The Value of Life

[AverageGuy]

Gah. Thought this post just got deleted, didn't realize it was merged. People already addressed distinctions between humans, so somewhat irrelevant now.

[sio]

Some of you guys are hysterical.

Yes indeed, so hysterical that you refuse to refute or even address our arguments. You'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously.

[Relic]

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.

that's an important distinction, since it's what the question was.

[sio]

@Shryke:

Of course. You really think I could say that and not be?

No.

No.

[Shryke]

Yes indeed, so hysterical that you refuse to refute or even address our arguments. You'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously.

We did refute your argument. You just don't like the basic assumption that humans > animals. That's your problem.

@Shryke:

Of course. You really think I could say that and not be?

No.

No.

So why isn't Cannibalism ok?

[G'Kar]

So if you had a Termite infestation in your house, you would do...nothing? How do you keep out insects and mice?

Lets make this scenario even more morally clear. A a toddler and your dog run into traffic. You see a car coming. You can only save one. You've known this dog since he was a puppy. You love him. You don't know the toddler from Adam. Which one do you save?

[Paxter]

Im not picking an animal above a human

Yes, you are. Your dog is an animal.

[AverageGuy]

Random animal and random human? Random human.

Friend of mine and pet? Friend of mine.

Random human and my pet? Like Schopenhauer's dog, I would hesitate, unable to choose, and because of that hesitation ultimately watch as both died. Then I'd kill myself out of guilt.

[mashiara]

(your cat Lucifer), who purrs menacingly in your direction)

:lol: You don't give up, do you? (That's such a great name for a cat too.)

Gah, this is hard. I SO want to say I'd save Bobby and get rid of the stranger because I really love my cat, but I think it's still going to be the human. It's not going to be an easy decision though.

(Or I would be like Average Guy, hesitate until the very last minute and get us all killed in your hypothetical aliens destroying the sun scenario.)

[sio]

We did refute your argument. You just don't like the basic assumption that humans > animals. That's your problem.

No, you didn't. Your 'basic assumption' that humans > animals is the entire basis of your argument, and is the flaw in said argument. You can't make a 'basic assumption' the foundation of your argument if said assumption is nowhere near universally accepted.

So why isn't Cannibalism ok?

Um, because killing living creatures in general isn't okay?

Cannibalism is exactly as okay as eating other forms of meat.

[Paxter]

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

Because I think humans have a roughly equal intrinsic value. But humans and animals aren't equal.

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

Explain please?

Humans are more deserving because each human being is unique. They are unique in such a way that makes each of them special and valuable. Personally, I find animals to be fairly homogenous. That doesn't make animals worthless, it just makes them, well, less important to me - you can replace animals, but not humans. Take, for example, the classic case: when a kid's pet rabbit dies, the mum will often say "we'll get a new one". The kid might not be happy with the new rabbit at first, but the new rabbit is pretty much the same as the old one, so she gets over it. But if the kid's mum dies, the dad isn't going to be able to turn around and say "we'll get a new one" and the kid won't get over it so easily.

[AquariumDrinker]

Yes, you are. Your dog is an animal.

Let me be more specific, I do no value an animals life over a humans life. I am selfishly choosing my pet over the life of another human, because that one animal is more important to me than some one I do not know.

[Shryke]

This thread delivers.

Indeed.

No, you didn't. Your 'basic assumption' that humans > animals is the entire basis of your argument, and is the flaw in said argument. You can't make a 'basic assumption' the foundation of your argument if said assumption is nowhere near universally accepted.

It's .... it's pretty near universally accepted actually.

Um, because killing living creatures in general isn't okay?

Cannibalism is exactly as okay as eating other forms of meat.

Ok, do you watch your steps carefully to avoid killing insects when you walk outside?

[sio]

Because I think humans have an equal intrinsic value. But humans and animals aren't equal.

Humans are more deserving because each human being is unique. They are unique in such a way that makes each of them special. Personally, I find animals to be fairly homogenous. That doesn't make animals worthless, it just makes them, well, less important to me - you can replace animals, but not humans. Take, for example, the classic case: when a kid's pet rabbit dies, the mum will often say "we'll get a new one". The kid might not be happy with the new rabbit at first, but the new rabbit is pretty much the same as the old one, so she gets over it. But if the kid's mum dies, the dad isn't going to be able to turn around and say "we'll get a new one" and the kid won't get over it so easily.

So your justification is based on a lack of knowledge of other species? Science says they're just as unique as humans.

All idiot teenagers seem the same to me. A shooting spree sounds fun.

:rofl:

This thread delivers.

I'm glad you're amused. Now tell me why what I said is false.

Oh wait, you can't.

[sio]

Indeed.

It's .... it's pretty near universally accepted actually.

Ok, do you watch your steps carefully to avoid killing insects when you walk outside?

So were astrology and phrenology in the 18th century. And 'pretty near' isn't good enough. We seem to have a couple in this thread alone. Go read Peter Singer.

Yes.

And stop with the ad hominem. It doesn't help your argument, and it wouldn't mean anything to the reasoning if you judged me a hypocrite.

[Shryke]

Yes.

So you've never stepped on an ant by accident then?

And how do you feel about your brutal murder of plants and bacteria?

[Eurytus]

Humans are more deserving because each human being is unique. They are unique in such a way that makes each of them special and valuable. Personally, I find animals to be fairly homogenous.

You find them homogenous. That does not mean that they are.

Each dog my family has owned has been completely different to each other. Even 2 of the same breed have been complete opposites.

That doesn't make animals worthless, it just makes them, well, less important to me - you can replace animals, but not humans. Take, for example, the classic case: when a kid's pet rabbit dies, the mum will often say "we'll get a new one". The kid might not be happy with the new rabbit at first, but the new rabbit is pretty much the same as the old one, so she gets over it. But if the kid's mum dies, the dad isn't going to be able to turn around and say "we'll get a new one" and the kid won't get over it so easily.

But the dad might.

[Lord of Oop North]

Humans are greater then animals because we basically control their lives. They survive on our sufference. We can tame, breed, consume, or free them.

We are the bestest and our domination is unparalleled. Sic Semper Animalia! For the Glory of the Terran Dominion!

[Paxter]

So your justification is based on a lack of knowledge of other species? Science says they're just as unique as humans.

Science can say whatever it likes about the uniqueness of animals, sio. If there is no practical way for me to appreciate the unique characteristics of an individual animal, how can I say they are just as unique as humans? If I see a rat in my garage, it's the same to me as any other rat, no matter how unique science says the two rats are.

[sio]

So what makes humans > animals? Is it the fact that we have weapons and can kill everyone else? Simply the power differential?

ETA: @Paxter:

You can listen to what science says. They are as unique as humans; the fact that you can't appreciate it is your problem, not theirs.