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

[Liberation]

According to Christianity also killing an animal without a reason is just much of a sin as killing a human, so I don't think this counts as an argument.

[bosk1]

I don't see anything in the thread topic about killing without a reason.

[Liberation]

It's just the simplest way to measure it. It's obvious we are sometimes forced to kill animals for very basic reasons, while we never really have a natural reason forcing us to kill other people. And I don't see any other way to measure "which life is more important" than deciding who would you rather allow to die.

I also have certain issues with this explanation which would push us more into a topic of religion but I guess that counts as off-topic.

[Dark Castle]

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.

Not to also mention all genetic code is very close to each other..

[yeshaberto]

 

According to Christianity also killing an animal without a reason is just much of a sin as killing a human, so I don't think this counts as an argument.

I can't think of anything in Christian scriptures that even remotely resembles this.  In Jewish proverb there is ref to an evil man is cruel to animals but that is closest I could think of

[eric42434224]

practically yes.  Intrinsically no.

I would say both.  An organisms level of skill, talent, and abilities are intrinsic to that organism.  Greater value is placed on greater levels of skill, talent, and ability.  You cant hold all humans to the same intrinsic level of value as all humans are obviously not intrinsically the same.

[73109]

It's just the simplest way to measure it. It's obvious we are sometimes forced to kill animals for very basic reasons, while we never really have a natural reason forcing us to kill other people. And I don't see any other way to measure "which life is more important" than deciding who would you rather allow to die.

I also have certain issues with this explanation which would push us more into a topic of religion but I guess that counts as off-topic.

I love that you brought that up. The reason I created this is because an argument I had with 2 friends of mine stemmed from them asking me who I would kill if given a gun and I needed to shoot either a dog or a fellow human. I said I couldn't make a decision without knowing more about the dog and the human, and it sent them into a frenzy.

[EdenHazard]

It's just the simplest way to measure it. It's obvious we are sometimes forced to kill animals for very basic reasons, while we never really have a natural reason forcing us to kill other people. And I don't see any other way to measure "which life is more important" than deciding who would you rather allow to die.

I also have certain issues with this explanation which would push us more into a topic of religion but I guess that counts as off-topic.

I love that you brought that up. The reason I created this is because an argument I had with 2 friends of mine stemmed from them asking me who I would kill if given a gun and I needed to shoot either a dog or a fellow human. I said I couldn't make a decision without knowing more about the dog and the human, and it sent them into a frenzy.

I have to agree with you, though. There are situations where is getting kinda blurry for me - shooting my pet dog or a terrible human being who has done terrible things...don't know, not that easy.

[Scheavo]

I've met numerous dogs more valuable than many humans I've met. Kinder and nicer, and questionably more intelligent. Is the human Hitler? A child rapist? A pure misogynistic asshole?

[ehra]

If anyone's given a choice between ending (or, inversely, saving) a random human's or dog's life and their first thought is "well, the person might be a child rapist Hitler" then they're pretty much broken as a person.

I also like the implication that dogs are inherently "nicer" than humans. No wonders if the dog mauled a kid's face off or if he fucks with the house cat just because he's an asshole like that. If the question were about choosing between shooting a human or a jellyfish (or a bird. Or a spider. Or a lizard. Or any other kind of animal that people don't give a crap about) then no one would even think to wonder if the person in front of them had raped anyone or cut someone off at the highway earlier that day. Anyone who called a dog evil would be called out for being a special kind of stupid (for good reason), but because one laid its head on your lap and stared at you that one time you were feeling down because you wouldn't give it attention somehow that makes people trick themselves into thinking the dog actually feels any kind of empathy for them. They don't, what they are is smart, useful, and better than most animals at getting what they want from people. A dog knows it'll get attention if it whines; the only tool a lonely spider has is to be terrifying.

When you're old, have your will written out and given all of your possessions to your dog (because your son might secretly be a Juggalo. You don't know), and you're stuck in a retirement home, I bet your dog won't won't even come and visit.

[bosk1]

If anyone's given a choice between ending (or, inversely, saving) a random human's or dog's life and their first thought is "well, the person might be a child rapist Hitler" then they're pretty much broken as a person.

So then, you're saying they should be shot before the dog then, right?

[ClairvoyantCat]

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

Why would the notion that we bear a closer resemblance to this supposed creator mean that he values us above others? 

[Dark Castle]

If anyone's given a choice between ending (or, inversely, saving) a random human's or dog's life and their first thought is "well, the person might be a child rapist Hitler" then they're pretty much broken as a person.

So then, you're saying they should be shot before the dog then, right?

No, what he's trying to say I believe is that's what people automatically assume is the case when asked the question.

[RuRoRul]

It's just the simplest way to measure it. It's obvious we are sometimes forced to kill animals for very basic reasons, while we never really have a natural reason forcing us to kill other people. And I don't see any other way to measure "which life is more important" than deciding who would you rather allow to die.

I also have certain issues with this explanation which would push us more into a topic of religion but I guess that counts as off-topic.

I love that you brought that up. The reason I created this is because an argument I had with 2 friends of mine stemmed from them asking me who I would kill if given a gun and I needed to shoot either a dog or a fellow human. I said I couldn't make a decision without knowing more about the dog and the human, and it sent them into a frenzy.

Perhaps knowing more about the dog or the human would help but if you're put in a hypothetical and told you aren't getting any more information and still have to make a choice, it's a cop out to say you will do nothing. You say knowing more about the human and the dog would allow you to make your decision (or at least implied it by saying that was why you couldn't make the decision), which suggests that, given enough information about both of them, you are ready to make the choice on which one to shoot. So considering every theoretical match up between every dog and every human being in existence, how many times does the human come up short?

Obviously in practice knowing that is impossible, but I think if you have some set of principles or values that allows you to make the decision given enough information, it should be pretty easy to deduce one way or another whether the human "wins" more times than that dog. If so, then you should choose to shoot the dog. Of course information about the individual human or dog in question could make a difference but just saying "I need more information" is a pretty lame answer - clarify it with that if you want but you could still at least say what you would do if you didn't have the info.

And as for my own beliefs... well, I think "value", "worth" and other such concepts are completely human ideas (or at least constructs of conscious life capable of coming up with such ideas, just in case someone wants to bring up the possibility of aliens) and since I don't believe in any omniscient creator I don't think it really makes sense to try to apply them from a perspective other than ours. So looking at it completely objectively, or at least not from the perspective of a human, none of them is worth any more than the other because nothing is "worth" anything - they are just things moving about in the universe. But from the human perspective (which is the only perspective which makes any sense to be talking about value, as far as I am concerned), I think that in general the consensus would be that self aware, sapient life is inherrently worth more than the life of another animal, all other things being equal. From there it all just comes down to the values of the individual - perhaps one person might value the life of their dog more than pretty much any other human, perhaps someone might categorically think that no dog's life is worth more than a human's.

[Liberation]

According to Christianity also killing an animal without a reason is just much of a sin as killing a human, so I don't think this counts as an argument.

I can't think of anything in Christian scriptures that even remotely resembles this.  In Jewish proverb there is ref to an evil man is cruel to animals but that is closest I could think of

I definitely remember from when I was still Catholic that this was considered one of the worst sins. And to be honest, if this isn't considered a sin, I do not have much respect for a religion which has this kind of rules.

If anyone's given a choice between ending (or, inversely, saving) a random human's or dog's life and their first thought is "well, the person might be a child rapist Hitler" then they're pretty much broken as a person.

All dogs generally do in their lives are just being dogs and there is no real philosophical thinking behind their actions, they just do what they do because that's what they are.

Humans are perfectly aware of what they do, they know the consequences and they know when they hurt someone else. There is no justification for doing something clearly evil just for your own selfish benefit or worse, no reason whatsoever. And I'm sorry but the thought you mentioned probably would cross my mind, as I do find the human race to be really pathetic in a large part and I've learned that a lot of people don't even have anything resembling basic principles.

I do not see any reason why thinking an innocent animal deserves to live more than a psychopathic serial killer/rapist/whatever who knows what he was doing makes someone a broken person. Actually, I'm closer to thinking the other way around. This kind of "we are demigods who are superior to everything and everyone (even when we do something so horrible that no other species on Earth would ever come close to doing anything similar)" attitude is something I really cannot respect in any shape or form.

[Scheavo]

If anyone's given a choice between ending (or, inversely, saving) a random human's or dog's life and their first thought is "well, the person might be a child rapist Hitler" then they're pretty much broken as a person.

No one ever said that the automatic assumption was that the human was a child rapist Hitler, rather that without knowing the specifics, the human could be more worthy of being shot than the dog.

I also like the implication that dogs are inherently "nicer" than humans.

No one ever said that. I said some dogs are nicer than some humans; that is not nearly the same as saying all dogs are inherently nicer.

No wonders if the dog mauled a kid's face off or if he fucks with the house cat just because he's an asshole like that.

From my experience, most dogs are only assholes if their owner is an asshole, and makes em an asshole. Pit bulls are some of the friendliest, most loving dogs I've ever met, and they're supposed to be horrible face mauling assholes.

but because one laid its head on your lap and stared at you that one time you were feeling down because you wouldn't give it attention somehow that makes people trick themselves into thinking the dog actually feels any kind of empathy for them. They don't, what they are is smart, useful, and better than most animals at getting what they want from people. A dog knows it'll get attention if it whines; the only tool a lonely spider has is to be terrifying.

By that logic, I can say that humans are not empathetic, that they only want things out of other humans.

Also, I'm sorry that you've never noticed a dog being empathetic. I've had numerous ones. For instance, one of my golden retrievers is afraid to swim. If I go out in the water, he starts wining for me - he is truly concerned about me. If I start dunking myself in the water, his wines get louder and louder, because he thinks I'm in danger. If I get down to my neck, he'll come swim out to me, trying to rescue me. How is that a dog just trying to get food or attention?

Dogs are a pack animal, thus they necessarily have a morality in order to be a pack.

[ClairvoyantCat]

I do not see any reason why thinking an innocent animal deserves to live more than a psychopathic serial killer/rapist/whatever who knows what he was doing makes someone a broken person. Actually, I'm closer to thinking the other way around. This kind of "we are demigods who are superior to everything and everyone (even when we do something so horrible that no other species on Earth would ever come close to doing anything similar)" attitude is something I really cannot respect in any shape or form.

Hah, I have a golden retriever who does exactly the same thing.  Actually, whenever we take him near water, anytime anyone jumps in he instinctively goes in after them and swims up to them to make sure they are okay.  He'll usually scratch you up too, for good measure.    /off topic

[Dublagent66]

Some of the posts in this thread make me ashamed to be a human fucking being.  Humans are not more valuable than any other form of life on Earth or any other planet for that matter.  They are just arrogant enough to think so.  I don't see anything in the thread topic that mentions the bible or religion of any kind.  Yet, some people think because the bible says God created us in his image, that somehow makes us more valuable?  How?  Why?  What is the measurement of "value" in the eyes of God?  Who has done more to pollute, damage and destroy the Earth than humans?  Is that how you define value?  Gimme a break!!

[bosk1]

Yet, some people think because the bible says God created us in his image, that somehow makes us more valuable? 

Yes.  And as for how/why/etc., mankind was given dominion over the earth by God, and we are the only part of creation that (1) has an eternal soul and (2) that God sent his son to die for so that we could be saved.  I love my dog, but when he's dead, he's gone (same with the chicken I ate for lunch a little while ago).  When you or I die, our spirits will live on and we will give and account of all that we've done in this life, be judged for it, and receive the eternal consequences for it.  Animals...nah, not so much.

[eric42434224]

Yet, some people think because the bible says God created us in his image, that somehow makes us more valuable? 

Yes.  And as for how/why/etc., mankind was given dominion over the earth by God, and we are the only part of creation that (1) has an eternal soul and (2) that God sent his son to die for so that we could be saved.  I love my dog, but when he's dead, he's gone (same with the chicken I ate for lunch a little while ago).  When you or I die, our spirits will live on and we will give and account of all that we've done in this life, be judged for it, and receive the eternal consequences for it.  Animals...nah, not so much.

IF you believe in the bible, it is pretty cut and dry.

[tofee35]

If a person dies on the job, work conitinues. If a desert tortoise dies... better look for a new job   

[bosk1]

Yet, some people think because the bible says God created us in his image, that somehow makes us more valuable? 

Yes.  And as for how/why/etc., mankind was given dominion over the earth by God, and we are the only part of creation that (1) has an eternal soul and (2) that God sent his son to die for so that we could be saved.  I love my dog, but when he's dead, he's gone (same with the chicken I ate for lunch a little while ago).  When you or I die, our spirits will live on and we will give and account of all that we've done in this life, be judged for it, and receive the eternal consequences for it.  Animals...nah, not so much.

IF you believe in the bible, it is pretty cut and dry.

Well, of course. 

[eric42434224]

Then why be in the discussion if all your view on the subject is basically, "Yes, cuz the bible says so."?

Not trying to start anything, but it doesnt add much to the discussion.

[MasterShakezula]

eric, though I do not agree with bosk's view, nor do I follow Christianity, I do believe that it is perfectly valid to one to use their religious beliefs to support their argument, provided that the individual presents how their religious beliefs support their point, and his use of religion as an argument is an example of a legitimate use of it. 

(Well, this does depend on what is being debated, though I would say that this thread's issue is one in which this would apply.)

[yeshaberto]

my reference to Scripture is simply because it purports to be the Creators answer to the question.  I can't think of anyone's answer that is more critical to this question. 

[ClairvoyantCat]

Only if you believe in a creator, really.  To me, it's not much of an answer at all. 

There's nothing terribly wrong with using your religion as a reason for your position, but you're going to lose everyone who has different beliefs (or lack there of) at square one if you do so. 

[eric42434224]

eric, though I do not agree with bosk's view, nor do I follow Christianity, I do believe that it is perfectly valid to one to use their religious beliefs to support their argument, provided that the individual presents how their religious beliefs support their point, and his use of religion as an argument is an example of a legitimate use of it. 

(Well, this does depend on what is being debated, though I would say that this thread's issue is one in which this would apply.)

I certainly didnt mean his view isnt valid.....just questioning why to continue with it in this thread.

[ehra]

If anyone's given a choice between ending (or, inversely, saving) a random human's or dog's life and their first thought is "well, the person might be a child rapist Hitler" then they're pretty much broken as a person.

No one ever said that the automatic assumption was that the human was a child rapist Hitler, rather that without knowing the specifics, the human could be more worthy of being shot than the dog.

I didn't say the assumption was automatic either. I said that even stopping to consider that sort of thing when put in that situation is pretty messed up.

I also like the implication that dogs are inherently "nicer" than humans.

No one ever said that. I said some dogs are nicer than some humans; that is not nearly the same as saying all dogs are inherently nicer.

No wonders if the dog mauled a kid's face off or if he fucks with the house cat just because he's an asshole like that.

From my experience, most dogs are only assholes if their owner is an asshole, and makes em an asshole. Pit bulls are some of the friendliest, most loving dogs I've ever met, and they're supposed to be horrible face mauling assholes.

Funny how dogs get the benefit of the doubt of just being mean because of their upbringing, but it doesn't seem to come up when judging humanity.


Really, I've got nothing against dogs or most other animals (my first post in the thread is pretty clear on where I stand on the issue). It's the constant undercurrent of "oh, humanity is so terrible we're all so fucked up (except me)" whenever discussion about undefined people comes up that pisses me off and made me take an extreme-ish stance. That and the idea that keeps coming up about how what humanity does to itself is so horrible compared to what happens with other animals. Some of nature's methods of murder and survival are far more horrifying than what we manage.



As for the scripture/bible discussion, I think an argument could be made that the lives of animals aren't any more or less valuable than humans. They are different, yes, but not quantifiable better or worse. Humans, ultimately, do not belong here, while animals do. I'd say that any "inherent" value in their lives, as creations of God, should not be any more different than the value of our own lives here compared to in the afterlife (as there could be no afterlife at God's side without what takes place before).

[Scheavo]

If anyone's given a choice between ending (or, inversely, saving) a random human's or dog's life and their first thought is "well, the person might be a child rapist Hitler" then they're pretty much broken as a person.

No one ever said that the automatic assumption was that the human was a child rapist Hitler, rather that without knowing the specifics, the human could be more worthy of being shot than the dog.

I didn't say the assumption was automatic either. I said that even stopping to consider that sort of thing when put in that situation is pretty messed up.

Wouldn't you say being forced to kill anything is pretty messed up? You seem to be thinking this is a free-voluntary decision, when it's not. Being forced to kill something, I'm gonna consider what it is I have to kill. If, in the end, you killed a dog who saved a child from a burning building, and let a mass-murderer live, wouldn't you feel some guilt? I certainly would.

I also like the implication that dogs are inherently "nicer" than humans.

No one ever said that. I said some dogs are nicer than some humans; that is not nearly the same as saying all dogs are inherently nicer.

No wonders if the dog mauled a kid's face off or if he fucks with the house cat just because he's an asshole like that.

From my experience, most dogs are only assholes if their owner is an asshole, and makes em an asshole. Pit bulls are some of the friendliest, most loving dogs I've ever met, and they're supposed to be horrible face mauling assholes.

Funny how dogs get the benefit of the doubt of just being mean because of their upbringing, but it doesn't seem to come up when judging humanity.

Whomever said humans don't get the benefit of the doubt? I certainly didn't. I simply said that most of the time, asshole dogs have asshole owners. But considering YOU were the one to start denigrating dogs, and how they're not as empathetic, or kind, as you want them to be, I figured I would defend them. Not the same thing.

Really, I've got nothing against dogs or most other animals (my first post in the thread is pretty clear on where I stand on the issue). It's the constant undercurrent of "oh, humanity is so terrible we're all so fucked up (except me)" whenever discussion about undefined people comes up that pisses me off and made me take an extreme-ish stance. That and the idea that keeps coming up about how what humanity does to itself is so horrible compared to what happens with other animals. Some of nature's methods of murder and survival are far more horrifying than what we manage.

I think that's the point though, to show how humans and animals are not that different. Ya, there are life forms out there that are pretty fucked up, and do some pretty fucked up thing (for example, the wasp that turns cockroaches into zombies, to lay it's young in, so that they have a living animal to eat). But c'mon, humanity does just as fucked of things, and it's not saying that humans are worse, it's saying that we're just as animal as all the animals we denigrate.

[ehra]

You know what, I agree with everything in your post. Like I said, a good part of that post was from frustration of the blatant "humanity sucks, animals are just innocent bystanders that don't know any better" implications going on (not necessarily from you). The rest was poorly considered arguments.

[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.

No problem with the answer, but why?

I think the "why" is already there in the answer.

[73109]

Higher order thinking?

[eric42434224]

If one thinks that a human life is more valuable than a dog on the basis of "Higher Order Thinking", then doesnt that person think that mentally retarded people are less valuable than fully functioning people?

[bosk1]

Only if you believe in a creator, really.   

Yes, but the existence of a creator is not dependent upon whether or not anyone subjectively believes in the creator. 

There's nothing terribly wrong with using your religion as a reason for your position, but you're going to lose everyone who has different beliefs (or lack there of) at square one if you do so. 

That's okay.  Anyone who attempts to answer this question without reference to the creator loses me at square one.

[eric42434224]

double post.