DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: 73109 on October 30, 2011, 01:04:14 PM
-
Thread title.
I was arguing with a friend of mine about this.
-
"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!
-
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.
-
Thread title.
-
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.
-
A better question that I really should have asked...
Is a human life inherently more valuable than that of a different animals'?
-
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
-
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. :lol
-
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).
-
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.
-
A REAL EDIT: Jesus, Cole, what question are you trying to ask here, make up your mind
Yeah, my bad. :lol
Thread title.
-
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. :lol
Thread title.
Thread title.
-
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.
-
Wait, just so this is perfectly clear...
Thread title?
-
Is a white man's life inherently more valuable than that of a black man's?
Pretty much the same question imo.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Does enjoyment count as a reason?
-
If someone enjoys killing an innocent, they're even more fucked up. Consider this an exception if you like.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
for only one reason: that the Creator declared that humans were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).
-
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.
-
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? :lol
-
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
-
For me its simple as yes because were the only intelligent lifeform until discovered otherwise.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
practically yes. Intrinsically no.
-
for only one reason: that the Creator declared that humans were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).
-
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 don't see anything in the thread topic about killing without a reason.
-
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.
-
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..
-
:-\
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
-
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.
-
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. :lol
-
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. :lol
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. :lol
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.
-
:-\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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
If a person dies on the job, work conitinues. If a desert tortoise dies... better look for a new job
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Higher order thinking?
-
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?
-
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.
-
double post.
-
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.
It has more to do with believing one narrow view of a creator, than the fact that a creator may exist.
You subjectively believe you know specific attributes of a creator...that doesnt mean the creator is anything like you think...or even exists 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.
That's okay. Anyone who attempts to answer this question without reference to the creator loses me at square one.
They dont lose you if they dont reference a creator....just your narrow view of a creator.
-
Yes, but again, my subjective belief is irrelevant. Whatever you or I may happen to subjectively believe on the subject does nothing to change the answer to the question posed in the thread title.
-
Yes, but again, my subjective belief is irrelevant. Whatever you or I may happen to subjectively believe on the subject does nothing to change the answer to the question posed in the thread title.
It doesnt? I think it absolutely does. The value something has is absolutely subjective. The value something has can mean different things to different people. There is no absolute answer to this question. The real answer is that some things have more value to some than to others. It has to be done on a case by case basis, and cant be answered with a blanket absolute rule. I think that has become clear considering the varying answers in this thread.
-
I don't think the fact that a mere dozen or so people on the Internet have different opinions makes anything "clear." :lol
-
I would think that anyone having another opinion illustrates my point.
I am not saying the "answer" to the question is clear....the fact that there are so many differing opinions, and so many varying degrees to similar opinions, that the "answer" is that there is no clear over-arching answer.
It isnt a question that can be answered for everyone with one YES or NO. Value is assigned differently by different people for different reasons.
Get it?
-
Oh, I absolutely get what you are saying. I just don't think it is correct.
-
I don't think the fact that a mere dozen or so people on the Internet have different opinions makes anything "clear." :lol
But an old book does I guess. :lol
Oh, I absolutely get what you are saying. I just don't think it is correct.
I get what you are saying, and think your belief on this matter are correct....for you. If you assign value to something over another, whatever your reasoning, then it does indeed have more value to you....which as you know, is exactly my point. :)
-
I don't think the fact that a mere dozen or so people on the Internet have different opinions makes anything "clear." :lol
But an old book does I guess. :lol
Depends on the book.
-
I don't think the fact that a mere dozen or so people on the Internet have different opinions makes anything "clear." :lol
But an old book does I guess. :lol
Depends on the book.
No it doesnt. Whatever your reason, that is fine. I dont care if you take your reasons from an old Spiderman comic. If your beliefs and reasoning cause you to assign one thing more value than another, then that is perfectly reasonable, and the basis of my point.
-
I don't think the fact that a mere dozen or so people on the Internet have different opinions makes anything "clear." :lol
But an old book does I guess. :lol
Depends on the book.
No it doesnt. Whatever your reason, that is fine. I dont care if you take your reasons from an old Spiderman comic. If your beliefs and reasoning cause you to assign one thing more value than another, then that is perfectly reasonable, and the basis of my point.
Yes, actually it does. If my beliefs are based on a Spider Man comic, then I'm pretty much a nut. If my beliefs are based on a reliable, objectively true source, then my beliefs have a foundation in that truth.
It would be kind of (but not exactly) like if my beliefs on gravity came from what Newton wrote on the subject, then even if my understanding is a little off, my beliefs are based on fairly objective, immutable information. If my beliefs about how gravity works come from a science fiction novel about a fictitious world where gravity functions according to a different set of rules than what we observe in the universe, my beliefs will be flawed.
-
I don't think the fact that a mere dozen or so people on the Internet have different opinions makes anything "clear." :lol
But an old book does I guess. :lol
Depends on the book.
No it doesnt. Whatever your reason, that is fine. I dont care if you take your reasons from an old Spiderman comic. If your beliefs and reasoning cause you to assign one thing more value than another, then that is perfectly reasonable, and the basis of my point.
Yes, actually it does. If my beliefs are based on a Spider Man comic, then I'm pretty much a nut. If my beliefs are based on a reliable, objectively true source, then my beliefs have a foundation in that truth.
It would be kind of (but not exactly) like if my beliefs on gravity came from what Newton wrote on the subject, then even if my understanding is a little off, my beliefs are based on fairly objective, immutable information. If my beliefs about how gravity works come from a science fiction novel about a fictitious world where gravity functions according to a different set of rules than what we observe in the universe, my beliefs will be flawed.
You completely missed my point. You are looking for one answer for everyone on this question. You cant equate a subjective assignment of value to a proven physical law of nature. Apples and Oranges.
-
No, I understand your point. But mine is that there is an objective answer for everyone, whether they realize that or not. The application of that answer may vary depending on the circumstances, but that isn't the question.
-
I'd be interested in discussing my short paragraph on this topic. At the very least I think it'd be a more productive discussion than "the bible is objective truth" "nuh-uh" "yeah-huh"
-
Agreed.
-
No, I understand your point. But mine is that there is an objective answer for everyone, whether they realize that or not. The application of that answer may vary depending on the circumstances, but that isn't the question.
And I understand your point. You feel the need to have one objective answer, as if it were a fact like gravity. You think the word of the god of the bible is that objective answer....got it. I got it pages back.
My point is that I accept your reasoning as your reasoning. No arguements. But simply judging for the fact that some disagree with you, not just on your reasoning, but on the answer itself, illustrates my point that value is assigned on an individual basis. Your god may say that all humans are more valuable, but actions speak louder than words. Humans both say and do things that show the contrary, and that is indisputable. If the question asked, "does GOD say humans are more valuable than other animals?", your point is more appropriate. But the simple fact that not only do people have varying opinions on the question, but also do things to support their position, seems to me at least, to support the view that it is subjective. Even if god does say humans are more valuable....it is clear that that is not always the case as evidenced by things happening every day around us. It doesnt matter if god says something is more valuable....if it is treated as less valuable, it IS less valuable to someone plain and simple.
-
I think I hear ur point eric. The operative word for me in the op is inhrently. Practically we all place differing values in things like say a dollar bill. I understand inherent to point to the actual true value beside what we place on it.
-
Interesting/Ironic that we are in a discussion about god assigning more value to humans over animals, when many say that god assigns more value to some humans over other humans (as in you must accept/believe/do certain things or no heaven for you, etc). I guess even god's assignment of value is viewed as subjective, considering the varying interpretations of gods views. :lol
-
Yes, but again, my subjective belief is irrelevant. Whatever you or I may happen to subjectively believe on the subject does nothing to change the answer to the question posed in the thread title.
This is actually correct, since the question in the thread title implies that value can somehow be objective ("inherently"), even though a majority of people today probably wouldn't even acknowledge objective value, myself included. The result; a bunch of unproductive posts.
-
The parable of the prodigal son declares otherwise
Ninja'd after erics
post
-
I think I hear ur point eric. The operative word for me in the op is inhrently. Practically we all place differing values in things like say a dollar bill. I understand inherent to point to the actual true value beside what we place on it.
I see where you are coming from, but that view can only come from a religious/creator framework. Inherent only means that it comes from within the organism. You are assigning an over arching value from the presumption that your god says it to be so. I get that and respect it. But the fact, for me, is that everybody is inherently different, and everybodys perception of things are different...therefore values assigned to things...both by the self and others, will be different.
EDIT: and the dollar bill illustrates my point. You take the dollar bills true value to be what some entity (the govt) says it should be...1$. Yet the dollar bill value can increase or decrease daily....it can buy more or less at different times....even more or less at the same time in different regions. Your premise relies on the fact that all dollar bills are the same. Humans arent. They have wide ranging qualities/skills/abilities that make them quite unique.
-
Yes, but again, my subjective belief is irrelevant. Whatever you or I may happen to subjectively believe on the subject does nothing to change the answer to the question posed in the thread title.
This is actually correct, since the question in the thread title implies that value can somehow be objective ("inherently"), even though a majority of people today probably wouldn't even acknowledge objective value, myself included. The result; a bunch of unproductive posts.
No. Inherent and Objective are not the same. And I wouldnt call the posts unproductive. I would call your post saying so to be a bit insulting.
-
Lol sorry if I insulted. It was just my subjective opinion on the value of the argument ;)
-
Lol sorry if I insulted. It was just my subjective opinion on the value of the argument ;)
Seriously, you bring up a good point. If we cant even agree on what a very important term in the discussion means, how can there be a productive discussion? Inherent simply means "from within". What about that organism makes it valuable? That doesnt necessarily mean what gods views on the value are. If someone views that something as more valuable, then it has a higher value to them. Great. If you believe that gods opinion that being human is more valuable, which as a believer makes it your opinion, that is great too. There is no "objective" assesment here. It is all predicated on your opinions or beliefs...therefore subjective.
Just like the dollar bill.....the govt can say that is is worth "one US dollar", but that is arbitrary. Its real objective value fluctuates constantly.
-
actually, my reference to the intrinsic value of the dollar bill was the fact that it was a piece of paper. whatever it was worth as a piece of paper is its intrinsic value. what value is placed on it by economies or gov't is its practical value.
but probably not the best analogy in the world :lol
-
What's interesting to me about these kinds of conversations, is that the course of the conversation seems to answer the question more fully than what actually goes on in the conversation. If there were objective values, why would people disagree on them so much? Why would everyone have their own values? I don't have my own law of physics, which is why physics is objective. Values and morals are not "reproducible," and I would say that reproducibility is a qualifier for objectivity.
-
Yes, a human life is more valuable. Animals are tasty.
-
There is no inherent value to any life, only the value that you give it. To me, yes, human life is generally more valuable than that of other lifeforms.