Should human lives be valued more than other animals?

We have eaten cows and pigs since the begianing of time I think, Eating cats and dogs is fairly recent to what I know. Cows and pigs have brains the size of a small rock I think. Cats and dogs are very VERY inteligent for their size expecialy dogs so yes THEY ARE LIVING BEINGS!

 

IT WAS my opionion.

 

i would save that lil piece of macaroni i dropped on the floor while i was tipping the macaroni into the sauce

 

I believe we have a moral obligation to save the roommate. I am going to base my reason not on intelligence, but rather on ethics.

If you choose to save the dog, you have consciously decided to kill your roommate. If you choose to save the roommate, you have consciously decided to kill the dog. If you decide to save neither, you're an idiot, however, you are not morally responsible for either death.

If you choose to save your roommate, you will be pretty upset about the death of your dog. However, you will also know that you did the right thing. Imagine the emotional burden of knowing you were responsible for the death of a fellow human being.

Another thing people don't really seem to get is how dogs are much more replaceable than a human life. Dogs can't tell stories, dogs can't help you with people problems, and they certainly cannot call you out when you're acting foolish.

Another issue that people bring up is how long dogs live versus humans. I believe there is a fallacy in that. If it was your 3 year old dog versus a terminally ill cancer patient who has 2 months to live, who would you save? I'd still pick the human. It hasn't got anything to do with age or intelligence, it's about it being another human. No human can objectively say whether dog lives or human lives are more important. But from the human frame of reference, other humans should be more important. The survival of the human race should become instinctual in a moment of moral crisis.

Just ask yourself honestly -- "If I were really in this situation, who would I actually save?"

 

it depends how nice the roommate is. if they were incredibly mean to me and other people around me.. then sorry roommate im picking my dog.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 14, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 14, 2018 ---

pigs are incredibly smart fix your facts

 

Pigs are smarter than dogs.
IQ tests reveal pigs can outsmart dogs and chimpanzees | Daily Mail Online

 

that's terrible ethics

hey, I like this guy!

I think another thing people are missing is relationships.

Nobody but you is going to care your dog died. Maybe your mom. If your roommate dies you're going to have to live with their incredibly sad family, friends, and coworkers. Even you're going to be sad about them, or at least that you didn't get to know them. Humans have incredibly complex lives that are tangled with everyone else's, and when someone is removed, there's a gap that really can't be replaced, regardless of whether they're a "nice person" or not.

Also, financially, letting the dog die is removing a liability. A grateful roommate is an asset, maybe they'll buy you lunch!

 

You haven't substantiated the methodological premise that we can be compelled to do things on the basis of ethics. Why are we obligated to take positive action based on ethics?

We can distinguish between action and inaction: if I save my dog I haven't taken action to change the condition of my roomate, so I haven't taken any action that could make me responsible for the death of my roomate.

This isn't an ethical argument because you haven't explained why any of the qualities you listed correlate with moral value.

Why should someone adopt a "human frame of reference"?

This question has nothing to do with ethics. I can disingenously argue for my position without undermining the truth of my position.

 

You don't "adopt" the human frame of reference, you're born with it.

 

Why am I born with it? You haven't fleshed out your ethical methodology at all so I have to infer a great deal about your argument.

 

there are reasons I hate looking at the news.