The Value of Life

[Ken Stone]

And a human isn't?

I guess it depends on your belief in free will.

ETA: It seems pretty silly to say "humans have been molded by evolution to appeal to ... humans." As for dogs that is clearly the case. Hence the "biological robot" comment.

[Humble Asskicker]

Ken

Ask this question in another way. What if the situation were random human vs robot that was programmed to appear to have a personality, and be really cute and adorable? Would you save the robot? If likable personality and cuteness is what is at issue here then you should save the robot, no? Keep in mind, this isn't an expensive robot. This is a robot that can be had pretty much for free at any time. There is an over abundance of these robots every where.

You can use that example with humans as well. The question you're asking is one of the importance of character; the question you're suggesting is whether there is an intrinsic superiority of one animal over the other, which I've already given my opinion on that.

But to answer your question, it depends. It kind of reminds me of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Just because it's a robot doesn't mean anything. I don't know if this robot of yours is advanced enough to be able to feel pain or fear. Real dogs have been demonstrated to be capable of both. I don't know how advance its mind is, how able it is to fall into my personal category of acceptable sentience (for instance, I do not feel an ant is capable of enough sentience to grasp its reality cognitively rather than through biological habit - and yes, I understand the argument that cognitive recognition might merely be an imperfect and inconsistent veneer for biological habit). If it did convince me that it is indeed on a level of higher functioning, qualifying it to that standard, then it doesn't matter what its corporeal body is composed of, I would think I would consider it in the same light as my dogs and choose it over the stranger.

Sure, it could be said "Well, it's a robot - it's reprogrammable," but then, so are humans, to a certain extent, under many conditions (eg neural surgery or medication). Then you would have the question that one has a soul and one doesn't, to which I think my position is obvious, based on my previous posts. And from there you would run into much the same disputes that you would with a biological dog.

I don't care about life. I care about sentience, and the qualities possessed in each sentient form as they appeal to my own values and personality.

turinturambar

Basically....you place value on animals above humans because they don't have a level of intelligence high enough to clash with your personality.

I would appreciate it if you tried to understand why I consider this a misrepresentation of what I've said. Not in a flame throwing "This son of a bitch has an opinion that is at odds with my own, so I'm going to do whatever it takes to make him look like a fool, then laugh at his weeping husk after I'm done bitch-slapping him with how wrong he is!" sort of way. But just try to think on how what I've posted would not fall into what you just asserted.

Shryke

That is fucked up.

Wurd.

Relic,

Osaka.

[Ken Stone]

You can use that example with humans as well. The question you're asking is one of the importance of character; the question you're suggesting is whether there is an intrinsic superiority of one animal over the other, which I've already given my opinion on that.

Our relationship with our pets is one where they manipulate us emotionally, and prey upon the human tendency to anthropomorphize things. In return we feed, shelter, and protect them. If you get down to it, strangers, people you have never and will never meet, have done more to improve your quality of life than your dogs ever will. Do you like your electricity? It was a stranger that built the power plant. It's strangers that are running it. Your quality of life is owed to people you will never meet.

Let's think about your dog for a second. If he were kidnapped within 1 week he would love the people who kidnapped him as fiercely as he loves you. Your relationship with your dog is in your head. It isn't real. I just find it absurd that you would put a fake relationship over the life of a real person.

ETA:

HA - What if you had to go to the strangers funeral, look his kids in the eyes and explain why you choose your dog over their dad? Would you still choose the dog?

[Liffguard]

I guess it depends on your belief in free will.

What processess of human neurology suggest that they have free will but dogs don't? Is it simply a matter of complexity?

I guess it depends on your belief in free will.

ETA: It seems pretty silly to say "humans have been molded by evolution to appeal to ... humans." As for dogs that is clearly the case. Hence the "biological robot" comment.

50% of the population has been molded by evolution to appeal to the other 50% and vice versa. Add in the emotional connection between parents and offspring, between sibling, between friends and indeed all forms of social interaction. Society is arguably a vast network of evolutionarily mandated emotional connections.

[Ken Stone]

What processess of human neurology suggest that they have free will but dogs don't? Is it simply a matter of complexity?

50% of the population has been molded by evolution to appeal to the other 50% and vice versa. Add in the emotional connection between parents and offspring, between sibling, between friends and indeed all forms of social interaction. Society is arguably a vast network of evolutionarily mandated emotional connections.

Sure, people are interdependent on each other. Doesn't that make people more valuable to other people?

BTW, I love the quote in your sig. It's going on my markerboard at work.

[Humble Asskicker]

Ken

Our relationship with our pets is one where they manipulate us emotionally, and prey upon the human tendency to anthropomorphize things. In return we feed, shelter, and protect them.

It's interesting this has popped up again. This was addressed in a recent thread by Blauer Dragon, the "Is it better to be known or understood" one. The notion of egotism was briefly addressed in that thread, by me and others.

If you get down to it, strangers, people you have never and will never meet, and done more to improve your quality of life than your dogs ever will. Do you like your electricity? It was a stranger that built the power plant. It's strangers that are running it. Your quality of life is owed to people you will never meet.

I've already addressed this.

Let's think about your dog for a second. If he were kidnapped within 1 week he would love the people who kidnapped him as fiercely as he loves you.

Depends on the strangers, I guess. I had one cat go missing. It could have been hit by a car or adopted by strangers. I hope it was adopted by strangers that love him as much as I do.

It's an equation of personalities though. Not all dogs get along with all humans. When I was a kid, I tried my best to woo the affections of one our dogs from my brother. I bribed her with food and attention, and did what I could, but the dog preferred my brother, who wasn't nearly as attentive (but was good to her). She simply preferred him for whatever her reasons.

The complexity with which we are able to observe how a dog can express itself is limited. Perhaps there behaviors hidden from are interpretation (perhaps not). And the inability to verbally communicate limits things further. Most dogs are not as intelligent or cultured as most people (the exceptions are there, but small). But then we're back to the question of prioritizing arbitrary qualities as "better" or "worse."

And really, I don't know that my dogs love me at all. I don't need them to love me in order to love them. I love who they are. Just like a parent doesn't require that their child loves them in order to care for them and strive to make their life good. In fact your child could very well hate you, and talk about nothing but how great it would be if you died horribly, and for many parents, they would still love that child, regardless. It's an emotional thing, it's not rational, but it's not "wrong."

HA - What if you had to go to the strangers funeral, look his kids in the eyes and explain why you choose your dog over their dad? Would you still choose the dog?

As I said in in my first post, I realize the consequences would be tough to deal with. It would be hard to do that. It would be harder because I doubt the child would understand my position, unorthodox as it is. Many people here are already trying to find a way to show me how blind my position is, and for the child this would be compounded by emotional turmoil.

But the heartache of that simply wouldn't compare to the heartache, for me, of losing my dog. To repeat an example, just as the heartache of losing a child simply wouldn't equal explaining to a stranger's child why you didn't save their father.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

I'd pick my dog, Bettie, but I'm not into specism.

I don't think a human is worth more than a dog. I'm sure the dog would agree if it could understand the proposition, but if you think its failure to understand reduces the value of its life, then I would have to ask you how you would choose between Joe and a mentally challenged man of Joe's exact same age. Joe vs Joe with Down's Syndrome. You all, after all, are the ones assigning greater value to intelligence, so it would seem you would all throw Joe w/DS under the bus.

To me it comes down to an issue of loyalty. If I must choose between two lives of equal value, then I'll choose the life that I have the established connection with. I know that if Bettie had to choose between Joe and I, she'd choose me, and it only seems right to return the favor.

[shootme]

The person. Everyone would save the person. Its just basic human instinct.

[The_BlauerDragon]

If you're not a troll, and I truly don't thnk you are, you might want to rethink some of your attitudes. I mean, what kind of a person values a dog's life over ANY child?

I am not a Troll.

My dog is very much a child to me. Also, she is known to me (and deeply loved by me). Random people hold no value simply because they are unknown. I was just being honest. In my order of things, I have put the health and safety of my dog before my own several times, and would do so again without question. Why then, should you expect that I would not put the health and safety of a person that I do not even know before my dog? It does not make sense. If you had to choose between Joe Schmoe and yourself can you honestly say that you would choose to be the one hit by the car?

ETA.

To me that question was easily boiled down to would you save Biological Entity x, or would you save Biological Entity y? Whereas x=a being of great importance to you, and y=a being that is completely unknown to you.

I'm a troll (I am, in fact, the Ted Kennedy of Trolls, I'm delighted to point out), but this is not one of my trollish posts. I will explain where I'm coming from.

I thought that Ted Kennedy was the Ted Kennedy of Trolls? :P

[Warg Arry]

In a situation of split second reaction. and assuming I'm capable of reacting in that moment. Save Joe Schmoe, hands down.

If I was walking down the street and came upon Joe Schmoe beating on or torturing any animal. Well there would be authority calling and BIG trouble. Not saying to the death trouble, I could never take a life. But that's still choosing an animal over a Person.

Now if Joe Schmoe broke into my house and sufficiently cause enough threat to send my dog into attack mode. Joe had a gun and dog's going for the throat. would I risk my life to get in between and stop them killing each other. depends on my reaction impulse. but I'd say probably not.

If Joe Schmoe came into my yard, say to retrieve his ball or something. and no harm was ever intended. and Dog got all territorial and attacked Joe. Well Joe gets saved and Dog will most likely be deemed dangerous. and perhaps put down as a result.

[sio]

Okay.

To start with, a human life holds no intrinsic value greater than that of a dog. There is no fundamental difference in value between their lives.

If it's *my* dog, then presumably I'm rather attached to it. But I can't let personal attachment affect a decision that will take a life. I don't consider someone close to me 'better' or more valuable than someone I've never met.

So ethically I'd be unable to take action either way; but if forced to choose, one or the other, as a sentimental being I'd choose the dog.

[Dumas]

Human, because I hate dogs. Next one that decides jumping on me is a good greeting is feeling the sole of my boot. Or would if I owned a pair.

[Relic]

seems some people are having problems with the hypothetical. ill try to make it easier.

you are locked in a room by aliens. there are two other lifeforms in the room with you. your dog, Sparky, who wags his tail at you lovingly or (your cat Lucifer), who purrs menacingly in your direction) and a random shrouded human. you pick one, the aliens flush the other out the airlock. you are not allowed to leave until you pick. if you dont pick in X amount of time they blow up the sun.

that should make things easier for you kat =P

[Paxter]

I would go for a human. Prioritising human rights has always been really important to me - IMO, humans are what makes this planet truly beautiful - not animals. Also, my carnivorous appetite leads to the death of animals all the time, so it would be pretty hypocritical for me to say that I place a high value on the lives of innocent animals.

Also, I don't buy the "some humans are more equal than others" argument. A human is a human. So if it was Cheney vs. a dog, I would say Cheney. If it was Hitler vs. a dog I would say Hitler (assuming that there was a maximum security prison awaiting him).

[sio]

If you're not a troll, and I truly don't thnk you are, you might want to rethink some of your attitudes. I mean, what kind of a person values a dog's life over ANY child?

Me. Several other boarders. A couple of philosophers (Peter Singer, for example). He's not alone.

I would go for a human. Prioritising human rights has always been really important to me - IMO, humans are what makes this planet truly beautiful - not animals. Also, my carnivorous appetite leads to the death of animals all the time, so it would be pretty hypocritical for me to say that I place a high value on the lives of innocent animals.

Also, I don't buy the "some humans are more equal than others" argument. A human is a human. So if it was Cheney vs. a dog, I would say Cheney. If it was Hitler vs. a dog I would say Hitler (assuming that there was a maximum security prison awaiting him).

I don't understand how you can justify prioritizing all humans above all nonhumans, and then saying it's impossible to prioritize among humans.

Come to think of it, I don't understand how anyone can justify this 'humans are more deserving' bullshit.

Explain please?

[Shryke]

Because humans are humans, and not animals.

[sio]

Because humans are humans, and not animals.

I see. So your answer to the question is a restatement of the premise of said question.

Looks to me like you can't justify it.

[AquariumDrinker]

I would go for a human. Prioritising human rights has always been really important to me - IMO, humans are what makes this planet truly beautiful - not animals. Also, my carnivorous appetite leads to the death of animals all the time, so it would be pretty hypocritical for me to say that I place a high value on the lives of innocent animals.

Im not picking an animal above a human, Im picking my dog. If it was a random dog vs a random person, I would choose the person.

[G'Kar]

I just beat a spider to death with my shoe, because that's how I roll. I just sneezed and killed a fly.

Some of you guys are hysterical. I hope if you were ever faced with that unlikely circumstance, you would make the only correct decision, and if not, I would hope that the family of the deceased gets revenge for you choosing your pet over their father/mother/brother/sister/son/daughter. Death Wish style.

[Shryke]

I see. So your answer to the question is a restatement of the premise of said question.

Looks to me like you can't justify it.

Ok, let's try this a different way.

Are you a vegetarian?

Is Cannibalism ok?

Do you kill pests in your home?