The Value of Life

[Joanna vander Poele]

Insects don't have the neural capacity to suffer. That why when you rip a bug's leg off it doesn't collapse in pain, it just tries to keep going about it's business. It can't, for the same reason a car can't go forward without a wheel, but it's really just a little biological machine that follows a evolved program of stimulated response. It has no awareness of what its doing or what its state of being is.

A dog knows when you're angry at it, and gets afraid. It can imagine suffering. A fly can't do that. That's why it keeps buzzing around you while you swat at it. It dodges the swatter not to avoid pain, but because it senses a shift in the air patterns and adjusts its flight path thanks to an evolved instinct. Even a lizard, lacking the developed brain of a mammal, can't imagine things. It can't fear anything, it lacks the intellectual capacity for fear. Same with birds.

Maybe it's just because I'm listening to "Come Wander With Me" right now, but that is one of the saddest things I have ever read.

[ljkeane]

Essentially it is ultimately our own desire to avoid suffering that forms the basis for ethical behavior, and thus when we consider the right way to treat others, the primary quality about them we should consider is their capacity to suffer.

With regard to your concerns sbout the ethical nature of valuing humans above animals (which is somewhat subjective), according to this the essential basis for an ethical code is our desire to avoid suffering or 'self interest'. In that case isn't it 'right' to take the position that minimises our own suffering? In these circumstances how is an ethical code that prioritises our interests 'wrong'?

But self-interest may not be a sound basis for determining what is ethical. It would help if you defined what self-interest is first. Because given certain definitions of self-interest, it's very easy to justify killing other people. Obviously an ethical system that justifies murdering someone and stealing their wallet (which may be in their self-interest, given certain definitions of self-interest) is a pretty crappy ethical system.

Or you could argue that it is in our self interest for society to try to prevent murder because that reduces the risk of us being murdered.

Of course any ethical system that justisfies the value of human life being equal to that of animals is a pretty crappy one.

Additionally if we are going to prioritise suffering itself as you are arguing then we would have to objectively prove that animals capacity for suffering is the same as human's, which I don't think you have.

You say that using brain scans etc they have been able to prove that animals capacity for suffering is equal to humans. My understanding is that it is extremely difficult to quantify emotional response using brain scans and as such while it might be possible to demonstrate that animals have a capacity for suffering I would think it is extremely difficult to prove they have the same capacity for sufferingas humans. I am willing to be proven wrong if know of any credable papers or articles on the subject.

Additionally you said that proving that animals were able to experience physical pain and that they had the mental capacity to anticipate pain meant they had the same capacity for suffering as humans. This is a rather limited definition of suffering as it discounts all the myriad forms of emotional pain which it has not been proven that animals have the same capacity for as humans.

Essentially what I am saying is while it seems reasonable that animals have a capacity for pain it is extremely difficult to quantify whether they have same capacity for pain as humans so you could easily assume either way depending on what position you want to be ethically 'right'.

I don't actually think that an ethical system that totally prioritises selfish interests in all circumstances is right but it seems to me just as valid as one that prioritises suffering regardless of the circumstances.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

I'm curious as to what you say about insects not being able to feel pain or fear, UDM. As a kid I would sometimes (I was a devil child) "play" with ants, idly trying to kill them with the head of a nail as they walked by my sunbed. Now, if I missed, they would go from comfortable canter to full-out gallop in the fraction of a second. Why did they do this?

How about bees and wasps, who sting when they "feel threatened"? Or when defending their hive?

It's instinct, a unthinking automatic reaction to stimuli. It's just evolution. Ants literally have no brains. They have no central nervous system, just clusters of ganglia spread throughout their body. If you crush one ant, it releases chemicals, and other ants react to that chemical by moving away quickly.

You ever seen one of those balls with a gyroscope in it that rolls across the floor, and whenever it hits something, it changes direction and goes another way? Well that thing thinks and feels just like an ant. Which is to say not at all. But it reacts to stimuli.

Reaction to stimuli is a far cry from the capacity to suffer, or the capacity to feel.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

You don't think thst the existence of society has benefits for the individual?

That's irrelevant, that entirely fails to address your claim. You claimed that the reason its wrong to oppress women is that it is of more benefit to society to not oppress women than to oppress them. What you have failed to explain is why individuals should put what is best for society ahead of what is best for them.

I've already listed some of the benefits of considering the suffering of animals as less important than that of humans, but anyway. Examples would include; we get to eat animals, we get to use them for medical testing, we get to keep them as pets, we can prioritise the needs of humans for land, we can remove/kill pests, we can breed them to perform tasks for us etc.

On the other hand I can't think of any costs to humans that could only be solved by valuing the suffering of animals as equal to that of humans. Consequentally I think the cost benefit analysis comes out in favour of the status quo.

And so then you would support raping women into submission if the cost benefit analysis came out in favor of that?

I mean I can think of many benefits to oppressing women. I'd never have to work to get laid again, I wouldn't have to clean my house, there'd be less competition for jobs, if I got angry I'd have a convenient punching bag around, etc. The costs of oppressing women seem relatively small for men, and are almost entirely born by women in the form of depression and stress, just as the costs of oppressing animals is born almost entirely by the animals.

They generally don't if you hadn't noticed.

I know that people generally don't. That's not an answer to the question I asked you. I didn't ask you if individuals do consider the suffering of others as important as their own suffering, I asked you what reason do individuals have to consider the suffering of others as important as their own suffering?

Answer the question.

These qualities are all the qualities that human intellegence brings and just because some humans do not have these qualities does not mean I don't value them, because as I have said several times I place a value on them being the same species as me regardless of whether this is specism.

Yes, and my point is that your entire argument as to why humans have more value than animals is "because they are humans," which is an irrational and self-serving circular argument.

It is literally no different than this argument: I am better than you because I say so. My life is of more value than your life because I say so. I don't have to prove my life is of more value, it just is...because I say so.

If this is your argument, then you have lost. Your argument is not logical, not rational, and not reasonable. It's just selfish nonsense that justifies what you want to believe. Thus I cna safely say that you are a morally bankrupt person who has no appreciation for ethical behavior -- you delude yourself into thinking whatever you want to do is ethical. You are, in short, evil.

Congratulations!

I think there are logical reasons why we haved evolved to value others of our species.

Then you fail to understand how evolution works.

Arguing about whether humans should value other humans is ultimately irrelevant because the clear fact is that the vast majority of us do. What is also clear is that the vast majority of us don't value the suffering of animals as equal to that of humans and you haven't provided any reasons why that should change other than a code of ethics that the vast majority of the human race does not subscribe to.

Actually, I have. You just refuse to see it, because you refuse to use logic. You think you're using logic, but your whole argument rests on fallacies. Everything you just said there? Bandwagon fallacy.

According to your logic, everyone who resisted the end of slavery was morally right. Everyone who resisted the growth of democracy was morally right. Everyone who fought against equal rights for women and minorities was morally right.

Clearly that is wrong. Clearly. Yet your arguments inevitabely lead us to the conclusion that when Bull Connors turned firehoses and attack dogs on black Americans for simply wanting the right to sit at a lunch counter, he was doing a good act.

This is why I would argue that you are a morally bankrupt person who operates from a fundamentally evil worldview.

[Imp]

Arguing logic on this is nuts. It's a completely subjective philosophical question.

We're all made up of groups of molecules and atoms, performing complex tasks, just like my ipod.

No one can say any group of molecules has more inherent value than any others. Therefore my ipod is just as important as any of you, and you're all dead. QED. :tantrum:

(Seriously I'd pick the human but there's no right or wrong answer ffs.)

[Lord O' Bones]

(Seriously I'd pick the human but there's no right or wrong answer ffs.)

You are a morally bankrupt and evil person.

[Crazydog7]

For me, there is no question. I would choose my Dog. The lives of Joe Schmo and all the occupants of the car (even if said car was a school bus) do not hold half the value to me that my Dog does.

See this is why I started that thread that almost got me lynched or shot last year. Some of you guys just take your pets way to seriously. Dragon even if you're just fucking around that comment isn't cool but then I'm a cat person so that probably explains it.

[G'Kar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/...from-wrong.html

Interesting article.

But Prof Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are "hard-wired" into the brains of all mammals and provide the "social glue" that allow often aggressive and competitive animals to live together in groups.

He has compiled evidence from around the world that shows how different species of animals appear to have an innate sense of fairness, display empathy and help other animals that are in distress.

His conclusions will provide ammunition for animal welfare groups pushing to have animals treated more humanely, but some experts are sceptical about the extent to which animals can experience complex emotions and social responsibility.

[Angalin]

<mod gloves>

This is an interesting, mostly abstract discussion. When it descends to concrete terms, eg philosophical namecalling, it loses its appeal. Those who persist will have little board holidays, not just bank ones.

</mod gloves>

[Relic]

This is why I would argue that you are a morally bankrupt person who operates from a fundamentally evil worldview.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

on that note any mods out there that want to close this thread will get no argument from me (that'll be a first :P). I've gotten all the answers i could have ever wanted, and so much more.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Now wait a minute, this is fundamentally unfair. You can't treat the logical conclusion of an argument as an ad homenien attack. Calling someone evil to discredit their argument is an insult, but if someone espouses a belief that is demonstrably evil, then it's hardly an insult to point that out.

lkjeane is arguing that the moral good is that which provides the most benefit to an ethical agent or group of agents (a person, all men, a society), and as examples of what he means by benefits is citing material goods and luxuries.

That means that lkjeane is espousing a demonstrably evil moral outlook, in that such an argument can be used to justify any act, no matter how heinous. Rape, murder, pillaging, genocide, all of those can be justified as good acts by the ethic lkjeane is arguing.

It's not an insult to call that evil, nor is it an insult to call someone espousing such a viewpoint morally bankrupt.

That's just philosophy.

[The_BlauerDragon]

See this is why I started that thread that almost got me lynched or shot last year. Some of you guys just take your pets way to seriously. Dragon even if you're just fucking around that comment isn't cool but then I'm a cat person so that probably explains it.

Here, Allow me to try and expound upon my point of view and show you a bit of where I am coming from. Please, Read THIS ARTICLE and tell me again that I simply take my pet too seriously. I've known many humans that would abandon friends and family alike under much lesser circumstances.

[The Winged Shadow]

Ah, the rational consumer. The theoretical person whose only goal is to maximise their own personal utility.

I am not quite sure what you mean by 'personal utility', but seems to be true enough.

The person who would, without any guilt or regret, crush the hopes, dreams and general well-being of others so that they can secure their own happiness.

Well, not completely without guilt. I'll feel guilty, but i will get over it or learn to live with it.

I don't know why you think that just because i would react this way in this particular scenario, that i react this way in all scenarios. Relic was pretty specific with his conditions, shrouded stranger vs my loving dog. Given this circumstances, i would react the way i have stated on my previous posts . That does not mean i will react the same way if situation changed. If the man/woman were to be unshrouded the situation would change and my answer will vary (depending on the person).

BTW doctors and nurses of the board: give up. Death happens all the time. People learn to deal with it.

I don't know how you got here though. Me choosing my Dog's life over a strangers hardly means i want doctors to stop treating patients. Plus, they get paid for it, so they better do their damn job :whip: .

ETA: The above doesn't apply to doctors and nurses at children's hospitals - children are cute so they deserve to live.

Glad you see it my way :D

[Angalin]

And on that note, I think this will wind up.