Is a human life inherently more valuable than that of a different animal's?

[73109]

Thread title.

I was arguing with a friend of mine about this.

[ClairvoyantCat]

"Better"...?  I can't think of a more vague comparison.  Are you trying to compare humans and animals morally?  Or do you just mean better in general?  (There are a thousand ways to interpret that)

Specify! 

[Scheavo]

How can we be better than something we are? If we are then better, we are better than ourselves, which just isn't rational. The question is flawed, becuase it creates a separation where none exists.

[73109]

Thread title.

[MasterShakezula]

We do not have any moral reason to or not to rule over it.

We do, anyway, because we can, and because we're more likely to survive and successfully reproduce by doing so.

If we didn't gain from it, we wouldn't be doing it.

[73109]

A better question that I really should have asked...

Is a human life inherently more valuable than that of a different animals'?

[ClairvoyantCat]

How can we be better than something we are? If we are then better, we are better than ourselves, which just isn't rational. The question is flawed, becuase it creates a separation where none exists.

This is kind of silly.  There's no perfect separation, but I think there is a distinction enough between human and what we perceive as animals to compare between the two. 

Fake edit for revised question:

For the most part, yes.  Something being justified means that it was done for a legitimate reason, and the need for survival and even personal enjoyment counts well enough.  This does not mean that I'm in favor of treating animals completely as walking pieces of meat or other products, but I don't see anything terribly wrong with killing them for our own survival and general well being. 

ANOTHER EDIT:  That was a yes to the earlier question, not the one that just came up.  There is no value to life save what we put on it.  As humans, it is only natural for us to value the life of our own group more than that of others, but I don't think there's any inherent or objective value of life to compare. 

A REAL EDIT:  Jesus, Cole, what question are you trying to ask here, make up your mind

[73109]

Ok, the first few posts have been a train wreck and it is my fault. The title is the question and it is not changing.

[MasterShakezula]

Humans generally place more value upon the lives of their fellow humans than they place upon those of other animals, yes.

So, you could say that in a human-dominated world, the general consensus (among humans) is that yes, humans are the most valuable.

However, if you're going by absolute, objective value, then I suppose humans are of equal value to other animals, being animals, themselves.

Hell, if the value of an animal is determined by it's contributions or non- to the ecosystem surrounding them, one could say that some humans are either of completely neutral value (due to non-participation in the ecosystem), or of negative value (due to the negative side-effects of human development, such as pollution). 

[Scheavo]

How can we be better than something we are? If we are then better, we are better than ourselves, which just isn't rational. The question is flawed, becuase it creates a separation where none exists.

This is kind of silly.  There's no perfect separation, but I think there is a distinction enough between human and what we perceive as animals to compare between the two. 

I can distinguish between a fish and a mammal, but both are animals.

Honestly, to really get into the qustion you're asking, you'd have to ascertain god's existence. It's conceivable that, given a certain theology, humans are inherently more valuable. As someone who see's the immediate cause for my existence lying in evolution, I don't see how my life is inherently more valuable than any other animals life.

[73109]

A REAL EDIT:  Jesus, Cole, what question are you trying to ask here, make up your mind

Yeah, my bad.

Thread title.

[ClairvoyantCat]

I can distinguish between a fish and a mammal, but both are animals.

I'm not arguing that people aren't animals.  I just think it's fairly clear what he means here without him specifying by saying "non-human animals."

A REAL EDIT:  Jesus, Cole, what question are you trying to ask here, make up your mind

Yeah, my bad.

Thread title.

Thread title.

[El Barto]

Pretty simple.  All animals,  including humans,  are motivated by self interest.  As a human,  I consider myself much more important than any other animals (including other humans, for that matter).  I have no problem pronouncing myself vastly superior to that dipshit cat I work with,  and I suspect if you could ask her,  she'd be pretty unabashed in her own since of superiority. 

In other words,  the human El Barto is superior to animals.  I'll take other humans and animals on a case by case basis as they relate to my own well being.

[zxlkho]

Wait, just so this is perfectly clear...


Thread title?

[Rathma]

Is a white man's life inherently more valuable than that of a black man's?

Pretty much the same question imo.

[hefdaddy42]

Is a white man's life inherently more valuable than that of a black man's?

Pretty much the same question imo.

I don't think that's the same question in any way.

And yes, a human life is inherently more valuable than that of a different animal.  Of course, if there are any different animals who beg to differ, I am willing to hear their response.  However, I already asked my dog, and he didn't have any problems with my point-of-view.

[Scheavo]

I already asked my dog, and he didn't have any problems with my point-of-view.

I could ask a baby in the same way, and reach a same conclusion about my superiority.

Also, go ask a grizzly bear who that bear thinks is more valuable... when he mauls you, I think you'll know his response.

[Liberation]

I'd say the point is... Just like any carnivorous animals out there, we need to eat. It's simple and may seem sad, but it's the basic problem. I definitely don't like the idea that animals had to die for my today's dinner, but I need to deal with it because there's no other way. (Vegetarianism is a different matter and I think there's no point bringing it up here.)

However, if we're talking about senseless killing, I do not see a big difference. If someone kills an animal for no reason, for me they're as much of a psycho as someone who kills a person for no reason, extremely dangerous and a potential threat to everyone around. The ability to kill an innocent animal or human is not normal to me and is a sign of an absolute lack of conscience.

[ClairvoyantCat]

Does enjoyment count as a reason?

[Liberation]

If someone enjoys killing an innocent, they're even more fucked up. Consider this an exception if you like.

[ehra]

Value is subjective and, hence, nothing has any "inherent" value.

Personally, I'd have a hard time coming up with any animal who's life I valued more than a person's.

[73109]

Is a white man's life inherently more valuable than that of a black man's?

Pretty much the same question imo.

I don't think that's the same question in any way.

And yes, a human life is inherently more valuable than that of a different animal.  Of course, if there are any different animals who beg to differ, I am willing to hear their response.  However, I already asked my dog, and he didn't have any problems with my point-of-view.

No problem with the answer, but why?

[El Barto]

And yes, a human life is inherently more valuable than that of a different animal.  Of course, if there are any different animals who beg to differ, I am willing to hear their response.  However, I already asked my dog, and he didn't have any problems with my point-of-view.

Who do you think's more valuable to the dog?

[MasterShakezula]

I'm betting, at least from my experience with my own dog, that all it really gives a shit about is getting some meat in its system, any human's well-being be damned. 

[Ben_Jamin]

Considering how the world works now, no. We are destroying the world with our overpopulation, which causes animals to diminish to keep our demand for survival. The Earth sure as hell doesn't value our life over animals, look at how a simple snowstorm causes one side of the country to go into disaster mode. which is funny in turn.                                                     

[yeshaberto]

for only one reason:  that the Creator declared that humans were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).

[lateralus88]

Species fight for their own species. Therefore, we fight for humanity where as a wolf pack fights for the wolf pack.


Shouldn't that be pretty clear? I mean come on, thread title.

[BlobVanDam]

I consider human life much more valuable than any animal. I have no problem with an animal being nothing more than my dinner.

Is it an arbitrary line we're drawing between species to say what animals it's ok to place as more and less important than us? Maybe. Our comparison seems to be based on how similar to us an animal is, intellectually and behaviorally. Which is why we don't eat chimps and dogs, because we can go "aw, how cute. I can relate to them when they do people things".

So if an alien of much high intelligence comes here and decides based on their own values that we're nothing more than a stupid animal that can be rounded up for food, can I really argue the hypocrisy? Probably not. To them we may be nothing more than dumb animals full of delicious bacon, relatively speaking.

I'm sorry, did that have anything to do with the topic?

[rumborak]

for only one reason:  that the Creator declared that humans were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).

That must include primates too then, right? They share 99% of our genetic code, so to 99% they are made in His image too.

So, does the 1% difference put you above chimpanzees?

rumborak

[jcmistat]

For me its simple as yes because were the only intelligent lifeform until discovered otherwise.

[rumborak]

Here's a different angle to it though: Isn't the value at least somewhat affected by the number of individuals that exist? That is, say there's 10 Bengali tigers left; doesn't that make each Bengali tiger much more valuable than if there were 2 billion? Does this supply-and-demand hold for humans?

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

for only one reason:  that the Creator declared that humans were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).

That must include primates too then, right? They share 99% of our genetic code, so to 99% they are made in His image too.u

So, does the 1% difference put you above chimpanzees?

rumborak

Interesting.   Did not know that.   But no.   Value is not based on our qualities but on value creator placed on us. Otherwise we would all have diff values based on our abilities. 

[eric42434224]

for only one reason:  that the Creator declared that humans were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).

That must include primates too then, right? They share 99% of our genetic code, so to 99% they are made in His image too.u

So, does the 1% difference put you above chimpanzees?

rumborak

Interesting.   Did not know that.   But no.   Value is not based on our qualities but on value creator placed on us. Otherwise we would all have diff values based on our abilities.

We don't?

[yeshaberto]

 practically yes.  Intrinsically no.

[bosk1]

for only one reason:  that the Creator declared that humans were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).