it might've made more sense for her to have said that all forms of life have the right to live naturally, which of course incorporates the natural likelihood of being killed and eaten for food.

I believe what Arne Næss was trying to convey is that it's highly immoral to subject other living animals to an existence of unnatural confinement and continuous terror, punctuated only by periods of intense agony, for our own sole benefit. In doing so, we're replacing an animal's natural desire to live out its life as evolution intended, with our own self-centred, and often unnatural desires of personal gain. It's the reduction of the value of life, and since life itself should be seen as the most precsious commodity avaliable, especially in light of the tolerances it's taken to allow life, it highlights the complete disregard we humans have for anything that doesn't directly benefit us.

Over 100 million animals every year die horrific deaths, having never even known their natural environments, and this does not even include mice, rats, birds and cold-blooded animals which amount to 95% of test subjects, for they are not offered even the minimum protection under the Animal Welfare Act, and so go uncounted.

Empathy, that much underused trait, is discouraged in animal testing laboratories, in favour of objectivity, and it’s this cold professionalism that allows otherwise well-adjusted human beings to burn, blind, electrocute, and mutilate a wide variety of other living animals, some of which are, by intention, very closely related to us in their DNA coding.

How an animal can be of more worth outside of the natural habitat it’s been evolving in for billions of years, lends us further insight into the arrogance of the human mind, in believing our purpose to be above all others in terms of merit. Again it’s our selfish propensity for our own lives that hampers our ability to be ethically wise.

The insistence on animal experimentation is often defended by suggestions that, if animals were not used in testing, the onus would be on us, which seems an altogether more sane idea; why should animals die by their billions for products and benefits that don’t even relate to them? Should we not take responsibility for our own pursuits?

Another weak argument for the use of animals in laboratories, is the claim that animals have limited reasoning ability, as if this were suitable criteria for selecting test-subjects. Adopting that outlook, surely the elderly and those with mental difficulties would also qualify?

No, the real reason for using animals in experimentation is that they’re not protected against such barbarism, as we human beings are, and so with no hope of defence, they become automatic candidates.

Below are typical scenes of the animal cruelty occuring day in day out all across the world. As a word of warning, it's unpleasant to say the least.

http://www.animalexperimentspictures.com/

[Scott]

To condemn or abstain from experimentation on animals or outright torture or slaughter of animals is different than to declare they are equal to humans in some certain way particularly equal to humans in having the so-called "right to life" whatever that means that humans supposedly have. Arguing from the latter to the former may be valid but I personally believe it is unsound -- because I think the premise that animals and humans are equal is false -- and as a matter of rhetoric I think it is less convincing even if it was sound. In other words, right or wrong, I think one would more quickly convince someone to not torture animals or experiment on animals than convince someone that animals and humans have an equal "right to life". For instance, I am a vegetarian but I still value human life greater than that of animals, and in extreme circumstances, such as if I was trapped on a desert island with my family and the only way to feed my children was to kill a cute little bunny rabbit or kitty cat, then I would break the rabbit or cat's neck with my bare hands to prevent my children from starving.

I agree with your point that doing these kinds of tests on humans is not as impractical or absurd as many make it seem. In fact, it could provide some great benefits in that humans would probably get paid lots of money to volunteer for these experiments. Perhaps they would get paid more for volunteering for these dangerous or painful or mutilating and potentially deadly experiments than they would volunteering for being a military and fighting other humans to death in oil wars and such filled with the so-called collateral damage of civilian death. However, I think it falls to the same problem as legalization of human-organ-selling and to a lesser extent prostitution, which is that it would much, much more practical and humane if poverty was eliminated because if there is poverty than it at least seems as if poor people are being forced to have sex, sell their organs and submit to dangerous tests.

I think the premise that animals and humans are equal is false

Can you justify this statement, Scott?

[Scott]

I can try. It will be easier to do it in context if I had been given the definition of right for which I asked in post #2.

Nonetheless, consider that I do not think all humans have the same so-called 'right' to life, which is a premise I think can be supported with rhetorical questions regarding such issues as capital punishment, harvesting organs from brain-dead coma patients, or lethal self-defense performed by a would-be rape victim. In a more subjective light, I value the lives of my family more than that of other people. For instance, the money I use to buy my son toys for his birthday every year could save the lives of many starving children year after year. If I won a 10-million-dollar lottery but my wife or one of my kids came down with some terrible, potentially fatal illness that would cost 10 million dollars to cure, I would almost certainly save their lives rather than that of countless starving children who could be saved by a 10 million dollar donation to the right charity. With the premise that humans do not have an equal so-called 'right' to life as each other, I think it easily follows that the average pig, mouse or ant does not have the same so-called 'right' to life as the average human.

Arne Næss argues that this right -- whatever she means by that -- cannot be quantified. In other words, she wants it to be black and white; either one has the right or not but of any two that do have the right neither can have right more than the other. Even if we take it as so, the factors that determine whether or not someone has the right can be quantified just like the individual grades on schoolwork performed by a student taking a pass/fail class. It seems quite possible to me that any given species of non-humans animals would get an average grade of 59% on the metaphorical, pass or fail right to life scale and the average human would get a 70%, which in the metaphorically scholastic pass/fail analogue of Arne Næss's desired black-and-white thinking would mean animals fail and humans pass. But I wouldn't look at it in such a black and white way, which is why I am a vegetarian in everyday life, but would kill a cat if it was the only food available to feed my family in some unrealistic hypothetical, and why I wouldn't kill a stray dog or cat but would accept the inconvenience of assisting it in some way to a nearby non-kill shelter but wouldn't mind slaughtering a colony of lice if they decided to take up camp on my scalp.

I applaud Catchy Title for raising this topic.

Scott wrote:

Arne Næss argues that this right -- whatever she means by that -- cannot be quantified

.

I think that we have to quantify rights, apportion them as we see fit. It is not a pleasant thing to have to do, but such is power that it brings responsibilities with it.


However the premiss is wrong that there exist natural rights. Theer are no natural rights.Rights are conferred upon beings by other beings' or a being's intention, usually conscious intention.

I fully support animal rights not because those rights are conferred by Mother Nature or by God but because animals can suffer and it is therefore immoral and repugnant to add to their suffering.

I suppose I have to admit that it is a natural extension of natural human sympathy and natural human reason to feel repugnance to causing suffering no matter what is the subject that suffers. But I still think that it is not correct to call any natural process 'rights'.

Empathy, that much underused trait, is discouraged in animal testing laboratories, in favour of objectivity, and it’s this cold professionalism that allows otherwise well-adjusted human beings to burn, blind, electrocute, and mutilate a wide variety of other living animals, some of which are, by intention, very closely related to us in their DNA coding.

The labs claim that the animal technicians,the animals' living conditions, and their veterinary care are animal-centred. I would very much like the labs to admit unannounced spot inspections by animal protection bodies, and that the labs do not do this is cause for concern. Where vivisection is used, and it is used, lab animals are supposed to be adequately unconscious. I would also like disinterested , unannounced and frequent spot inspections of procedures. I understand that the great apes already have rights conferred upon them by the more enlightened societies, such as Western Europe and North America at least, not to be vivisected.

The quotation above is horrific as it should be. We should all know what we do to animals. Testing of cosmetics and cleaning products upon animals should be completely discontinued.

Testing upon animals when the tests are unnecessarily repetitive and done only because labs and commerce do not share their previous results should also be stopped and the labs forced by law to share information among themselves and with all their customers alike.

Vivisection when done with empathy and proper care of the lab animals, including euthanasia at early stages, is not good, but is probably the best we can manage in an imperfect world.

With the premise that humans do not have an equal so-called 'right' to life as each other, I think it easily follows that the average pig, mouse or ant does not have the same so-called 'right' to life as the average human.

Even if we take it as so, the factors that determine whether or not someone has the right can be quantified just like the individual grades on schoolwork performed by a student taking a pass/fail class. It seems quite possible to me that any given species of non-humans animals would get an average grade of 59% on the metaphorical, pass or fail right to life scale and the average human would get a 70%, which in the metaphorically scholastic pass/fail analogue of Arne Næss's desired black-and-white thinking would mean animals fail and humans pass.

So simply because not all humans have the same right to life, it then automatically follows that animals must fall in line with this reasoning? I can't see any logic in this at all. The examples you gave to determine this (capital punishment, etc) don't apply to animals at all. "Sorry little chimp, we're testing chemicals on you because we humans aren't all equally justified in our own lives." It isn't sound reasoning, I'm afraid.

You also invent a test, which due to your own subjective opinion, shows that humans will pass with higher grades than animals, despite no criteria selection to justify this. I like the detail you put in, with the actual estimated percentages.

The question I pose to you, Scott, is what makes you think you're more valuable to your environment (the reason we're here in the first place) than, lets say, a rabbit? This should be a common sense test.

-- Updated April 13th, 2012, 2:07 pm to add the following --

I applaud Catchy Title for raising this topic.

I think that we have to quantify rights, apportion them as we see fit. It is not a pleasant thing to have to do, but such is power that it brings responsibilities with it.

However the premiss is wrong that there exist natural rights. Theer are no natural rights.Rights are conferred upon beings by other beings' or a being's intention, usually conscious intention.

I fully support animal rights not because those rights are conferred by Mother Nature or by God but because animals can suffer and it is therefore immoral and repugnant to add to their suffering.

I suppose I have to admit that it is a natural extension of natural human sympathy and natural human reason to feel repugnance to causing suffering no matter what is the subject that suffers. But I still think that it is not correct to call any natural process 'rights'.

Empathy, that much underused trait, is discouraged in animal testing laboratories, in favour of objectivity, and it’s this cold professionalism that allows otherwise well-adjusted human beings to burn, blind, electrocute, and mutilate a wide variety of other living animals, some of which are, by intention, very closely related to us in their DNA coding.

The labs claim that the animal technicians,the animals' living conditions, and their veterinary care are animal-centred. I would very much like the labs to admit unannounced spot inspections by animal protection bodies, and that the labs do not do this is cause for concern. Where vivisection is used, and it is used, lab animals are supposed to be adequately unconscious. I would also like disinterested , unannounced and frequent spot inspections of procedures. I understand that the great apes already have rights conferred upon them by the more enlightened societies, such as Western Europe and North America at least, not to be vivisected.

The quotation above is horrific as it should be. We should all know what we do to animals. Testing of cosmetics and cleaning products upon animals should be completely discontinued.

Testing upon animals when the tests are unnecessarily repetitive and done only because labs and commerce do not share their previous results should also be stopped and the labs forced by law to share information among themselves and with all their customers alike.

Vivisection when done with empathy and proper care of the lab animals, including euthanasia at early stages, is not good, but is probably the best we can manage in an imperfect world.

Thanks Belinda. It's a subject close to my heart, too.

You make some good points in the above passage, particularly the random spot-checks on laboratories, and the sharing of results to avoid dupilcating painful proceedures. They're baby steps, but in the right direction, which leads me to the meaning of 'right'.

Too often we hear people asking why animals should have rights that protect them against testing. I'd like to turn the concept on its head by asking what 'right' we have to abuse our fellow animals purely for our own benefits? I don't believe there is an ethical answer that justifies the practice. When companies such as Cancer Research claim to be saving lives, they're lying on a monumental scale, for of the small numbers of humans being saved, there are living beings being robbed of any life in their millions, and dumped like so much trash. Killing life is not saving life, especially when the latter vastly outweighs the former. What's more galling still, is that the alternatives to animal cruelty (stem-cell research to name but one) are far more effective, and have yielded our greatest break-throughs with cancer and aids research.

"But what if it was your family, or even you?" is the response I've come to expect, and doesn't it say a great deal about our moral compass, that it all comes back to the individual, and our own insular, subjective outlooks? I don't want to buy my life with death.

The animals are only looked after in so much as they are kept fed and watered, and so fit enough to endure what they're subjected to. Sadly, one of my friends works in such a laboratory. Regardless, they shouldn't be there in the first place, but in their natural habitat. It's fundementally wrong on so many levels, and indicitive of what shallow morals we have, that we use and waste life simply if it doesn't look like us. I wonder if the practice would continue if the animals being tortured could vocalise their distress in words we understood, rather than squeals.

Empathy is a scale for most people.

High LevelClose family-General Family-Friends-Pets-General populace-Mammals-Birds-Reptiles-Insects RodentsLow Level

I say burn the scale, and treat everyone and everything as you would like to be treated yourself. We're all animals (or plants), all related by DNA and all borne from single celled organisms. We're all trying to survive (natures only imperitive) and make the best of this violent, cruel world we find ourselves in. We humans are (mostly) incredibly fortunate to live highly luxurious lifestyles in comparison to other species, yet still with all the back-slapping and all the "aren't we humans great" BS, and talk of how moral we are, yet even still we cannot abandon these vile, callous, and entirely unneccessary practices.

You mention this being an imperfect world, Belinda, and that it most certainly is. Although I'm an atheist, I share a lot of ground with Buddhism, and I wholeheartedly agree with much of their philosophies (even though they wouldn't like it called so), including the tennet that being alive in this world is not a good thing. However, we're in a rare position to be able to affect positive change, to rise above what we currently are, and become truly moral beings. This is the last possible evolutionary trick for humanity, since we no longer need to physically adapt, yet we hesitate, clinging to barbarism simply because we can get something out of it. It needs to change if we want to reach the maturity and morality-levels we currently think we have.

-- Updated April 13th, 2012, 2:09 pm to add the following --

I applaud Catchy Title for raising this topic.

I think that we have to quantify rights, apportion them as we see fit. It is not a pleasant thing to have to do, but such is power that it brings responsibilities with it.

However the premiss is wrong that there exist natural rights. Theer are no natural rights.Rights are conferred upon beings by other beings' or a being's intention, usually conscious intention.

I fully support animal rights not because those rights are conferred by Mother Nature or by God but because animals can suffer and it is therefore immoral and repugnant to add to their suffering.

I suppose I have to admit that it is a natural extension of natural human sympathy and natural human reason to feel repugnance to causing suffering no matter what is the subject that suffers. But I still think that it is not correct to call any natural process 'rights'.

Empathy, that much underused trait, is discouraged in animal testing laboratories, in favour of objectivity, and it’s this cold professionalism that allows otherwise well-adjusted human beings to burn, blind, electrocute, and mutilate a wide variety of other living animals, some of which are, by intention, very closely related to us in their DNA coding.

The labs claim that the animal technicians,the animals' living conditions, and their veterinary care are animal-centred. I would very much like the labs to admit unannounced spot inspections by animal protection bodies, and that the labs do not do this is cause for concern. Where vivisection is used, and it is used, lab animals are supposed to be adequately unconscious. I would also like disinterested , unannounced and frequent spot inspections of procedures. I understand that the great apes already have rights conferred upon them by the more enlightened societies, such as Western Europe and North America at least, not to be vivisected.

The quotation above is horrific as it should be. We should all know what we do to animals. Testing of cosmetics and cleaning products upon animals should be completely discontinued.

Testing upon animals when the tests are unnecessarily repetitive and done only because labs and commerce do not share their previous results should also be stopped and the labs forced by law to share information among themselves and with all their customers alike.

Vivisection when done with empathy and proper care of the lab animals, including euthanasia at early stages, is not good, but is probably the best we can manage in an imperfect world.

Thanks Belinda. It's a subject close to my heart, too.

I lost my first post, an epic number, so please excuse this rather hasty torrent.

You make some good points in the above passage, particularly the random spot-checks on laboratories, and the sharing of results to avoid dupilcating painful proceedures. They're baby steps, but in the right direction, which leads me to the meaning of 'right'.

Too often we hear people asking why animals should have rights that protect them against testing. I'd like to turn the concept on its head by asking what 'right' we have to abuse our fellow animals purely for our own benefits? I don't believe there is an ethical answer that justifies the practice. When companies such as Cancer Research claim to be saving lives, they're lying on a monumental scale, for of the small numbers of humans being saved, there are living beings being robbed of any life in their millions, and dumped like so much trash. Killing life is not saving life, especially when the latter vastly outweighs the former. What's more galling still, is that the alternatives to animal cruelty (stem-cell research to name but one) are far more effective, and have yielded our greatest break-throughs with cancer and aids research.

"But what if it was your family, or even you?" is the response I've come to expect, and doesn't it say a great deal about our moral compass, that it all comes back to the individual, and our own insular, subjective outlooks? I don't want to buy my life with death.

The animals are only looked after in so much as they are kept fed and watered, and so fit enough to endure what they're subjected to. Sadly, one of my friends works in such a laboratory. Regardless, they shouldn't be there in the first place, but in their natural habitat. It's fundementally wrong on so many levels, and indicitive of what shallow morals we have, that we use and waste life simply if it doesn't look like us. I wonder if the practice would continue if the animals being tortured could vocalise their distress in words we understood, rather than squeals.

Empathy is a scale for most people.

High LevelClose family-General Family-Friends-Pets-General populace-Mammals-Birds-Reptiles-Insects RodentsLow Level

I say burn the scale, and treat everyone and everything as you would like to be treated yourself. We're all animals (or plants), all related by DNA and all borne from single celled organisms. We're all trying to survive (natures only imperitive) and make the best of this violent, cruel world we find ourselves in. We humans are (mostly) incredibly fortunate to live highly luxurious lifestyles in comparison to other species, yet still with all the back-slapping and all the "aren't we humans great" BS, and talk of how moral we are, yet even still we cannot abandon these vile, callous, and entirely unneccessary practices.

You mention this being an imperfect world, Belinda, and that it most certainly is. Although I'm an atheist, I share a lot of ground with Buddhism, and I wholeheartedly agree with much of their philosophies (even though they wouldn't like it called so), including the tennet that being alive in this world is not a good thing. However, we're in a rare position to be able to affect positive change, to rise above what we currently are, and become truly moral beings. This is the last possible evolutionary trick for humanity, since we no longer need to physically adapt, yet we hesitate, clinging to barbarism simply because we can get something out of it. It needs to change if we want to reach the maturity and morality-levels we currently think we have.

[Scott]

So simply because not all humans have the same right to life, it then automatically follows that animals must fall in line with this reasoning? I can't see any logic in this at all.

But how can animals be equal to humans if humans aren't equal to each other? If A does not equal B and B does not equal C and C does not equal A, isn't reasonable to conclude D doesn't A-C? It seems like valid reasoning to me. Let's break it down, have me elaborate and see:

Premise 1: Some humans lives are more intersubjectively valuable to me and the typical person not in a black-and-white way and not based on one single factor but on a sliding scale.
Premise 2 (supported by examples in previous post): The noticeable differences between those whose lives are more valuable and less valuable include the following quantifiable traits: activity in the neocortex, overall activity in the brain, likelihood to ever be conscious in the future, estimated sum of the expected length of consciousness in the future, intelligence, ability to communicate to others, ability to be communicated with, ability to consciously perceive sensory input, ability to understand perceived sensory input, ability to achieve and maintain social/financial independence versus how much assistance is needed, availability of necessary assistance for non-independent beings, propensity towards aggressive violence or antisocial behavior, and likely expected contribution to civilized society whether positive or negative and the degree.
Conclusion 1 (inferred from premise 1 and premise 2): Some humans' have more of at least some quantifiable qualities that make their lives intersubjectively more valuable to me and the typical person*.
Premise 3: Non-mammal animals and at least certain non-human mammal species such as rats, sheep and deer on average have less activity in the neocortex (counting the absence of a neocortex as no such activity), less overall brain activity overall, shorter lifespans, less intelligence, less ability to communicate, less ability to be communicated with, less ability to consciously perceive and understand sensory input, less ability to be socially/financially independent as opposed to requiring assistance, less availability of needed assistance, more of a propensity towards aggressive violence and antisocial behavior, and less of a positive contribution to civilized society and/or more of a negative contribution to civilized society.
Conclusion 2 (inferred from Conclusion 1 and Premise 3) : Some of the differences between certain animal species and humans include these species of animals on average having less of the quantifiable qualities that make their lives less valuable.
Conclusion 3 (inferred from Conclusion 1 and Conclusion 2): On average, animal's lives are less intersubjectively valuable to me and the typical person than human lives.
Conclusion 4 (inferred from Conclusion 3): The intersubjective value of animals lives is unequal to the intersubjective value of human lives to me and the average person.

That argument could be elaborated further and worded/structured better with more clarity and more explicit deduction, but for our purposes I think it will work as a tool to identify where you are not following me. It contains 3 premises and 4 inferences. Please specify exactly each and every premise of the 3 with which you disagree. Please specify exactly each and every inference that you do not think follows.

*which upon reaching a certain threshold may mean the being has an allegedly non-quanifiable so-called 'right to life' whatever is meant by that by Næss.

***

The examples you gave to determine this (capital punishment, etc) don't apply to animals at all. "Sorry little chimp, we're testing chemicals on you because we humans aren't all equally justified in our own lives."

If one uses the principle of charity in the context of all I wrote in my previous post, I think one could come up with a connection between, for instance, the debate in the Terry Shivo case, the reasons organs are harvested from an otherwise breathing, heart-alive brain-dead person and the claim that it is slightly preferable to perform a potentially lethal experiment on a non-consenting rat than a non-consenting human. Although, I'm not sure what the relevance is of the proposed dialogue anyway, since I never said I supported animal testing especially on high-order mammals like chimps especially in non-exceptional circumstances. What I said is that I wouldn't argue against animal testing using the premise that animals are equal to humans because I don't think animals are completely equal to humans. Since I (as a vegetarian!) generally wouldn't test on a chimp or even eat a chicken and would generally prefer no chimps to be tested upon and no chickens to be eaten, I'm not sure what the proposed dialogue has to with what I wrote. Nonetheless, I think I could come up with dialogue that more accurately reflects what I wrote in context using the principle of charity to interpret me: "I'm sorry rat; we would ever so slightly rather perform this experiment on you that will give us the information we need to cure cancer and save countless human lives that may hurt and kill you without your consent than perform it on a human without their consent for reasons that parallel why we would rather let a coma patient never expected to awaken die than let an organ-donor receiving little girl die or why we would rather perform the test on a human rapist than on the typical human rape victim. It's not that we don't value your life at all or that we don't sympathize with you at all, rat; it's just that the level of value we have for your life and sympathy we have for you is not quite completely equal to that we have for the average human." I don't see what is so unsound with saying that to the rat; please explain it to me.

You also invent a test, which due to your own subjective opinion, shows that humans will pass with higher grades than animals, despite no criteria selection to justify this. I like the detail you put in, with the actual estimated percentages.

It was just an example of the way a spectrum of quantifiable factors can be the basis for a singular binary trait. The exact percentages were just a hypothetical possible example to illustrate the point in preceding sentence, not an actual guess of what the exact percentages would be if such a test was actually construed.

The question I pose to you, Scott, is what makes you think you're more valuable to your environment (the reason we're here in the first place) than, lets say, a rabbit?

I never said that I was more valuable than a rabbit to my environment. Indeed, I'm not even sure what that would mean or if it even makes sense and has meaning. How can an environment value something? Doesn't the act of valuing require conscious desire or conscious preference? I like the metaphor of mother nature, but you're not suggesting we take it literally; are you?

The Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss once said that "...the right of all forms [of life] to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species."

In order for this to be an acceptable philosophy, can anyone think of a reason that this should not be the case?

I disagree with the position because of two reasons:

1.) Not all life forms have the same (amount of) things to lose if their life is cut short. A plant doesn't have more to lose than a stone, there isn't even any conscious experience. Same for bacteria. A shrimp may otherwise have a year or so (I don't know how old shrimps get) of life left, with rudimentary pleasures (and pains). A chicken might even have a rudimentary grasp of its future. A pig definitely has a grasp of its future . A chimpanzee sees itself as a being existing in time, with complex future plans and everything. It seems very absurd to me to say that killing a shrimp is equally bad as killing an adult chimpanzee.

2.) Why should non existence be problematic? If a being is dead, even if it's a person, it can't complain anymore and there's nothing "bad" about the state it is in. I've been "dead" all the 13.7 billion years before I was born, and I don't think there was anything negative about that. Is life and happiness intrinsically good, are we supposed to bring as many happy beings to life as possible? That would have quite counterintuitive implications. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that there's absolutely nothing wrong with non existence.

However, as long as an animal does exist, it's life should obviously go as well as possible. And for pragmatic reasons, I'm even in favor of granting animals a "legal" right to life, if that means people will stop inflicting them with suffering.

EDIT: CatchyTitle, I just saw that you said that you're an atheist with sympathies for Buddhism. That's awesome! Same here, I don't like all the superstitious metaphysics, but I think Buddhist ethics are really great. (You should read the links I posted in the other thread, especially the one on "Animals in the Wild".)

While the topic refers to 'equality', Naess actually said, rather ambgiuously, if his Guardian obituary is to be believed:

""We don't say that every living being has the same value as a human, but that it has an intrinsic value which is not quantifiable. It is not equal or unequal. It has a right to live and blossom. I may kill a mosquito if it is on the face of my baby but I will never say I have a higher right to life than a mosquito.""

It seems to me clear from this that Naess is speaking quite loosely about 'rights': rationally speaking, if he reserves the right to kill a mosquito under certain circumstances, I feel he is fundamentally saying that he values a human life higher than a mosquito life.

Personally I'm an advocate of respect for the dignity and liberty of animals, but the language of 'rights' requires a belief in universal logical moral principles which I don't share.

At this time of year in England I love to see lambs gambolling. They only have a life at all because someone will eat them. (Not me, by the way!) If they're killed humanely, and treated with respect, then so be it.

Conversely, I'm appalled that chimpanzees, apes, dolphins and whales are used as experimental fodder and military tools. And I feel we seriously under-value animals' understanding and intelligence. Look at how much a raven can remember! And act on! Or the sounds whales and elephants and birds can make, over such fantastic distances.

So I have a sliding scale of empathy based on respect, and on the mental capacity of the animal, and to be frank I think Naess did too.

Mm, I think there may be prawns for tea.

So simply because not all humans have the same right to life, it then automatically follows that animals must fall in line with this reasoning? I can't see any logic in this at all.

But how can animals be equal to humans if humans aren't equal to each other? If A does not equal B and B does not equal C and C does not equal A, isn't reasonable to conclude D doesn't A-C? It seems like valid reasoning to me. Let's break it down, have me elaborate and see:

Premise 1: Some humans lives are more intersubjectively valuable to me and the typical person not in a black-and-white way and not based on one single factor but on a sliding scale. Premise 2 (supported by examples in previous post): The noticeable differences between those whose lives are more valuable and less valuable include the following quantifiable traits: activity in the neocortex, overall activity in the brain, likelihood to ever be conscious in the future, estimated sum of the expected length of consciousness in the future, intelligence, ability to communicate to others, ability to be communicated with, ability to consciously perceive sensory input, ability to understand perceived sensory input, ability to achieve and maintain social/financial independence versus how much assistance is needed, availability of necessary assistance for non-independent beings, propensity towards aggressive violence or antisocial behavior, and likely expected contribution to civilized society whether positive or negative and the degree. Conclusion 1 (inferred from premise 1 and premise 2): Some humans' have more of at least some quantifiable qualities that make their lives intersubjectively more valuable to me and the typical person*. Premise 3: Non-mammal animals and at least certain non-human mammal species such as rats, sheep and deer on average have less activity in the neocortex (counting the absence of a neocortex as no such activity), less overall brain activity overall, shorter lifespans, less intelligence, less ability to communicate, less ability to be communicated with, less ability to consciously perceive and understand sensory input, less ability to be socially/financially independent as opposed to requiring assistance, less availability of needed assistance, more of a propensity towards aggressive violence and antisocial behavior, and less of a positive contribution to civilized society and/or more of a negative contribution to civilized society. Conclusion 2 (inferred from Conclusion 1 and Premise 3) : Some of the differences between certain animal species and humans include these species of animals on average having less of the quantifiable qualities that make their lives less valuable. Conclusion 3 (inferred from Conclusion 1 and Conclusion 2): On average, animal's lives are less intersubjectively valuable to me and the typical person than human lives. Conclusion 4 (inferred from Conclusion 3): The intersubjective value of animals lives is unequal to the intersubjective value of human lives to me and the average person.

That argument could be elaborated further and worded/structured better with more clarity and more explicit deduction, but for our purposes I think it will work as a tool to identify where you are not following me. It contains 3 premises and 4 inferences. Please specify exactly each and every premise of the 3 with which you disagree. Please specify exactly each and every inference that you do not think follows. *which upon reaching a certain threshold may mean the being has an allegedly non-quanifiable so-called 'right to life' whatever is meant by that by Næss.

***

The examples you gave to determine this (capital punishment, etc) don't apply to animals at all. "Sorry little chimp, we're testing chemicals on you because we humans aren't all equally justified in our own lives."

If one uses the principle of charity in the context of all I wrote in my previous post, I think one could come up with a connection between, for instance, the debate in the Terry Shivo case, the reasons organs are harvested from an otherwise breathing, heart-alive brain-dead person and the claim that it is slightly preferable to perform a potentially lethal experiment on a non-consenting rat than a non-consenting human. Although, I'm not sure what the relevance is of the proposed dialogue anyway, since I never said I supported animal testing especially on high-order mammals like chimps especially in non-exceptional circumstances. What I said is that I wouldn't argue against animal testing using the premise that animals are equal to humans because I don't think animals are completely equal to humans. Since I (as a vegetarian!) generally wouldn't test on a chimp or even eat a chicken and would generally prefer no chimps to be tested upon and no chickens to be eaten, I'm not sure what the proposed dialogue has to with what I wrote. Nonetheless, I think I could come up with dialogue that more accurately reflects what I wrote in context using the principle of charity to interpret me: "I'm sorry rat; we would ever so slightly rather perform this experiment on you that will give us the information we need to cure cancer and save countless human lives that may hurt and kill you without your consent than perform it on a human without their consent for reasons that parallel why we would rather let a coma patient never expected to awaken die than let an organ-donor receiving little girl die or why we would rather perform the test on a human rapist than on the typical human rape victim. It's not that we don't value your life at all or that we don't sympathize with you at all, rat; it's just that the level of value we have for your life and sympathy we have for you is not quite completely equal to that we have for the average human." I don't see what is so unsound with saying that to the rat; please explain it to me.

You also invent a test, which due to your own subjective opinion, shows that humans will pass with higher grades than animals, despite no criteria selection to justify this. I like the detail you put in, with the actual estimated percentages.

It was just an example of the way a spectrum of quantifiable factors can be the basis for a singular binary trait. The exact percentages were just a hypothetical possible example to illustrate the point in preceding sentence, not an actual guess of what the exact percentages would be if such a test was actually construed.

The question I pose to you, Scott, is what makes you think you're more valuable to your environment (the reason we're here in the first place) than, lets say, a rabbit?

I never said that I was more valuable than a rabbit to my environment. Indeed, I'm not even sure what that would mean or if it even makes sense and has meaning. How can an environment value something? Doesn't the act of valuing require conscious desire or conscious preference? I like the metaphor of mother nature, but you're not suggesting we take it literally; are you?

Not all humans are equal, I agree, but since we're an exception to life on Earth, this tennet cannot be used to differentiate the value between a gorilla and a dog, for instance.

It's fine if you don't 'get it', but I'm weary of trying to make the world a better place - humanity isn't ready to be selfless, or mature, or empathic, so it's certainly not ready for any of my philosophies.

In the same way that you may feel frustrated when trying to explain reality to theists, I feel the same way with topics such as the equality of life, and I've come to two conclusions; 1. That people are locked in their mind-sets and won't change if it upsets their desires or wishes, and 2. That forums achieve nothing, since everyone is here simply to dictate their own ideas, but never to listen. I could be accussed of this too.

Before I go - human concepts of the value of life are pointless, since we like to believe we're special. The value of life should always be based upon what effects a species has on its environment, for there is no higher valuation to be had.

Regardless, believe what you will. I'm done with wasting my time on forums.

Good luck.