Are humans more valuable than animals? Why, or why not?
If humans are more valuable, why? How do you justify this assertion? Any justification seems to have unacceptable ethical consequences. For instance, is it due to their (relative lack of) intelligence? Then, human value must also be gradated on the basis of intelligence, and from there we arrive at eugenics.
But then, are they of equal value? This too seems completely intolerable. Imagine a mom who has a terminally ill child and poodle, with money to treat only one. She treats the poodle. Who wouldn't be disgusted by this choice? Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable.
But then, are they of equal value? This too seems completely intolerable. Imagine a mom who has a terminally ill child and poodle, with money to treat only one. She treats the poodle. Who wouldn't be disgusted by this choice? Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable.
Comments (93)
I think value is based in emotion, and therefore irrational by definition. Therefore it’s subjective, and how much value something, or someone, has is impossible to measure objectively. So justification, at least the rational kind, is not applicable.
As to your poodle example; it is general expected that mothers will love their children above all others. What if the choice as to who to treat was between her child and some other child who happened to be temporarily in her foster care? Would the reaction not be the much the same if she chose the foster child?
Anyway humans do generally, rightly or wrongly, accord more value to humans than they do to other animals.
This is the problem with trying to use logic as a base for morality as if it's a purely intellectual idea. There is no concrete logic to morality, there is no concrete logic to value - they are the result of the desires, feelings, emotions, interpretations of humans - or a human. Since it is closely tied to emotion and psychology, that's where to look for what makes something moral. If people don't feel anything when watching a bug die, killing one isn't evil, if seeing a baby die has you in tears then killing one is absolutely unforgivable. Likewise, if you see a whale as a tasty dinner then killing one isn't immoral, if whales are beautiful and majestic creatures and the thought of them being killed horrifies you then killing one is immoral. It's pretty much that simple, although, there are exceptions to the rule, not many.
'More valuable' is already a loaded question. What value do you put on a human life? You're allowed to buy and sell pets, you're allowed to hunt animals and eat them. Sure, there are those who say that hunting ought to be illegal and the people ought to be vegans, but there are no such laws in reality in most cultures.
Quoting hypericin
Who maintains the 'equality of humans and animals' - well, apart from fanatical animal liberationists?
In any case, humans are persons, and are the subject of rights. Again, animal rights activists say that animals have rights, but whilst I can agree that animals should always be treated humanely, I think that rights are only meaningful to beings that are capable of exercising free choice.
There are not many who would claim that an animal has the same status as a human, partly on a basis of human exceptionalism, but also from the belief that humans, on account of greater neurological complexity, experience (emotional) suffering to a greater level than animals. Including a greater experience of loss and tragedy for the family and friends of the human who dies.
Mother or no (imagine your poodle vs the live of someone else's child), the choice of the animal seems monstrous.
Are you asking if those who organised the Holocaust thought their actions were morally abhorrent? Isn't it self-explanatory by the fact they organised it that the people in charge didn't think that?
Various countries have different estimates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Estimates_of_the_value_of_life
Quoting Wayfarer
Reasonable people argue against anthropocentrism. Moreover the point of my post is that both answers to the question seem untenable
Quoting Wayfarer
So then human rights rests on the philosophically very shaky foundation of free will? Becuase otherwise animals seem to move about as freely as we do.
They move around fine, but they don't consider their options, post on philosophy forums, or wonder about the meaning of it all.
I'm always amused by the 'anthropocentrism' argument.
As I already said: Quoting Janus
All animals favour their own kind over other kinds. What more is there to say about the matter? Well, it's quite possible that a person could love, for example, a dog more than they love any other being, human or otherwise, and in that case the dog would have more value to them than any other being, human or otherwise. People often spend a lot more money paying for veterinary treatments for their pets than they would dream of spending to save any stranger. This is not generally considered abnormal as far as I am aware.
I don't buy into the argument that, because we are rational beings, we have more intrinsic value than other kinds of animals; I don't see how that follows. Value is in the eye of the valuer, nowhere else, and so of course it's going to be a general rule that people value people the most, and obviously some people will have, for any given individual, more value, even much more value, than others.
That said, all people have, and I think should have (in principle at least), equal value before the law, but that is a different matter.
I'm going to take a Darwinian stance on this. Let's begin...
Our journey will start from our stomachs - what does it look like it's designed to process (digest)? The vermiform appendix, vestigial in the human, indicates that we probably began as herbivores and at some point our diet began to include meat, of other species and likely our own (cannibalism).
Food is, whatever else it might be, that which keeps us alive - its importance can't be overstated. Given this, animals as akin to second-class citizens, of the biosphere - to be exploited to the hilt - seems baked into the very biology of the human species. That, in modern language, means no rights for animals and that their moral status is precisely determined, in a digestive context, as none, nil, N/A.
Enter the brain...the brain, possessed of reasoning, realized quite early on that something about our attitude and behavior towards animals just didn't add up. For instance, we founded morality on suffering/happiness and that, we later discovered, was equally applicable to animals as well. If we were supposed to be good towards each other because we could be happy or we could suffer, we, for that very reason, should also be good towards animals. The logic is inescapbale. Our journey has now ended at our brains.
This is probably not the best picture of humanity but pictures are, by nature, static and fail to do justice to the fluid and dynamic quality that defines life - perhaps the future will judge humanity differently, not as a tyrannical hypocrite that we are today but as pioneers of the moral universe, losing one's way, taking chances, killing, raping, plundering, looting, came with the territory, were part of the job description of pioneers. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope what started off bad will end well for all of us.
. No ...
. Man is not more valuable than animals ...
. Why would man ... whose nature is animalistic ... whose nature is like a seed, a potencial, a Lotus flower ... ready to open it's thousand petals ... be more valuable than animals?
. In fact ... Let us go deeper and deeper ...
. Man ... as such ... is an animal. Man's nature is not yet human beings nature ... because ... to be a human being ... you must know how to be ... rather of thinking what you would like to be ... or what you were ... right? Rather of thinking in terms of your past and in terms of your future ... Rather of thinking How to do ... instead of thinking ... How to be ... and ... What to be. You don't even know How to be in this cosmic universe ... and even then ... you want to know How to do ... and ... What do you want to do ... if you don't even know ... How to be? ...
. All the animals know how to be ... just man ... as an animal ... is ignorant about his own nature ...
. Unless you're absolutely aware that this - the only place ... and now - the only time ... you will never be a human being ... despite having the potential for it ...
And your point?
Are you saying that there is an objective way to measure value? Or are you just searching for a subjective answer? If so, then I’ll oblige.
Quoting hypericin
Because humans mean more to me than animals. At least usually that’s the case.
Quoting hypericin
I don’t. It’s simply a fact of my being.
They aren't.
Quoting hypericin
I don't.
Quoting hypericin
I distinguish between domesticated animals and wild animals. Domesticated animals are, to me, extensions of us. So, if we re-word the analysis to say "wolf" instead of "poodle" we arrive at the real dilemma for me.
You use the term "valuable." Value can be subjective, or cultural, or evolutionary, or monetary, or god knows what else. Which one presents a more substantial, credible threat to me and mine? Which one presents a more substantial, credible threat to the essential workers I find convenient to rely upon? Clearly, the wolf is more innocuous on both counts. From a market standpoint of supply and demand, with 7.5 billion homo sap, I'd say we are a dime a dozen.
If you consider Scalia's concentric circles of care, then, contrary to what he probably thought, it becomes clear that that which is closer in may actually deserve less care than that which is, at least ostensibly, at first blush, further out. I'm pretty sure a snail darter in some stream some where is better for me and humanity at large than is, say, another bawling brat somewhere getting ready to stick a big, sloppy, rude, inconsiderate, disrespectful footprint into the middle of the Earth's back.
There is an orgy of reason, caring and might, which engenders a concept which justifies "progress" at the expense of all else. This concept is the supreme and overriding sanctity of human life. So sacred has this concept become that in some circles it even reigns over the quality of life itself, nothing withstanding.
The sanctity of human life is shown in many ways, not the least of which is our preoccupation with "safety". Safety for our children who will not know the true essence of adventure; safety for ourselves so we lose our ability to deal with adversity; and safety for others so our insurance rates stay low enough that we can afford to pay for our safety. This preoccupation is epitomized by the statement "Let’s all play safe together".
An objective look at our condition would reveal a constant, overwhelming, unsolicited celebration of humanity. Life has been an unbroken exaltation of the accomplishments of man. It has been nothing but us walking around patting ourselves on the back and raving about the qualities that we supposedly have by choice or character. We give ourselves credit for breathing and existence deserves a medal. The examples are endless. From the "courageous" infant, born with a handicap, a warrior against the odds in a cold cruel world, to the resilient community bouncing back from a flood, as if they had a choice. Local T.V. news stations are famous for fostering this crap. Next to the last fleeting seconds of Sunday Morning, and a trip to the wilderness now and then, when do we ever do anything that is not absorbed in "us"? Even adulation for the natural world is usually tainted by anthropomorphism or artistic impression.
In light of these circumstances, it is no wonder that man has had the "progress" that he has experienced. As long as people pay at least superficial heed to the golden rule, and avoid "unsociable conduct", they can do no wrong. If they can couch their actions in terms of their own or another's benefit then it will be acceptable.
Personally, this “Up Up With People” shit gets me nauseous. If we're so great we would not shit in our nest. So yeah, bring on the wolf and let him at the poodle.
Only if we've established that humans must be gradated by the same criteria or standards as animals. But it doesn't look like we've arrived there quite yet.
I have another thought. Suppose Darwinian survival advantages include all primates (which'n theory they do). And suppose that those advantages are intrinsically baked into emergent properties (genetically coded). Then suppose that there are mistakes (whatever that means, but just for thought experiment purposes) where some primates get to have something more in the way of self-awareness and intellect.
That being said, why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? Why should we care?
Though seemingly absurd on the surface, are those questions reasonable (treating like cases likely; different cases differently)? And if they are absurd, why?
We do.
Quoting 3017amen
We do.
Quoting 3017amen
Because an abundance of food allows us to think we are different, and better.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes.
Quoting 3017amen
They are not absurd.
Whenever an invasive species enters a new territory, it has a honeymoon period where food is not an issue. Indigenous species suffer, of course, and often go extinct, but eventually there is, as Wall Street would call it, "an adjustment" or "correction" and sometimes there is a lot of bouncing until things settle. We, with our self-awareness and intellect, have been pushing the due date out and extending the honeymoon period. We are not on the ground yet so we think we are flying. But that is yet to be determined. We could wake up one day and find the decrease in biodiversity has cut our own throat. We weren't flying after all; we were falling and just hadn't hit the ground yet. That's why some have their eye on outer space.
Anyway, on the micro scale, it's been proven, time and again, that people will indeed kill each other for food. Take the food away and a whole host of modern problems (like depression, boredom, etc.) go away and things get real again.
But maybe there were mistakes where some primates (us for example) got to have something less; where we are missing something, and that is why we don't fit in with all the other creatures, why we are never sated, why we never stop.
I always wondered, if those we perceive to be so wise were really wise (and somehow came upon the secrets of life), why don't they share? If you are sitting on a mountain top in Tibet, all alone, and have figured something out, why not come down and let us all in on the secret? Wouldn't we have world peace and kumbha ya and all that shit?
I then try to conjure up the logical arguments they may have for not sharing. And I get it. And that brings me back to animals. They are just like the wise guy on the hill top. If they know so much, if they are closer to god, if they are tuned in, if they know their place in the order of things, then why then don't they let us in on it? I get why they don't. I'm not as wise as they are, but I get why they don't feel it is incumbent upon them, necessary, or even helpful to try and explain to an idiot, an idiot whose missing the right evolutionary outcomes to comprehend, what the secret of life is.
Animals go about their lives, and if they give us a thought, that thought contains none of the anthropomorphic "feelings" that we would impute to them about us. If they gave us a thought it would be something akin to "Live!" And if and when we ever figure it out, like the guy on the hill top, their simple thought would be "Welcome!"
If they would, they might feel sorry for us, or wish we knew what they knew. But I think they are too busy living, and living in grace. And by living, and living in grace, they are leading by example; they are showing us, they are telling us what we want to know. It's just that we don't know how to listen.
In what ways? For instance, are you suggesting thatall humans should kill each other to achieve social dominance? And of so, why aren't we all doing that during procreation activities?
And if only some of us are, then it begs the question why not all?
Quoting James Riley
Really? This seems to make me think of cannibalism. Now that we've gotten past any absurdity, why is cannibalism wrong? For instance, since you said 'yes' to that question ( in your reply), it seems we are stuck with using logic to justify that behavior... (?) .
Quoting James Riley
James, I'm not following you on that one. Can you provide a short example that would elucidate this need to be different? You have replied in the affirmative that these questions are reasonable, thank you. Please share your theory.
Quoting James Riley
I'm sorry James, perhaps I'm missing the obvious. What are you trying to argue?
Quoting James Riley
Okay that's something to work with. Are you saying we have been remiss or negligent in not properly endorsing societal cannibalism of sorts (because we don't see that happening on a large scale)?
Too, why do you feel there are "problems" (what are these problems/what do they consist of)? For example, in your suppositions, if there is a minimal amount of food resources, we still have other people to kill in order to satisfy those needs, so no problem there. And if you are thinking that 'real problems' consist of sentient things like boredom, depression, etc., would that not square with your theories of not valuing human quality of life impulses? In other words, you would not be consistent in your theory that we should value the need to kill each other for food, because sentience and quality of life concerns should be irrelevant there.
Please correct me, but that's my takeaway from your suppositions.
You dragged in the words "all" and "should" which distracted from your first question "in what ways?" To that, I say look around you: Most conflict is either over food, or the conflict is over secondary considerations permitted by an abundance of food.
Quoting 3017amen
Ah, I see: When you saw the words "kill each other for food" you thought "eat each other." Rethink that. We don't eat each other for food. But we kill each other for food.
Quoting 3017amen
I did.
Quoting 3017amen
Spend some more time with it. I went back and checked it and it's pretty clear. Perhaps it's like your cannibal mistake.
But your theory states that we should, no?
I guess your specific theory then, using your sense of logic, would not support Darwinism. Thanks, I got my answer.
No. Take humans off the plate. Look at animals only. Eating members of their own species is either an aberration within species, or species specific. Most mammals don't go around eating each other for food. They do, however, fight each other for food all the time. Do you see the difference between fighting for food, over food, and eating each other?
Quoting 3017amen
Wrong. It falls four-square within Darwinism.
That's the glaring problem with your argument, right? I haven't eliminated humans from the equation, and you didn't either from your theory. That's one reason why I said:
Quoting James Riley
And so, in reference to the OP, you haven't been able to make the correlation between human value systems and other primates. You must incorporate humans for your theory to wash or become clear, and otherwise for your logic to follow.
Are we not back to the justification for why the treatment of humans and animals should be different? You're saying that they/there shouldn't be.
Yes, animals live life much better than we do, with much greater inherent wisdom. If that ability to live well were the metric of value, then animals would be more valuable than we are. But animals just are what they are; they too will indiscriminately over-breed and use up all available resources if the situation enables it, and then their populations will be decimated when resources run out, just like what will inevitably happen to us.
We are different only insofar as we are self-conscious, have language which enables culture, history, the arts, science and all the rest that goes along with being discursively self-conscious. We are. most likely, the only beings who conceive of value at all, as opposed to simply living it, and we often end up up with little but dis-value and cold calculation.
We would if food was not abundant. It's not a matter of "should care". but " do care" or "don't care", which largely depend on what we can afford to care about, or at least pay lip;service to caring about.
Hi Janus!
Long time no talk hope you are doing well!
Of course we have some unfortunate history to reflect on here. For instance we know in the 17th century during the founding of Jamestown there were horrid acts of cannibalism, as a substitute for a lack of food during that winter crises.
That being said, have you thought thru the supposition insofar as extending it to a value system that supports cannibalism?
I think there are at least two issues to parse there:
1. Is it normal for most people to feel guilty about engaging in cannibalistic acts.
2. Is it normal for most people to gravitate toward eating the meat of humans.
Those questions may seem rhetorical, but un covering simple human motivations for basic needs might shed light on why we are valued more that other primates.
In the spirit of the OP's example, so far what I'm hearing is it doesn't matter whether we kill the poodle or the human in order to survive. Primates are primates, otherwise lower life forms/animals (?).
I am, unfortunately, forced to agree with your post. But as to the value part, I guess it all depends upon how value is defined or perceived. I know animals conceive of value as I do, at least in many respects.
No, it's not. My argument is sound. I only took humans off the plate which I was proving we were on, simply to try and help you with your mistaken assumption about cannibalism. Animals, like people, are not prone to it. So you see, when you said:
Quoting 3017amen
you obviously had it in your mind "why shouldn't we eat each other for food in order to survive?" But that is not what you said. You said "why shouldn't we kill each other for food . . ." And I said we do. I don't know if you are being purposely obtuse, of if you still don't get the distinction. I hope you do. Humans kill each other for food. Or do you deny this? Literally, wars have been fought over it. And it falls four-square within the Darwin's theory.
Quoting 3017amen
I did exactly that. You misattributed to me an argument about cannibalism that I did not make. I tried to show you that animals alone are no more prone to cannibalism that we are. Thus, we are back to being alike.
Quoting 3017amen
I know. And I did. I only parsed out animals to show you their disinclination toward cannibalism was like ours.
Quoting 3017amen
We are back to that (and never should have left, but-for your introduction of cannibalism as some strange deflection). And yes, I am saying that they/there shouldn't be. So, if you go back and read my response to the OP, before your cannibalism BS, you will see my argument has been "no difference," and "Darwin applies," and "same value" (if not more value accorded to animals). I hope that's clear enough for you. In short, we are animals.
I posted a separate post regarding the idea that, rather than us having something, we might be missing something, but that post was unrelated to anything you have brought up and was only addressed by Janus.
Quoting 3017amen
I think most humans are instinctively repulsed by the thought of eating human flesh. But any of us might do it in circumstances of dire hunger. Eating the flesh of those who have already died in some disaster scenario is one thing, killing others to feed ourselves is another. Can any of us reliably know what we would do in dire circumstances, sitting pretty with food aplenty as we are at present?
Valuable has many different meanings, and does not necessarily equates to morally right. For instance, financially valuable things and actions are not always right. There are different social valuable things and actions, and there are also personal ones.
"Depending on what aspects something is more valuable", must be added in the question to get the answers.
Maybe it costed $50 to treat the poodle in the local vet? Whereas the terminally ill child has been told there is no cure (that is what terminally ill means?) by the doctors?
A human being is more valuable to me because I am a human being. That is the worth I assign, any attempt to standardise it comes up against the fact that Value is not a static rock wall.
That which makes us different does not make us separate; nor does it make us better. If we think the way we think makes us separate, it makes us mistaken. If we think the way we think makes us better, it makes us mistaken.
Just as the blind person may receive a boost in other sense(s), so too, our differences have given us a boost here and there. But we are still animals. Thinking that our thinking makes us separate, or better, not only makes us mistaken, it makes us more desperate. And that is the reason we are the way we are.
All this reminds me of a poem I wrote some 25 years ago, for child who had just be born, named Colter:
When you get older you will discover a flaw
You are sorely lacking in tooth and claw
You will also find you are pink and bare
Sorely lacking in fur and hair
But wobbling atop that tiny frame
You will also find a great big brain
If properly used it will suffice
To makes some cloths and a great big knife
So you might trek cross Colter's Hell
And return to us with stories to tell
You'll also return with wisdom learned
From those who live there on Her terms
Poor creatures.
It is. That is the desperation I referred to, manifesting itself. Sometimes the life of quiet desperation (H.D. Thoreau) is not so quiet.
Jose Ortega yGasset:
"In the preoccupation with doing things as they should be done - which is morality - there is a line past which we begin to think that what is purely our whim or mania is necessary. We fall, therefore, into a new immorality, into the worst of all, which is a matter of not not knowing those very conditions without which things cannot be. This is mans supreme and devastating pride, which tends not to accept limits on his desires and supposes that reality lacks any structure of it's own which may be opposed to his will. This sin is the worst of all, so much so that the question of whether the content of that will is good or bad completely loses importance in the face of it. If you believe you can do whatever you like - even, for example, the supreme good, then you are, irretrievably a villain. The preoccupation with what should be is estimable only when respect for what is has been exhausted." [Emphasis added]
Fantastic quote. And nature is replying.
But we're still not listening enough.
I have to ask, do we ever know enough to know that what is has been exhausted? There's an awful lot to know about what is, it seems to me.
Then go and figure out how much a cow is worth, a deer, a dog, a dingleberry, etc. The prices of these can be obtained at point of sale prices.
This way you get a much more reliable metric for your valuation scheme than trying to decide whether a poodle is worth more than a kid, or an intelligent carrot should be priced higher than donald trump.
* randomized plot design == a mathematical arrangement and processing of measurements used in Statistical analysis.
I think we will know when we miss it, when we hunger for it, when we die because of it's absence.
I think yGasset can be tricky and has to be read in context. In a book on hunting, one of my favorite quotes has to do with man's need to divert himself from life. Out of context, and with our modern, "sporting" view, I at first thought he might be talking of hunting as the diversion. But what he's really saying is that hunting is life; hunting is "what is", and our other pursuits are the diversion. Likewise, in the quote you are talking about, his use of the words "should be" is referencing our subjective, mistaken, desperate desire as what we think we want, and not an empirical, objective "should." The empirical, objective should is, of course, the "what is" that he refers to. Our dissatisfaction with what is is manifest in our desperate acts.
"What is" is all around us and, rather than trying to "know" all about it through some cognitive, analytical, critical, scientific dissection of it, it can better be known by living it, by being it. A first step in the journey is to not perceive of ourselves as separate, but merely different, and then observing, and entering into a relationship with what is. In his example, that relationship is the hunt.
Quoting Manuel
:100:
That makes sense. Diversions should be taken into the proper context I think, not necessarily ignored altogether, they are part of the experience of hunting, I would think, though not the main point.
While I say this and agree with you, on the other hand, so many people are hurting. If you can't put food on the table - the fact that the planet is burning and will lead to unimaginable horror, sooner rather than later - the rest can't be that important to you cause' you're starving.
So many problems. I do think we have some rather unique capacities compared to other animals, especially when it comes to imagination, creativity and being able to think and analyze our thoughts. But we also capable of such evil that no other animal could possible hope to match in a million years.
So yes, I'm torn. :joke:
You may not need to dig through a bunch of case law. When I practiced, I remember the State Worker's Compensation outfit actually had a formal, written, publicly available (but of course, not widely advertised) valuation module for pretty much everything, from a little toe to a big toe to an arm, a leg, an eye, a life, etc. In my exceeding naivety, I was shocked to find out such a thing existed. But, I was young, and dumber than I am now.
Anyway, if one wants to use our subjective, mercenary metric of value, money is there. I don't agree with it, but it's there.
Yep. An old man who costs more than he contributes, or a baby that has potential, but it's speculative, a wage earner, etc. Crazy shit. By that metric alone, I could hunt a person down, kill them, gut them, skin them, quarter them, have them mounted on my wall and enjoy the trophy while dining over a plate of them. If anyone had a problem with it, I'd just pay them $X.XX and we'd all be good. Oh boy, man may not be separate, but he sure is different.
Not sure where the disconnect is, but that's ok. This seems to keep rearing its head, but it's precisely on point. And that is, you haven't made the distinction as to why we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people for food. Did I miss your argument there?
Quoting James Riley
True and false. True in the sense that people don't; false in the sense that not all animals don't. Obviously not all animals are carnivorous.
Quoting James Riley
We're not talking about wars, people fighting over food resources, etc..
Quoting James Riley
Thanks James. Unfortunately it's not clear. You haven't proven how that squares with human value systems. Did you?
You seem to be back to arguing 'hey we are simply all animals and our human value systems are no different'. Then when I ask you for examples, you can't support the argument, only by saying, we act like all of them and are just like them for some unknown Darwinian reason. And that's false of course.
Honestly, am I missing your point?
Sure. we don't typically gravitate to such behavior. And of course, those types of barbaric acts in most cases depend upon the individual's value system. And that's whether or not they're starving. It just depends on the person.
I guess we are back to the cannibalism thing. Okay, we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people *to eat* for the same reason that animals generally don't. Regardless of what that reason is, that makes us more like animals, not less. Which was the entire point of my response to the OP and you. But, if we want to digress and speculate as to the reason why (which is irrelevant) I suppose it's because evolution decided that humans eating humans resulted in things like spongiform encephalopathy, or a compounding of toxins, or extinction due to eating each other until there is only one left and no one to breed with.
Quoting 3017amen
No, not "true and false." I said prone. There are animals, some fish for example, that eat their own as a matter of course. Others will when starving (as will people). But I have specifically and pointedly been talking in generalities in the hopes that you would not parse that hair. Woe is me.
Quoting 3017amen
Uh, yes, we were. That is the lesson I tried to teach you about the difference between "killing other people for food" (which is what you said) and "killing other people to eat them" (which is apparently what you meant). We kill each other for food all the time. Wars have been fought over it.
Quoting 3017amen
I did. But apparently it's over your head.
Quoting 3017amen
I'm not sure if you are, or if you're just trolling me. I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt,
1. We are animals. Do you dispute that?
2. The OP was about value, not difference. We have two legs, not four. We are different. Doh! The question is, do our differences make us more or less valuable. I said no. If you have a problem with that, then argue it. Don't line out a false dichotomy based on cannibalism.
3. I gave you examples of how we are animals.
4. I argued why we are no more valuable than animals.
5. You have failed to demonstrate how animal value systems differ among species. They don't. Even if they did, that would not make us more valuable than them.
James!
That's exactly what I'm arguing. You are thinking it's a digression. It's not. It should be an integral part of your theory. Right?
As such, you are now "speculating" that evolution decided that we should not eat other humans. How does that work(?). Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing.
Quoting James Riley
And so are you suggesting then we should rightfully kill the poodle as posited in the OP?
Quoting James Riley
...far from it, I'm making you think through your theory, and poking holes in it accordingly. Hence my answers:
1. Based upon your theory, yes.
2. Agreed, and you haven't argued for value. You only said we are like lower life forms and kill each other for resources (wars). I get that part.
3. They are not germane to value systems from higher consciousness/humans
4. You did, but it fell short. It didn't incorporate value systems, other than acts of violence and other barbaric behavior.
5. I simply asked why, in your theory of evolution, we are still not eating each other for food like some other animals do. If we are no different, as you claim, then you should be able to tell me why, how and by what method did that evolve.
Then I guess you should have said " . . . kill to eat each other . . ." instead of " . . . kill each other for food. . . ." But I'm glad we're past that.
Quoting 3017amen
It was, because it's irrelevant.
Quoting 3017amen
It is.
Quoting 3017amen
Wrong. It's irrelevant to the valuation of humans vice non-humans.
Quoting 3017amen
The only reason I was speculating was to humor your irrelevant digression. If you don't know how evolution works, get a book. If you want to attach "value", or call them "value systems" then that which is found "valuable" is a random mutation or genetic accident that survived. But this is all irrelevant to the question of whether animals or humans have more value.
Quoting 3017amen
"Rightfully" has nothing to do with it. If you're hungry, you're going to do what evolution geared you to do. The poodle will do the same.
Quoting 3017amen
Then support your argument.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, I have. I've argued that one is no more valuable than the other. Pay attention.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, they are. They demonstrate the lack of value distinction.
Quoting 3017amen
It did not fall short. It didn't incorporate value systemS (plural) because one is no more valuable than the other.
Quoting 3017amen
This is the first time you've asked that, but now that you seem to get the difference between killing for food and killing to eat, I will humor you: You make a false distinction when you say "like some other animals do" as if no other animals don't, as if we are unique in the animal kingdom. We are not. On the one hand, we will eat each other if it comes down to it and, on the other hand, there are omnivores and carnivores that don't. Human reticence to eat other humans is not unique in the animal kingdom. In fact, it's the norm. While many predators kill other predators, just like we kill other humans, they don't consume them unless, like us, they are starving. Cats don't eat cats. Wolves don't eat wolves. The list goes on. But the point here is, your search for evidence that one animal is more valuable than another will fail, save some subjective analysis that is not intra or interspecific.
So, if you want to distinguish between animals that are cannibals as a matter of course, then you need not compare them to humans. You can compare them to other animals that don't cannibalize as a matter of course. The latter is the norm and thus any alleged distinction between value systems or value is irrelevant. Hell, in honor of the OP, substitute poodle with some fish that cannibalizes all the time. So what? One is not more valuable than the other. They are what they are.
Quoting 3017amen
We are no different, as I claim. The why, how and method are the same how, why and method of other animals. Evolution. Darwin. I'm not a biologist. We're talking about value.
In many ways it seems that the only immoral - and thus at least slightly moral - species in the world are us humans. This doesn't directly answer the OP, but it seems that in some senses our species really is unique, for better and for worse. I don't see much inherent value in this teeming life here, though obviously this evolutionary anarchy seems better than lifelessness, but there seems to be so much unfair and utterly cruel things in the nature. Would it maybe be moral to interfere with them?
Then, how did we stop this practice through evolution?
Quoting James Riley
I don't know what that means. Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing. Thank you.
Quoting James Riley
But other species do. Hence my original question to you in support of your evolutionarily argument.
Quoting James Riley
That's your job. You made the claim, I didn't. Didn't you posit evolution as your justification?
Quoting James Riley
What does that mean?
Quoting James Riley
We might be getting somewhere. How does human's value systems arise from evolution?
If we're no different, we should not care about killing the OP poodle under any circumstance, right?
I know this may seem frustrating, but you can't say something is so without justifying your position.
Who said it ever started?
Quoting 3017amen
If you don't know what it means, then don't use the words and phrases. They are yours. I was trying to humor you. You brought up "random mutations and genetic accidents." That's evolution and, normally, unrelated to values or value systems. But, since you brought them up in this thread about values, I tried to stretch for you and figure that random mutations and genetic accidents" are valuable and thus might transmogrify (in your mind) into some kind of value judgement. But yeah, that's on you.
Quoting 3017amen
So compare those other species to cats and wolves. You see how humans are not unique on the cannibalism front?
Quoting 3017amen
No, it's not my job. It's your job. You brought up evolution, you tried to tie value to evolution, you seem to be trying to get me to say one (human or non-human) is more valuable than the other. This is what happens to you when you can't keep your eye on the ball, can't express yourself clearly, and engage in digression.
Quoting 3017amen
It's self evident. We evolved to what we are now, as did everything else.
Quoting 3017amen
Lead with that next time. The same way animal value systems arise from evolution. See above.
Quoting 3017amen
Wrong. Circumstances can control. If we are hungry and want to eat the poodle, we will kill it. If we perceive the poodle to be competing for resources with us, we will kill it. If it's annoying us, we will kill it. This analysis applies to the wolf - poodle relationship to.
Quoting 3017amen
It's frustrating because I have justified my position, repeatedly. So much so that I will, from here on out, simply say the record speaks for itself. Unless and until you broach a new issue, you must seek any further answers to your question by going back and re-reading the thread. In fact, as your new teacher, I hereby give you this assignment: Go back, re-read the thread, and make my argument for me. At that point I will be able to discern the sincerity of your curiosity.
I think that values are subjective and thus relative to an individual and that whatever particular socio-cultural structures around them largely influence what they value. I do not think values are necessarily based on reason, though we seem to derive at least some values from reason. I think that non-human animals have sufficient moral worth to not breed them into an existence exploitation or slaughter them for food. Though, this is only my opinion. I cannot and rightfully should not be able to dictate the value judgments of others. I can perhaps introduce others to facts they may not have otherwise known and from there maybe reason from their values to reveal absurdities or contradictions entailed by the logic of their position. Similarly, it seems, have you discovered this feature of moral reasoning between human and non-human animals as well.
Quoting hypericin
This is similar to the tactic used by the argument from marginal cases by Peter Singer, and the name the trait argument from Isaac Brown, insofar as it provides a demonstration of the cognitive dissonance an individual may suffer from when taking the position that humans have sufficient moral worth that we won't kill them for food but that non-human animals, however, do not. The dissonance comes in whenever we try to identify the key traits (or sets of predicates) true of non-human animals that if true of humans would justify the same treatment an because there is no reasonable set of criteria for moral worth that completely divorces humans from non-human animals, we are left with either an absurdity or a logical contradiction.
There is a practical way around this problem I believe. If we predicate moral worth upon the property of sentience, and try and to extend basic rights to all conscious beings capable of having a subjective experience, then most of the absurdities are avoided. I like to define veganism as:
I think my view is consistent and tenable insofar as it would entail only mild, if any, reductio ad absurdum. Do you think otherwise?
Good question.
Quoting James Riley
Yep. And that's what you failed to include in your theory. Sorry.
Quoting James Riley
Not at all. As I said, you failed to include the distinction.
Quoting James Riley
What do 'circumstances' mean? Is that a value judgement?
And if it is, why should we be discouraged from eating dogs? Did evolution tell us to? How so?
Quoting James Riley
I did. But your theory of evolution still lacks the justification necessary for the complexities of human behavior. Sorry.
I'm sorry you did not complete your assignment. Sigh. I can lead you to knowledge but I can't make you think. Sorry.
My assignment was completed :joke:
You weren't able to make your case about the differences between animal behavior and human behavior, much less human value judgements. I called you to task, and you just basically said, it is what it is. That doesn't wash in Philosophy.
Until next time!
Actually, no it wasn't. You got an F. You failed to make my case for me, which would have demonstrated your comprehension of what I said. Your failure makes clear that you either did not read, or did not comprehend. I called you to task, and you just basically said I failed to break through your ignorance. That doesn't wash in Philosophy.
Until next time!
Hahaha! Don't take it personal :wink:
Otherwise, you might want to consider working on your people/emotional skills... . Oops, oh yeah, forgot, you're not human; according to your philosophy you're no different than an animal!!
So much for your theory :joke:
LOL
I don't. I'm used to it.
Quoting 3017amen
We're drifting off topic now, but since we are offering critique, you might want to spend a little more time formulating your questions. You know, rather than a rapid-fire slinging of shit on the wall to see what sticks, actually think about how you're formulating/asking of a question might solicit an answer that genuine intellectual curiosity would seek. Refinement might also avoid confusion, digression and misunderstanding. Try to find the "lead" from the get-go, rather than spending pages of two ships passing in the night. And then lead with that.
Carry on.
So... what's stopping you?
Wow. that's precisely what you did James !
How about this, just to show you I'm not blowing smoke, I'll offer you an olive branch. If you're so convinced you made a persuasive enough case, then start a thread and I'll be glad to debate you! Otherwise, I see you descending into a pit of ad hominem and/or getting way off topic here because of some emotional trip. (In other words, using logic, let's put your comments to the test!)
Alternatively, though at the risk of redundancy, you may want to consider your people (oops) animal skills here :joke:
"The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
How about you accept your assignment?
Quoting 3017amen
What's even worse than ad hominem is the anti-intellectual passive aggressive BS; and what's even worse than that is when you get some of your own medicine, you can't handle it. What does Philosophim have to say about your tactics?
You know what your assignment is. If you want to regain your credibility, do your work. Remember, you have to convince me you understand my clear argument (even if you disagree with it) before I can trust that you are not a mere troll and a waste of my time.
Last chance.
$ and the fact that $ in equity is not the criminal law.
Times change. People don't. History repeats itself, if you wait long enough. The more things change, the more things remain the same... because the common denominator is the human spirit.
I agree: our separation from the animal world is only a conceptual distinction, our superiority is also merely conceptual. We are conceptual beings, we inhabit narrative, inevitably. That constitutes a little difference between us and the other animals, which has grown into a vast gulf, at least on the side of wisdom, if not visceral actuality.
We are the way we think we are, insofar as our thinking, our narratives, determine how we live. But that power of self-determining narrative is only possible when resources are abundant; as scarcity grows the predominance of the survival imperative will reassert itself, and then we will see how little difference there really is between us and the other animals.
You don't know that, in the extremity of desperate hunger, you would still not eat human flesh; no one does. You can't know that unless you've been in the situation.
Beyond the point in terms of cosmic value, ill bet its equal. Everything that exists is to do something and the absolute has a bet on everyone as long as you are in the universe you are "valuable".
Regards of ethical problem who to treat a child or dog, humans are social creatures it's part of us most reasoning comes from having to make a choice and not wanting, it's one side effect of being social creatures, it's just how universe is playing it's cards right now, there is no right or wrong only what could further enhance universe and right now it's cure the child.
Look beyond yourself.
fide
These, and many others, have not changed since the first human family, mutations from the pre-human ape ancestors, touched the ground.
Of course, I was not there when this happened 200-300 years ago, but the people on the south east pacific islands, who seemed to have forged societies from scratch within a handful of generations ago, give a good example how these things are done similarly to modern man's life.
I am on a different opinion. All species produce the protein string that causes the Mad Cow Disease when they eat the proteins of their own species.
So it was an evolutionary mutation that stopped cannibalism. Those species that stopped cannibalism, had a better chance of survival, because the mad cow disease would strike less often. And those stopped cannibalism, which had a gene mutation that made cannibalism no longer a practice.
We still have cannibal behaviour in individuals who are not forced by extreme hunger or exposure to eat human flesh for survival. This is so because a counter-mutation may have counter-effected the no-cannibal behavour. More likely, there is no suriving individual with the anti-anti-cannibal gene; but the gene's dna was kinked at that section that contains the anti-cannibal (for short,) and it had no chance of affecting the cannibal person's behaviour.
That's a sweeping claim; do you have evidence to back it up? I have heard of a tribe in New Guinea who consumed their dead (out of love and respect and to save them from being consumed by maggots). Some people of this tribe were found to be subject to a CJD like disease (mostly the women, who did most of the eating of the dead, and young children who received a few tidbits, apparently). The disease was found to be like BSE, caused by prions..It's a big leap though from that to claiming that this does or would happen to all species who eat their own.
BSE or Mad Cow's Disease was, unless I misremember, thought to be caused by eating sheep's brains (which were being added to their food) from Scrapie infected sheep, so it wasn't cannibalism in that case, and was transmission of a disease by consuming actually infected tissue.
GMA!
Why isn't cannibal behavior widespread? (Or us it just a genetic accident.)
Cannibalism isn't widespread among animals or humans. That may be because is is counter-adaptive. In any case, why should it be widespread?
Quoting 3017amen
Janus already answered that. Here's a bit of a padded reply; padded with explanation
Quoting god must be atheist
I don't have any statistics or scientific evidence to show. I garner all my knowledge from hearsay and from posts and newsclips and headlines without reading the articles, and information nuggets.
I'll research this, however, because now I am curious myself.
This is what I found:
I definitely heard the theory of mammal cannibalism being the root cause. They sent researchers or envoys or some humans to Papua-New Guinea, to ask them to stop eating each other. The envoy cited the reason, which was that MCD is caused by C. The cannibals were cannibals, but not some backward stupid ignorant people, they understood the reasoning, and stopped the practice.
This is how far I got in listening to other people talk about it.
It is conceivable that they fed some bs to each other, because they knew I was evesdropping. I was not very popular in those circles, either.
As you can see, there is no conclusive evidence over what it is that causes the prions to mutate. One theory to name the cause for the disease is eating infected sheep's brains; the other is cannibalism. I guess they did not investigate very much, the scientists were happy that the whole thing was behind us.
Hi Janus.
It was not rhetorical in the sense that it should be widespread. Obviously it's not. I considered it a thought experiment.
But let's assume for a moment it was widespread and considered normal and natural. In the context given from the OP, it seems to me one has to parse the differences between human value systems, and primate or lower life-form behavior (the OP poodle) that emerges from instinct.
In either case, if there are little or no behavioral differences between lower life-forms and higher life-forms, then killing the OP's poodle for any reason whatsoever (including for consumption) becomes something more natural and acceptable as either a source for prey, or alternatively does not violate any other behavioral or ethical norms as part of our value systems.
And so in this simple way, humans then are, or become no more valuable, than other lower life-forms or other primates, animals, etc. and in this case, poodles. That's because we would hypothetically not know anything different, and neither would any other other animals know the difference. We would all act the same and would not bat an eye to cannibalism either. But since we know higher life-forms do know these behavioral differences, we value humans differently from poodles.
which are the higher life forms you refer to, and why would not referring to them as "higher" be a case of assuming the conclusion you are supposed to be arguing for?
I gave it some thought and realized that women (edit: and gay men) do swallow a lot of human protein. Not all women, but enough women to warrant the springing up of the disease should the cannibalistic theory hold water.
Then again, the human protein women swallow are in Zygotes, therefore contain half chromosome pairs, so maybe that is enough to make a difference?
This is way above my pay grade.
LOL,above mine too!
I know Amen well enough to answer this question, but I'm not answering for him.
I think (not a fact but a conjecture) that 3017Amen calls those life forms higher, that believe in Jesus Christ the Savior. This includes or may include some Catholics, Evangelists, all kinds of protestants, and then the occasional and better educated noble beasts, such as Dolphins, Sperm Whales, German Shepherds, and the majestic Bald Eagle. In the past the two-headed eagle, unicorns, and some special species of Gargoyles also made the grade, but historical records of those are now under skeptical scientific scrutiny.
Everyone who forgets that just needs to think about it next time they are taking a shit.
True, and / or when they are talking shit. (That's how I first read your post... very true either way.)
It seems everything physical that is also meaningful on a metaphysical level which
involves humans also involves shit. What a coincidence!
:grin:
Intelligence is irrelevant. The value of a human is calculated in the same way as the value of any object: it's the net increase in total happiness caused by the existence of the object, across all sentient beings for all time thereafter. Of course it's impossible to calculate this with any precision, so the best that can be achieved is a very crude estimate based on rules of thumb. Since humans tend to have closer and longer-lasting family and social relationships than dogs, the death of a human child is likely to cause more unhappiness than the death of a poodle. Consequently the child is probably more valuable than the poodle, and the mother should treat the child, not the poodle.
So much for individual cases. The question of whether humans are more valuable en masse than other animals is different, and can only be answered by comparing the net effect on total happiness caused by the existence of humans, against the net effect on total happiness caused by the existence of any non-human animal species. I suspect that we humans cause far more net misery to other animals than any other species does; but against that must be set the net happiness we create for ourselves by existing. Were other animals happier before humans evolved? I suspect so. Are humans, on balance and en masse, happy? Doubtful. I suspect that humans en masse cause net unhappiness, and are therefore less valuable than most other species; but it's a difficult calculation, and I could be wrong.