Why is human life worth more than animal life?

[richardbaxter]

Is human life worth more than animal life? If so, why would human life be worth equal to a more intelligent, more sentient machine?

[Eudaimonic]

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!

[A4E]

1 hour ago, Eudaimonic said:

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.) 

Ah the pompousness argument. We humans are so great at the brainy stuff, like knowing we exist, that any other animal can't possibly have any such intelligent abilities. I know this is sort of the general view amongst people, but this forum is a bit more challenging environment to propose such conclusions.

I'm sure there are at least 10 ways to make your statement collapse. But I am wondering if you thought enough about it before you typed.

Remember that humans scientifically fall under the classification of animals. Not that it hardly matters since 'animals' has become so universally meaning "non human". It would of course be much more productive to stop putting every non human living thing in one box.

 

Quote

If there were an 'advanced' sentient machine or being with conceptual awareness, like us,

You appear to be setting a standard for an ability that may already be present in many animals here on earth.

 

[Wuzzums]

Human life is more important that any other form of life conceivable because you're human.

It's basic biology ffs. Evolution cannot give rise to ANY species whatsoever that did not favor its own over others.

[Eudaimonic]

9 minutes ago, A4E said:

Ah the pompousness argument. We humans are so great at the brainy stuff, like knowing we exist, that any other animal can't possibly have any such intelligent abilities. I know this is sort of the general view amongst people, but this forum is a bit more challenging environment to propose such conclusions.

I'm sure there are at least 10 ways to make your statement collapse. But I am wondering if you thought enough about it before you typed.

Remember that humans scientifically fall under the classification of animals. Not that it hardly matters since 'animals' has become so universally meaning "non human". It would of course be much more productive to stop putting every non human living thing in one box.

 

You appear to be setting a standard for an ability that may already be present in many animals here on earth.

 

I can appreciate that kind of view, I definitely don't want to become pompous towards or violate the moral rights of animals if in fact they are emperically and logically assertable.

I'd be curious to know those reasons so I could correct my assumptions on the basis that these arguments are indeed valid, but can't in good conscience change my views until such is shown and proved.

I'm not sure that because we can be classified biologically with the concept animal, that this means there is a nesseccary moral equivalent between us and animals as though we can be grouped together in the animal respect, there are other attributes that, I believe, differentiate us morally.

I didn't know there were animals like us (perhaps beyond apes, but that's a different discussion) and am very curious to see how our similarities match up.

[Eudaimonic]

8 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Human life is more important that any other form of life conceivable because you're human.

It's basic biology ffs. Evolution cannot give rise to ANY species whatsoever that did not favor its own over others.

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?

[Songbirdo]

More value, yes.

Would a superior, sentient machine have more value? (or aliens or vampires, etc "higher" forms of life)
Yes.

I think the cognitive dissonance in the question is not thinking of animal's value on a spectrum. You're putting a huge gap between humans (and some pets) compared to the rest of the animals on the scale of cognition. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask Yourself did a good job covering this in his response to Sam Harris (moral stuff starts at 5:25):

A more pragmatic approach:
If it comes to choosing between saving your daughter or a lobster from dying, you wouldn't be OK with just filpping a coin to decide 'cause all life is equal. It's a spectrum.

Vegans take one step further when it comes to animal rights:
"Although it's worse to kill a human than a fish, it is still wrong to kill a fish."

So even if higher beings do exist that are worth more than humans, it would still be wrong for them to harm us.

[DaVinci]

35 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Human life is more important that any other form of life conceivable because you're human.

It's basic biology ffs. Evolution cannot give rise to ANY species whatsoever that did not favor its own over others.

There are people who check out of human society everyday and prefer the company of animals and trees. 

[A4E]

5 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

evolutionary superiority

Here, your statement is that humans are superior to other lifeforms on this planet, which can be an understandable position to take, even though it is inherently biased. But here is at least one problem with this: In recent history, humans wanted to study/experiment with fire ants that originated in Africa. They brought them from Africa to America. If we were superior to fire ants, we should be able to contain such an experiment. But we did not. Furthermore, humans then tried to stop the spread of this ant species in America. Again humans failed. And also humans have given up any hope of eradicating fire ants in America. So is it logical to conclude that fire ants are superior to humans?

Superior means superior, so whatever excuses are made, the fire ants still won. So that means at a minimum that humans are not superior to fire ants, right?

 

[Eudaimonic]

8 minutes ago, A4E said:

Here, your statement is that humans are superior to other lifeforms on this planet, which can be an understandable position to take, even though it is inherently biased. But here is at least one problem with this: In recent history, humans wanted to study/experiment with fire ants that originated in Africa. They brought them from Africa to America. If we were superior to fire ants, we should be able to contain such an experiment. But we did not. Furthermore, humans then tried to stop the spread of this ant species in America. Again humans failed. And also humans have given up any hope of eradicating fire ants in America. So is it logical to conclude that fire ants are superior to humans?

Superior means superior, so whatever excuses are made, the fire ants still won. So that means at a minimum that humans are not superior to fire ants, right?

 

That's definitely an interesting argument, I've heard about the fire ants and they've always fascinated me, it's definitely something we need to consider in reference to evolutionary superiority.

I wonder though how superiority can be analyzed here. Could we say humans are evolutionarily superior on the aggregate? And I'm assuming that at some point they were able to contain the fire ants to a reasonable level, otherwise they would've killed off Africa or at least a majority of it, doesn't this elude to our superiority, our uncanny adaptability? At the very least, the ants are contained now, which means if we didn't have the advantage within that context, on the whole we have gained it, I think. 

Haven't we also populated the entire planet including Ant (lol ironic) artica? We have people living in space and we're able to adapt to the climate of the moon. I don't think fire ants could achieve that level of adaptability.

[Erwin]

The value of anything is simply what you are willing to give up to get / preserve it.

K-selected people have strong in-group preference. Why is it surprising that we are willing to sacrifice much more for the preservation of a human than that of an animal?

R-selected people... well... they have no in-group preference. *puke*

[Donnadogsoth]

8 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Is human life worth more than animal life? If so, why would human life be worth equal to a more intelligent, more sentient machine?

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.

 

[richardbaxter]

Another way to look at the problem is in terms of utilitarianism/deontology. Should we kill (or let be killed) a human being to save a more intelligent more sentient machine, or 500 puppy dogs? If not, why not?

[Wuzzums]

14 hours ago, DaVinci said:

There are people who check out of human society everyday and prefer the company of animals and trees. 

There are tall chinese people in the NBA.

14 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

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?

Yes, life and survival of the fittest is an objective value. Evolution is an objective process predicated on the survival of the fittest.

This is not to say that "might makes right", otherwise Bill Gates would be able to benchpress a truck. The environmental pressures are always changing and evolution is a constant race to remain in the same spot and so far humans have not been dethroned even though we are not the mightiest so to speak.

14 hours ago, A4E said:

Here, your statement is that humans are superior to other lifeforms on this planet, which can be an understandable position to take, even though it is inherently biased. But here is at least one problem with this: In recent history, humans wanted to study/experiment with fire ants that originated in Africa. They brought them from Africa to America. If we were superior to fire ants, we should be able to contain such an experiment. But we did not. Furthermore, humans then tried to stop the spread of this ant species in America. Again humans failed. And also humans have given up any hope of eradicating fire ants in America. So is it logical to conclude that fire ants are superior to humans?

Superior means superior, so whatever excuses are made, the fire ants still won. So that means at a minimum that humans are not superior to fire ants, right?

 

No. Fire ants and humans aren't competitors. Humans are the apex predator therefore from an evolutionary standpoint we are superior to all other lifeforms on this planet.

Humans have not failed to eradicate fire ants. Humans can eradicate every living organism on Earth, we just choose not to.

[Wuzzums]

1 hour ago, richardbaxter said:

Another way to look at the problem is in terms of utilitarianism/deontology. Should we kill (or let be killed) a human being to save a more intelligent more sentient machine, or 500 puppy dogs? If not, why not?

But if it's a more sentient and intelligent machine how come it managed to get itself in a situation where its survival depended on a lesser intelligent and lesser sentient lifeform?

[Eudaimonic]

2 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Yes, life and survival of the fittest is an objective value. Evolution is an objective process predicated on the survival of the fittest.

This is not to say that "might makes right", otherwise Bill Gates would be able to benchpress a truck. The environmental pressures are always changing and evolution is a constant race to remain in the same spot and so far humans have not been dethroned even though we are not the mightiest so to speak.

It's a good point to clarify between 'might makes right' and evolutionary adaptability as such, it amazes me the degree to which humans can survive and adapt to their environment compared to even our closest cousin, the ape.

If life and survival of the fittest is an objective value, does this mean it's immoral not to strive to live and/or not strive to have evolutionary superiority over other humans?

Also, death is an objective process predicated on the opposite of the survival of the fittest. For the same reasons, can we say death is an objective value because it is an objective process and is predicated on something? If so, how can death and life both be objectively valuable at the same time? I could also just be missing your point here, so don't mind my ignorance as I try to parce these out.

[Eudaimonic]

3 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Another way to look at the problem is in terms of utilitarianism/deontology. Should we kill (or let be killed) a human being to save a more intelligent more sentient machine, or 500 puppy dogs? If not, why not?

I think ethics can only apply to those beings which can conceptually value something. An animal can't value it's own life or even the food it chases because it has no conception of itself (sort of what the Buddhists try to obtain.) It is like the computer or phone you might be making this post with, an input output machine with no conception of itself or value. Is it wrong to use a computer? I don't think so. Why? Because it's not aware and it can value nothing, therefore, if I smash it (or use it) what does it matter to the computer? I think nothing. 

This is of course a double edged sword as we can kill non-moral creatures/organisms (trees/plants/bacteria) and this provides us with a lot of benefits, but at the same time we become morally responsible for Evil against other moral creatures.

[Kikker]

5 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Another way to look at the problem is in terms of utilitarianism/deontology. Should we kill (or let be killed) a human being to save a more intelligent more sentient machine, or 500 puppy dogs? If not, why not?

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?

[neeeel]

4 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

 

Yes, life and survival of the fittest is an objective value.

No its not. Values are subjective. Evolution doesnt value anything. 

[Wuzzums]

1 hour ago, neeeel said:

No its not. Values are subjective. Evolution doesnt value anything. 

So pandas and brown bears have an equal chance of survival?

[neeeel]

Just now, Wuzzums said:

So pandas and brown bears have an equal chance of survival?

Im not sure how you got that from what I said. I am just pointing out that survival is not an objective value.

[Wuzzums]

Just now, neeeel said:

Im not sure how you got that from what I said. I am just pointing out that survival is not an objective value.

Evolution is an objective process. It cannot possibly favor anything in the way a human might favor a brand of ice-cream.

Organism more equipped to survive survive, in other words evolution favors the ability to survive.

Therefore survival is an objective value in the same way that 5 > 4.

(5 being brown bears and 4 being pandas seen through evolutionary lenses)

[A4E]

7 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

No. Fire ants and humans aren't competitors. Humans are the apex predator therefore from an evolutionary standpoint we are superior to all other lifeforms on this planet.

 

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.

 

Quote

Humans have not failed to eradicate fire ants. Humans can eradicate every living organism on Earth, we just choose not to.

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?

 

 

[os.motic]

You don't eat people do you? 

[Wuzzums]

3 hours ago, A4E said:

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.

 

You are making several fundamental errors regarding the terms I used. You're just broadening the definitions to include some example you thought of as an exception.

"Predator" has a specific definition which bars bacteria, plants, jellyfish, and other brainless organisms. An apex predator is a predator that has no other animal (predator) above it that uses it as a food source.

3 hours ago, A4E said:

If we rely on x number of organisms to survive ourselves. How does that make us a superior organism?

How does it NOT make us a superior organism?

Reductio ad absurdum: if you are correct that relying on X number of organisms to survive does not make us superior then an alien species has no way of determining which is the superior species, a human or a hamburger.

3 hours ago, A4E said:

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.

Humans have split the atom and are capable of blowing up the Sun, but I guess that's not really that impressive for a fire-ant supremacist such as yourself.

3 hours ago, A4E said:

Also our battles against bacteria are endless. If we are so superior, why are these battles still going on?

At this point you're trolling, right?

You're trolling.

You got me. Haha.

[richardbaxter]

I think this is a fair point. At any day we might get wiped out by an advanced prokaryote (or retrovirus) and the process might start all over again. Assuming the more intelligent species doesn't get wiped out by an asteroid or nuke their planet.

[DaVinci]

21 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

There are tall chinese people in the NBA.

 

I get the point you are trying to make, but you are forgetting about human behavior.

[RichardY]

If a politician had the opportunity to kill several million people with a 30% to stay in power beyond their term or maintain a dictatorship, would they do it?

I remember Stefan's criticism of Rand, having man's life as the standard of value.

[A4E]

Here is another perspective for those who are convinced that humans are superior to other lifeforms. A group of humans in most places on this planet will be bathing in lies, which are usually formulated to exploit them and/or keep them subdued. A group of monkeys will build a hierarchy that can be based on might or social status. Which is more direct and to the point, and also requires a lot more work to achieve the same submissive effect. If humans are so superior to all other lifeforms, why is it so easy to exploit and subdue vast amounts of them with lies?

[Goldenages]

Ants and monkeys follow their instincts. Those instincts have been proven true for them, so ants and monkeys can not act as their own destroyers.

Man can not survive on his instincts alone, he has to think and act reasonably. If he refuses to do that, or is influencend by propaganda (state, religion, any form of altruism) and act foolish against his own interests, he can act as his own destroyer. Thats what the west is doing now. As Ayn Rand described very convincingly, this was the case for most of the human history.

Man is far superior to ants. State power makes man behave more foolish than monkeys.

 

regards

Andi

[Eudaimonic]

2 hours ago, A4E said:

Here is another perspective for those who are convinced that humans are superior to other lifeforms. A group of humans in most places on this planet will be bathing in lies, which are usually formulated to exploit them and/or keep them subdued. A group of monkeys will build a hierarchy that can be based on might or social status. Which is more direct and to the point, and also requires a lot more work to achieve the same submissive effect. If humans are so superior to all other lifeforms, why is it so easy to exploit and subdue vast amounts of them with lies?

I would think that the fact that humans need a highly complex, deeply psychological and subtle method in order to make other humans submit is a testament to human evolutionary superiority and adaptability.

It's actually incredibly hard to subdue and exploit us; this is why morality, religion, state and the family structure (all incredibly creative methods) were invented and need to be used in tandem.

The fact that we feel the need to subdue others actually comes from our evolutionary ape brethren, so I would say if it wasn't for the violence apes used against their young ten thousand years ago, no one would use violence today. Non-violence coupled with reason is evolutionarily superior for intra-species survival, as is a testament to capitalism.

[A4E]

6 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Ants and monkeys follow their instincts.

 

Ants and monkeys have brains. So if they (only) follow their instincts, why do they have brains?

Studies on ants have shown that every single individual ant behave somewhat differently to every other ant, which makes the burden of proving your statement much harder. I am pretty sure monkeys all behave somewhat differently as well. Just like humans.

 

Quote

Man is far superior to ants.

So why are humans unable to control fire ants? Why are humans considering introducing natural enemies to fire ants from another continent to combat fire ants? (that may have horrid consequences on its own). If humans are superior to fire ants, we should not need help from multiple natural third parties to combat them. It really means that humans are admitting that they do not have the strength to take on fire ants by themselves.

I can play devils advocate and say that the reason humans are superior is precisely why we have the means of easily introducing natural enemies to a life form we want to control. -But then the question is, would a superior life form allow the natural wildlife on entire continents or islands to be compromised by introducing species from other parts of the planet? (which humans have involuntarily and willingly done many times)

 

 

 

[Goldenages]

Shure, ants have brains, also instincts have to be stored somewhere. And since every matter consisting of more than a few atoms differ from another, there are slightly differences in behaviour.

In order to control fire ants, we could swarm, search and kill them personally. Thats the way we would do it using our instincts.  Using natural enemies is just a clever and economic way to do it. Contrary, fire ants could never do that, most probably their brains do not even know they exist at all.

 

19 hours ago, A4E said:

But then the question is, would a superior life form allow the natural wildlife on entire continents or islands to be compromised by introducing species from other parts of the planet?

Depends on how we define compromised. Its the way nature goes - animals migrate and replace other animals.  Nature does not care. We care, because either we want to preserve fauna for whatever reason, or we are compromised, e.g. if we set free some lions in Western Europe (wolves are already back. What a glorious idea of the green party. I would opt for some more venomous snakes and for swamps. Also malaria has a right for life.)

 

regards

Andi

[A4E]

9 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Shure, ants have brains, also instincts have to be stored somewhere. And since every matter consisting of more than a few atoms differ from another, there are slightly differences in behaviour.

Ok, so then we do not have any proof of true intelligence anymore, since humans could just behave somewhat differently because "every matter consisting of more than a few atoms differ from another". Which means that our brains could very well just be large instinct deposits if we go by what you are saying.

 

Quote

most probably their brains do not even know they exist at all.

Why not? And if much smaller brains do not know they exist, how then can much larger human brains know they exist? Does any universality become impossible, because the ant just needs all those 250000 brain cells to store instincts?

 

[ofd]

Intelligence as in problem solving or coming up with new tactics and self awareness are two distinct properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portia_(spider)