Taxidermy

Yes, I find that agreeable.

I would never want to let the chimpanzee die, but for this scenario, I would definitely agree that the more moral thing to do would be to save the human.

Would you say that the only reason for this is because humans can offer more to society though? If we were to change up the scenario a bit and say that the human was incapable of offering anything to society, but the chimpanzee was trained to offer something positive to society, would it still be immoral to save the chimpanzee over the human? Personally, I still feel like it would be more moral to save the human, but I can't seem to find a reason for why, besides the fact that the human is a human, which comes back to natural bias, and we've agreed that something being natural can't be used as justification for an action. So, in this changed scenario, would the more moral thing be to save the chimpanzee?

 

I don't care about it enough to argue my point.

 

I don't think so, for the reasons touched upon in my previous post.

A chimp cannot experience the love that we can. The ecstasy and bliss in pleasurable experiences. The desire to increase our own well-being where possible.

A chimp lives to survive. A human lives to 'experience'. To fill themselves with as much pleasure as the universe can offer them. A chimp isn't even close to being on the same level. Though I'd never want to understate the importance of making animals happy too. They can experience some of the things that we do, just not to the great extent that we can.

So, if a set of aliens came to us tomorrow? And if they could prove that they experienced much higher levels of happiness, love, awe, than we do? (all other things being equal) Then we should* save the alien. Again, that's not to trivialise our experiences. Our existence is still extremely valuable. It's just that, the aliens would be a step (or more) above.

Thoughts?

 

I don't think it should be banned. Not going to argue why, just my opinion.

 

Hmm.


Yeah, that seems very valid.


So, let's go back to an earlier topic on this thread, where comparing the thoughts and emotions of animals to that of humans was mentioned. Based off of what we've just discussed, would it seem agreeable now to say that while the thoughts/emotions of humans and animals are comparable, the thoughts/emotions of humans should be held at a higher degree of importance? Not simply because humans are humans, but because humans experience life and emotions in a much greater extent than other animals do.

 

Sure.

Honestly, it seems like we've been on the same (if not, a similar) page throughout. I'd rather not manufacture disagreements for their own sake, so I think it's safe to say we feel the same way on this issue. Nothing more to add on my end.

 

Mostly cuz we can actually pass an IQ test (versus getting a score given by statistics, that is, 25% on 4 choice multiple choice, 33% on three choice, and so on and such like). Other animals don't have the capacity to think in the way we do (although scientists are pretty interested in dolphins; they now think that they name eachother).

 

Same