Animals >=< human lives?

Probably not. Aliens would either:

A. Recognize value in intellegent life and kill the animal

B. Not care and kill the human 50% of the time, not 99%

C. Strip the planet of all its recources (water, iron, silicates, etc.) and kill both animals and humans

 

I meant if aliens came here and had to choose what to kill based on their enviornmental impact. They would kill the humans because they serve little purpose and just destroy stuff.

 

Dogs/pets and humans are the same. Most people only do good in life because of their pets. Pets are shown to decrease stress

 

the fact that you're even debating that makes you seem edgy

To the people who are debating this, make some friends and stop watching anime.

Compare yourself to your dog.

Case closed

 

Start the genocide to yourself then we may follow.

 

You're basically saying you're okay with someone saving their dog in a fire instead of saving yourself. That's funny because you guys are human beings yourselves and you think you're equal to your dog, which leads me to believe you have no self esteem or you're stupid.

Saying "humans are equal to animals" could mean a lot of things in the wrong way. Agreed, we all live on the same earth, but you have to give worth to the organisms that have done the most and contributed the most. Although human beings haven't contributed to much of anything, except for themselves, there is no way without sounding socially inept that humans are in any way shape or form equal to other animals.

 

It's evidently obvious that you didn't read my post.
// I stated that all animals have equal rights to live. But all animals also have equal rights to their own biased.
// I stated I would choose my own species if I were faced with a life or death experience.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 9, 2016 ---

I never once said we don't have the right to defend ourselves.

 

All I saw is "animals are equal to humans" I really don't care to read your post.

99.9% of animals that are living and have ever lived didn't/don't even have self consciousness (if you don't know what that means it means that they don't know they're a living animal or aware of themselves) so how could an animal be capable of having an opinion at all?

 

Actually reading my post is crucial as you clearly omitted a lot of things that I never actually said. Your response in this case doesn't really match the argument. As I've stated several times; I value my own species through my own bias over other Earthlings. But I believe all animal species lives matter.

 

It doesn't matter if you said it or not. You said these exact words: "Animal lives are equal to ours,"

When I quoted you I told you everything you basically agree with when you stated that.

I'm aware that every animal life matters, but it's just smart to think that human lives are worth more. It's not bias, it's a fact. You cannot put another animal that does not have the same level of advanced thinking as our race.

Disagree? You're basically agreeing with your dog being as valuable as you.

 

I didn't take into consideration how intelligent we are or my dog is. Obviously we are more intelligent and can make advancements that dogs cannot. I believe life is important. That's literally all I meant.

 

Er...
Wolves? Predatory food chain? Those are the ancestors of dogs.
We would not be where we are without dogs. The domestication process was one of symbiosis, you know. Dogs helped us hunt, and in return we fed them.
We do not keep ticks alive? Deer and wild animals do. Wild dogs, in fact, help keep them alive.
And on the note of "keeping animals alive" - we're the reason most of them are dying out in the first place... We've thrown hundreds of thousands of ecosystems out of whack. Look at Florida. Giant pythons should not be living there, yet, because of humans, there is now a large population competing with the other predators - and winning. House sparrows that are seen all over America are not protected by the Migratory Bird Act - do you know why? Because they are not native. Same with European starlings. They're invasive species brought over by humans. House sparrows literally throw out chicks of other birds - onto the ground - and take their nest, further harming the population of native birds already in competition for food and space.

Regardless if we were gone or not - if we had never existed, many of these issues might not exist.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 9, 2016 ---

That's an opinion. Not a fact. Value is relative.

As for my personal opinion, because of a certain dog I had when I was a kid, I do value dogs as much as humans. Especially certain humans...
But saying human lives are worth more is a silly thing to say, especially judged on intelligence.
Dolphins are almost as clever as humans - so treat them like people, say scientists
For example, if dolphins are smarter than chimpanzees (as this article says, you can follow the references from here), who are smarter than 3-year-old children, should they be valued over 3-year-olds?

Both dolphins and elephants have been proven to recognize themselves in a mirror - thus far, the test for self-identification/self-consciousness.
Are they as valuable as humans?

While I do realize that they said "all" animals, I believe the same thing to an extent - animals have the same worth as humans; they are still a life. However, in order for us to live healthily in our society, we must place animals below ourselves on a hierarchy. What I mean is, there is no reason to slaughter purely for enjoyment, human lives or otherwise. However, it is in our nature - and the order of the natural world - that we eat other animals. Doesn't mean they're worth less, it just means that we use them, as mosquitoes use us for their food.

 

lmao wat, just just stop you bother me. Maybe compose a better sentance that actually makes sense so that we can have a productive conversation

 

"just stop you bother me" is not going to create a "productive conversation"

 

Yeah, as I was saying with the rape thing, I don't think that basing morality on biology would even support the arguments that these people make. Even if we were to decide that morality is based on biology, I think that rapists/rape apologists would still have invalid arguments, as a biologically-based morality would force us to protect our own species.

I don't think that the appeal to nature fallacy really applies in this situation. The fallacy usually applies to things like food and medicine, to show that these things aren't good just because they are natural. Morality, however, is something that I'd regard as a completely different topic. The argument that morality should be based on biology is not the argument that biology shows something as good, therefore it is. Instead, the argument that morality should be based on biology is the argument that morality is a part of biology. I think these two claims are very different; while the former of the two would fall under the appeal to nature fallacy, I don't think that the latter does.

The social actions of bonobos (or pygmy chimpanzees) and chimpanzees have been studied a lot, which has shown that they have developed a type of morality among their species. For example, it's been shown that they will adopt and raise orphans as their own and that they will exercise fairness with other members of their species. The morality that has evolved among these apes does not seem to stretch out of their species, so I would argue that it's definitely valid to assume that morality begins as a part of biology. I have agreed with you on the claim that basing our morality on biology could definitely be regarded as an appeal to tradition, as we'd unnecessarily be continuing to base it off of our evolutionary traditions; however, I do not think that it would be an appeal to nature.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you saying that all sentient life forms have obligations or that we have obligations involving all sentient life forms that we know of?

I was going on a species-to-species level. Once you get into different members of an individual species, the value that should be given to a life is.. trickier. I think that it's probably most suitable to view all members of a species as deserving of the same value; however, I do think that the 'good' or 'bad' the an individual does can raise of lower their right to life. Regarding your first scenario, I'd say that they both deserve an equal right to life, by default, but that the 'good' that the philanthropist has done would bring his right to life up to a higher level. Regarding the second scenario, I think that the 'bad' that the leader of ISIS has done should bring their right to life down drastically (arguably to the point that it's nonexistent), so in that scenario, the dog definitely deserves life more than the ISIS leader. I definitely wouldn't say that we should always go by the amount of 'good'/'bad' that's been done though, as I'd say that a neutral, selfish human being still has more of a right to life than the seeing-eye dog does, which is why I would argue that we should base it off of intelligence on a species-to-species level (with a few exceptions, such as the ISIS leader), but that there are many factors to base it off of on an individual-to-individual level within a species.

Now, as a question for you, if you think that it should all be based off of well-being, would you say that an unhappy genius has less of a right to life than a happy person with an I.Q. of 100? The happy person is at a state of well-being, but the genius is not, so does the genius have less of a right to life? I'd say no.

So, altogether, your stance on these types of scenarios would be that killing the person would be good as long as enough of a benefit came out of it? I'd agree with that. In this case, I would agree with you on saying that it's moral to kill a person in order to save 3,000, but I don't think that the well-being of people is what should always dictate our morality. As I said earlier, I don't think that a depressed individual has any less of a right to life than a happy individual does (furthermore, I don't think that a disabled or crippled person has any less of a right to life than a regularly functioning person does). I think that human lives should be regarded as equal (which the exception of those that have done an amount of 'good'/'bad' that shows otherwise), so I'd definitely have to say that one life is worth losing if 3,000 can be saved by doing so, but I don't think that it's moral to kill a depressed person in order to save a happy person, or to kill a disabled person in order to save a regularly functioning person, just so that the end result is a higher level of 'well-being.'

 

I did not read any of the responses except for the original post... But this feels silly to me.

Of course animal's lives are worth less than humans. No person in the right mind would kill a human over an animal. If animals were more important, hunting would be illegal.

 

Regarding your example with the three-year-old child, I'd like to point out that the difference lies in the fact that the three-year-old has the potential to be more intelligent than the chimpanzee. As long as the three-year-old grows and matures fully and regularly, they will end up being much more intelligent than the chimpanzee, which is why I would say that they're worth more. If we were to take an individual of every species, I would say that the dolphin's life has more of a value than that of every other species, with the exception of humans. Did you know that ants can also recognize themselves in a mirror? Would place an ant's life at the same value as that of an elephant, a chimpanzee, a dolphin, or a human? I think it's unreasonable to say that all animals are equal to humans, as humans are proven to be above other animals (furthermore, the reason that dolphins or chimpanzees are so comparable to humans is because they're also above other animals). While intelligence might not be the best thing to base the importance of a member of a species on (TheDebatheist and I have been discussing this), there has to be some deciding factor, as we know that some species are more intelligent and capable of more than others are. Would you not say that killing a dolphin would be worse than killing an ant? If all animals are worth the same, then shouldn't killing an ant be the same as killing a dolphin? I mean, why would be even stop at animals; if an ant is worth the same as a human or a dolphin, then why isn't a bacterium or a plant worth this much as well?

That seems immoral though.

If you recognize that something is equal to you, I'd argue that it's not moral to 'use' it in a cruel way. Couldn't someone use your argument to say stuff like, "black people have the same worth as white people; they are still a life. However, in order for us to live healthily in our society, we must place black people below ourselves on a hierarchy. What I mean is, there is no reason to slaughter purely for enjoyment, white lives or otherwise. However, it is in our nature - and the order of the natural world - that we use black people as slaves. Doesn't mean they're worth less, it just means that we use them"?

I'm not saying that eating meat is wrong; however, in order for you to be justified with doing so, I'd argue that you have to view animals as lesser organisms.

 

But this is the whole pro-choice, pro-life debate, is it not?

I would not say killing a dolphin is worse than an ant, as I value a life as a life regardless. Hearkening back to Dr. Suess, a person's a person no matter how small
But, hm. It's hard to explain what I mean. I would much rather personally kill an ant than a dolphin, because of that intelligence, yes. But I would much rather not kill either at all. Unfortunately, you do know that this is not possible in many cases.

I would argue the same, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying it is the natural order for us to be omnivores.

It is not in the natural order to use black people as slaves, not evolutionarily. Unless we have teeth specifically for eating them

My philosophy is... more comparable to the Native American philosophy? Each life is still a life, and is part of the great scheme of the world, and is very much worth as much as I, but there still is an order that it falls into, you see?

 

@Supreme_Overlord -- Yeah, as I was saying with the rape thing, I don't think that basing morality on biology would even support the arguments that these people make.

I think it would be beneficial to dial this conversation back a step or two, as I'm becoming confused by some terms. Apologies for needing the clarification.

If I'm not mistaken, you argued that 'whatever is moral' is synonymous with 'whatever is best for the species'. Can you please define what you mean by "best"? By what metric are you using that word? Best for it's prolonged survival? For it's well-being? For the conquering of all other species? etc etc.

Even if we were to decide that morality is based on biology, I think that rapists/rape apologists would still have invalid arguments, as a biologically-based morality would force us to protect our own species.

What does "Basing morality on biology" mean? Basing it on "Physics" gives me similar feelings of confusion. Could you do me a favour and explain what you mean here?

I don't think that the appeal to nature fallacy really applies in this situation. The fallacy usually applies to things like food and medicine, to show that these things aren't good just because they are natural. Morality, however, is something that I'd regard as a completely different topic. The argument that morality should be based on biology is not the argument that biology shows something as good, therefore it is. Instead, the argument that morality should be based on biology is the argument that morality is a part of biology. I think these two claims are very different; while the former of the two would fall under the appeal to nature fallacy, I don't think that the latter does.

I understand that I'll sound like an obnoxious broken record at this point, my bad! But I don't know what "Morality is a part of biology" means. Human history, tradition, our evolution as a species...?

The social actions of bonobos (or pygmy chimpanzees) and chimpanzees have been studied a lot, which has shown that they have developed a type of morality among their species. For example, it's been shown that they will adopt and raise orphans as their own and that they will exercise fairness with other members of their species. The morality that has evolved among these apes does not seem to stretch out of their species, so I would argue that it's definitely valid to assume that morality begins as a part of biology.

I genuinely don't know what you mean when you invoke 'biology'. I need more specifics, I apologize. I'm not even sure what you mean by the "morality of chimpanzees". What does "morality" mean (to you)? When you say that it would be moral to do X, what does that mean?

I have agreed with you on the claim that basing our morality on biology could definitely be regarded as an appeal to tradition, as we'd unnecessarily be continuing to base it off of our evolutionary traditions; however, I do not think that it would be an appeal to nature.

If you were basing it off evolutionary traditions for that reason, it would be a logically fallacious reason to do so.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you saying that all sentient life forms have obligations or that we have obligations involving all sentient life forms that we know of

Both. I'll jump in and elaborate further in the following post. But for now, what does 'Morality' mean to you? What's the definition you use? What does it mean to be moral, or to make a moral decision?

I was going on a species-to-species level. Once you get into different members of an individual species, the value that should be given to a life is.. trickier. I think that it's probably most suitable to view all members of a species as deserving of the same value; however, I do think that the 'good' or 'bad' the an individual does can raise of lower their right to life. Regarding your first scenario, I'd say that they both deserve an equal right to life, by default, but that the 'good' that the philanthropist has done would bring his right to life up to a higher level. Regarding the second scenario, I think that the 'bad' that the leader of ISIS has done should bring their right to life down drastically (arguably to the point that it's nonexistent), so in that scenario, the dog definitely deserves life more than the ISIS leader.

So your morality now encompasses/prioritizes the sum total of "good/bad" actions, over intelligence. Is that correct?

I definitely wouldn't say that we should always go by the amount of 'good'/'bad' that's been done though, as I'd say that a neutral, selfish human being still has more of a right to life than the seeing-eye dog does, which is why I would argue that we should base it off of intelligence on a species-to-species level (with a few exceptions, such as the ISIS leader), but that there are many factors to base it off of on an individual-to-individual level within a species.

It now seems that you have a morality that is drawing arbitrary lines. Sometimes intelligence is more important, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's the sum total of good/bad actions, sometimes it's the species that you belong to. This seems like an incredibly whimsical basis for morality, whereby:

[Human, IQ 150] ISIS leader.
[Dog, IQ 30] World-class seeing-eye dog for the visually impaired.
[Human, IQ 100] 70yo homeless man that's contributed virtually nothing to society.
[Human, IQ 70] Billion dollar philanthropist.

That ranking system does not fit with what you've described thus far. You need a way to square this circle other than, "Sometimes I value intelligence. Sometimes I don't.". Why? How?

Now, as a question for you, if you think that it should all be based off of well-being, would you say that an unhappy genius has less of a right to life than a happy person with an I.Q. of 100? The happy person is at a state of well-being, but the genius is not, so does the genius have less of a right to life? I'd say no.

'No' from me. Because it's likely that the increase in the sum total of well-being that the genius will bring to others, is greater than the happy guy with an IQ of 100. My morality is rooted in the sum total of well-being for all sentient creatures. Including future well-being.

So, altogether, your stance on these types of scenarios would be that killing the person would be good as long as enough of a benefit came out of it?

"Benefit"? I feel like these words need more 'meat on the bones'. What does "benefit" mean? Beneficial to whom? To how many? By what metric?

I would consider it morally ethical to kill a man, if we are going to see an increase in the sum total of well-being in sentient life. This includes future well-being, and the precedent set for killing someone because you deem it morally actionable.

I'd agree with that. In this case, I would agree with you on saying that it's moral to kill a person in order to save 3,000, but I don't think that the well-being of people is what should always dictate our morality. As I said earlier, I don't think that a depressed individual has any less of a right to life than a happy individual does (furthermore, I don't think that a disabled or crippled person has any less of a right to life than a regularly functioning person does).

Then by what metric do you use to value life? Given the choice between killing one or the other, I would save the happy person every time. From what you've just said, it seems like you couldn't care either way. That you'd be just as happy to flip a coin on who you'd kill/save, because "they both have an equal right to life".

I think that human lives should be regarded as equal (which the exception of those that have done an amount of 'good'/'bad' that shows otherwise),

So a person with an incurable illness that is in excruciating pain should have as much of a "right to life" as someone in a constant state of bliss?

so I'd definitely have to say that one life is worth losing if 3,000 can be saved by doing so, but I don't think that it's moral to kill a depressed person in order to save a happy person, or to kill a disabled person in order to save a regularly functioning person, just so that the end result is a higher level of 'well-being.'

That's the driving force behind euthanasia. We understand that prolonging happiness and ending suffering are 'good' things to do. That it's compassionate to kill someone that is in a constant state of depression and ill health. The world we live in and the actions we take, is routinely influenced (and I'd argue, primarily so) by the states of being. By how happy/sad someone is, or are likely to be.

If I cloned you, and you were identical until I made the following decision, apart from the fact that one of you has an uncontrollable bout of depression? Would it be morally prudent/optimal to:

A) Kill the one that's depressed

B) Kill the one that's in a state of bliss

C) It doesn't matter. Both are equally moral choices

It seems like you'd vote (C). Which I believe goes counter to how we interact with others in day-to-day life, and how we make prudent political decisions regarding morality.

I would consider it morally beneficial to join the following discord chat group. Discussing these topics in a relaxed environment while being able to exchange information much more quickly, would help us both out, I think. Discord

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 12, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 12, 2016 ---

@Fangdragon1998 -- What I mean is, there is no reason to slaughter purely for enjoyment, human lives or otherwise. However, it is in our nature - and the order of the natural world - that we eat other animals.

Isn't this an 'Appeal to nature'? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'". It is usually an invalid argument, because the implicit (unstated) primary premise "What is natural is good" typically is irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact.

Doesn't mean they're worth less, it just means that we use them, as mosquitoes use us for their food.

I don't share the sentiment that our morality should be on par with a mosquito. I think we (as a species) are much better than that.

I believe that this isn't a fair analogy. Mosquitoes suck blood to survive. They do this, or they die. If we had a similar choice -- to eat meat to survive, or die? I probably wouldn't be a vegetarian. However, we don't need to enslave and consume animals to survive. In fact, many vegetarian options are 'healthier' than their meaty counterparts. More protein, less fat, lower risks for cancer... I could go on.

We could talk about the health concerns of vegetarianism compared with a traditional diet. I'd welcome such a discussion. But we definitely don't need to eat meat and "use" animals to survive, in the way that mosquitoes do to us.

 

Human lives > animal lives; We can actually comprehend what we've got. Animals certainly can't, to the extent that we do, if at all.