Should human lives be valued more than other animals?

don't know how strong of a debate this would be but I was grazing over at Smogon and some of the responses to this bothered me

put yourself in this (unlikely, and pretty bad I know but just go along with it) scenario:

Your apartment is on fire. You get out safely, but your roommate that you just met and a dog that you've had for 5 years that helped you cope with depression didn't make it out yet. You decided to run back inside before the flame gets too intense, but you know you can only save either the dog or your roommate. Who or what are you saving?

tl;dr: in the circumstances of which you can only save 1, would you save your dog of 5 years that helped you through depression in a fire or your newly introduced (human) roommate in a fire?

I would state my opinion, but I want to see where everyone's at first

 

I couldn’t live with both either way.

 

You aren't compelled to save anyone.

 

People suck, I'm getting my dog

 

Why have a tl;dr if the tl;dr is only three lines less

 

okay, im saying my response because I got the comments that triggered me

what if it were you? what if you were the roommate, about to die/get burned. wouldn't you feel some type of way if your roommate didn't come to save you?

say the roommate is you, and you were asleep (I know it twists the situation but still, relates to the topic) and you didn't know the house was on fire (which is unlikely)

my point is, dont you think it would be "human code" to save each other? I mean, you could just buy another dog, and dogs tend to live shorter lives than humans

how edgy of you

 

This isn't an argument.

At this point in the argument you haven't said why a "human code" exists.

Call me shadow the hedgehog.

 

doesn't have to be an argument, it relates to the topic. knowing the structure of debate threads nowadays, I can bring up something irrelevant for all it matters

human code is more human nature

if we see another person if danger, as long as it doesn't harm ourselves, our first instincts are to help or seek help.

or rather, being empathetic is human nature

 

As far as the truth value of any statements I made goes you didn't respond.

Could your provide the biological rationale for saving a human over a dog then? Humans can empathize with dogs the same way they empathize with humans as far as I know.

If someone weren't empathetic would they not be blind by this "code"? Similarly if I acknowledge my feelings of empathy but decide not to act based on them is the "code" non-binding for me? Why does my human nature transform into an ethical imperative?

 

Agreed!

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 7, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 7, 2018 ---

I think I would feel a burning sensation if my roommate didn’t come save me.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 7, 2018 ---

Dogs feel as much pain as humans do. Only the dog is my best friend and my roommate is just a roommate.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 7, 2018 ---

If a person dies in a movie I’m like “aw that sucks”... if a dog dies I’m like “AAWWWWW NOOOO ANYONE BUT THE DOG, WHY DID THE DOG DIE, THIS IS AWFUL”

 

Of course. Other animals are there to sustain and support our own species' existence. We should logically always choose our own species over another - why do you think Harambe was shot?

Heck, if the choice was between saving Donald Trump or another animal, I would still save Trump.

 

Yo! Trumps awesome! I would hope you would save him. Anyway, Harambe is a different situation, he shoulda lived. You don’t take an animal out of he wild, then put it in a cage & then drop a child in the cage & shoot the animal because of his reaction. Uncalled for.

 

sounds like the roommate is basically a stranger right now, and the dog is best friend, so im pickin the doggo.

i would save anybody or thing over saving trump tbh

 

I'm not bothered, I can live without either of them.

 

yes humans better

 

In the end the dog and the roommate both have/had lives. Technically they are equal with very distinct differences. We are only choosing who is more fit to survive because of ourselves and/or how we think. But even more so in reality it's not a this or that type of thing. If it was/is possible, I'd personally try my hardest to save both. Why choose one or the other when you can just try? Right? ... *Crickets* :l

 

You can't look at a world were trump is valued higher than harambe and then tell me there is justice.

 

I would not feel anything. I would be dead. Corpses do not feel.

My stance:

This is a subjective prompt with an outcome that depends largely on the moral code of the individual presented with the dilemma.

One problem that presents itself is that of "why would I make any decision here?" The idea that "the purpose of all life is the betterment of humanity and happiness of the individual" is a reasonable perspective to begin with. Under the assumption that this dog is domesticated (and therefore does not live in a way that aids man any more than man is unable to do so), the human is able to contribute more to society than the dog. This approach allows us to determine which life form to free from danger: man.