Leaderboard

I believe the concept of 'worth' can only apply to a being which is conceptually aware and therefore can conceptually value. I believe it must be aware of something of value to it and aware that it is aware that something is of value to it. Any animal I can think of is only the former never the latter (except humans.) Fundamentally, animals are not aware of their own existence and only perceptually aware of stimuli they operate on (like a computer.) Therefore that can't 'value' their own lives (or anything else) because they don't conceive of their own lives (which makes any action against them technically moral.) What an animal is worth to you is subjective, and though it may have value to you or me, objectively I believe it's worthless. Though anyone comfortable abusing animals is obviously showing signs of psychopathology. If there were an 'advanced' sentient machine or being with conceptual awareness, like us, it would be able to value it's own life as we do and therefore it's life 'worth' would be equally valid to our own. Please let me know if I didn't explain this clearly enough (I have trouble with that)and let me know what you think!

Another way: should we kill ( or let be killed) a human being with an iq of 100 to save a human being with an iq of 101, or 500 puppies?

Why is everyone engaging with a snowflake?

Yes, because only humans are made in the image of God. That means we are masters of the noösphere or field of cognitive transformation of the Universe. Animals can be used by us, but they cannot participate cognitively in said sphere by definition. Ergo, human life is worth more than animal. Exceptions can be found, granted, as some humans merit death and some animals' worth outweigh that of those humans, but in general terms humans are worth more than animals. I'm not sure what "more sentient" would mean when applied to machines. Better able to discover universal principles, I guess? Anything that can discover such principles is a person by definition, so at that point we need a word that embraces both biological humans and artificial sentient life, or sapient life, as I've heard it called.

Though I agree that Human life is the most valuable (because it's the only thing the term, in my opinion, 'value' could reference to here) I am curious at a further explanation of how our evolutionary superiority makes us more valuable objectively, wouldn't this requires Life or Survival of the Fittest as an objective value?

Wouldn't you have to suppose it's monism to maintain any universal theory? Any epistemological theory (which I think you would need to posit and prove a metaphysical theory like this) relies, I believe, on universally consistent laws of reality. If the fundamental substance(s) of reality we're dulistic, pluralistic or a hegelian 'becoming,' then wouldn't this rule out any universal epistemological theories that you could you to posit these theories in the first place? For instance, if it's dulistic, then we have Fundamental of Existence A and Fundamental of Existence B (I'll refer to them now as FOE A and FOE B.) By definition FOE A and FOE B would have to be different in their essential nature's or they could simply be grouped together as having SOME universal property (therefore devolving back into monism.) If FOE A and B are different in their essential nature's, then it makes sense to me that you'd need two different epistemological theories to deal with each reality. These theories would then also (according to their metaphysical base) be different in their essential nature. But, if you have two epistemological theories, completely different in their essential nature, how could you know truth? If I propose dulism, and am consistent with it, which epistemological theory am I basing that knowledge off of, FOE A or B? And why is that one more valid than the other FOE? It seems to me that you'd have two methodologies to 'truth' both equally valid, which devolved into, essentially, subjectivism, which can't claim knowledge which therefore invalidates the dulistic position. Pluralism seems to me refuted in the same fashion. I believe you'd have to have some fundamental 'nature' or 'essence' to reality (monism) to make any sort of epistemological claim I believe Aristotle and Rand said something similar to this effect. Becoming I believe also devolves into subjectivism, which Neitzsche pointed out thoroughly in The Will to Power, if I remember correctly. Perhaps I'm way off the mark, but these were my thoughts, let me know what you think!

By twisting some of the polish out of this statement, it can be read as saying that because we rely on eating other lifeforms to survive, who in turn might also have to eat other lifeforms to survive, and so on, that makes us superior to all other lifeforms. If we rely on x number of organisms to survive ourselves. How does that make us a superior organism? I think it should be about perspective as well. Yeah sure we can grow trees or plants to survive ourselves, but are they not more of a superior life form, since they do not rely on other lifeforms to survive? Also plants and/or bacteria might very well have colonized many other planets around the galaxy by now. Humans, not so much. Bacteria are also predators, and they kill and eat humans all the time, or just use them as food platters before using them to move on. So in practice there are no real tops of the food chain when disregarding the definition of an apex predator. But humans chose to contain fire ants in a small area. And failed. And humans chose to try to control the spread. And failed. How many battles must there be in order to admit defeat? Do you seriously believe that humans can somehow eradicate fire ants if we really put our mind to it, when we could not contain them in one area? Anyone can state that humans are capable of anything in theory. But that does not make it so. Are you willing to concede that it _appears_ to this day that humans are not superior to fire ants? You and others are the ones making a claim that we are superior to all other organisms, that's why I am asking. Also our battles against bacteria are endless. If we are so superior, why are these battles still going on?