I have been contemplating this moral issue for a while now, and I haven't been able to come up with an answer. From a secular view, can you say that a human life is more valuable than an animals life? It seems simple, but when making a list of qualities each group has, one has to wonder, What makes these qualities better than others? Yes human's can build houses, but birds can build nests. What makes the house so much better than the nest? Then one could argue about intelligence. But what is the value of intelligence? If intelligence is a guideline for value, then does that make people who are mentally retarded, less equal. Of course not...... So let me know what you think....
2013-06-01T03:09:40Z
@Thatoneguy, If that is true than couldn't people use that to justify killing humans? Why would killing humans become any more wrong than breaking a rock? It seems like if we live by that then human life becomes invaluable and morals are out the window.
2013-06-01T03:16:19Z
@David, Great English there, you said a whole lot, but in reality said nothing.
2013-06-01T03:29:55Z
@Celest, Yeah I guess that is true. But you brought up a point that made me think. Since humans invent and discover things, couldn't one argue that because we contribute more towards the earth that we are superior?
2013-06-01T04:17:18Z
@Sharpen it, Hmm, you bring up a lot of good points. I read over your post and thought about it for a while. I understand that you are saying it is our ability to reason and be rational that does give us an advantage over other things. But when it comes down to it, doesn't the ability to reason come from intelligence? There is no doubt that our ability to reason it definitely an advantage, but by following this logic, are humans who do not have this ability or lack it because of some type of disorder, on the same level of importance of animals? By putting this as a main advantage, it has a lot of bad possible conclusions. People could use this type of logic to say, if you do not come to the same logical conclusion I do (about any issue) then you do not have a good ability to reason. Thus the person could say that they are sub human. And the one that I already said before (those with mental disabilities, autism, infants) I think that by using that issue has your main value, could l
2013-06-01T04:32:53Z
@Special EPhex, O.k, if axiology is something that is subjective to humans, then how do you justify the killing of any animal? Or the use of things in nature? How do begin to justify why you're life is more important than those things that you kill for your own personal life (even those you don't need to use to survive)? Why don't we just kill humans too if animals and humans are equal? And animals absolutely do. Animals only care about their survival, so they do put themselves above other animals.
?2013-06-01T03:50:38Z
Favorite Answer
There's an essay by Harry Frankfurt called "Freedom of the will and the concept of a person" in which he lays out the notion that our ability to form desires *about* our desires is what separates us from animals in general, and lets us identify what we mean when someone acts "like an animal." His notion is something like this: when we feel anger about something trivial, and we recognize that anger as wrong or inappropriate and want to change it, or when we might want a drug because we're addicted, but wish we weren't- then we're exercising these 'second-order' desires, which establishes our humanity in the sense that we're proving ourselves to be rational creatures.
By and large, it's the ability to be rational that we see as the good worth protecting in ethics, not life itself. In this respect, the value of life in humans vs. in animals is not different, nor is potential happiness or intelligence relevant to weighting a decision between the two.
@ ~G~ You're quite right to point out the weakness in using rationality as a yardstick for humanity. Frankfurt himself wasn't interested in defining animals, but was instead offering a (possibly) sufficient quality for persons- that is, what it would take to say that someone is morally responsible for their actions.
But you asked why we value human life over animal life, and my answer is still that we don't. We value the sorts of things that we know human life is capable of, rationality being a primary feature, and we would honor and value the same things in animals' lives if we saw those features exhibited. In fact, we already do- which is why we take pets so much more seriously the other creatures, and why cruelty to animals is still illegal.
Personally, I believe interpersonal communication is what we value in others, even more than rationality. That's a much longer conversation, though.
In my opinion, humanity subconsciously thinks that we're superior to other things, other animals etc. We take pride on what we invent, what we discover because its humans who discovered it, and not animals, it seems. Maybe its because of the fact that we can talk, animals can't, so they kind of literally don't have a say in this but we humans do. I'm sure they communicate with each other differently but in a way in which we don't understand. We kind of now control the world in a sense. We practically control everything from time to currency. I guess its our pride that makes it seem so that a human's life is more valuable than an animal's life. But honestly, I think all lives are valuable.
Edit: I've always believed that all living things contribute to the world. No matter how small the contribution they contribute, its still a contribution. We aren't really exactly superior to animals or whatever, its just that we have the kind of advantage that makes us seem superior to everything else. And that is probably the knowledge we've obtain, or we've been obtaining the entire time since the existence of humanity.
"What makes the house so much better than the nest?" The house is built with knowledge that is conceptual, and that requires reason. The nest is built with a fixed evolutionary instinct that doesn't change except when the nature of the environment changes and certain members of the species pick up on a new instinct that keeps them alive. This is seen quite often, both in nature, and in labs where "nature" is purposely changed.
"Then one could argue about intelligence. But what is the value of intelligence?" Intelligence in humans only, is conceptual, which means we can teach it to our young, who add to it what is reasonable to them, passing that on to their children. It is why 100 years ago we could not send up a simple rocket, and now we are making plans to put private communities on Mars, and competing to be the delivery system for the Space Lab, and already selling tickets on Virgin Space to take tourists up there. No other creature on earth can accomplish this.
"If intelligence is a guideline for value, then does that make people who are mentally retarded, less equal." Not as humans, but as special members of humanity. We don't let some of them drive; some cannot marry; some must live with parents of in care until they die. But we still protect them as human beings, with as much equality as is possible.
Animals don't deserve to be killed just for the killing. It is for the survival of our species--otherwise we have been known to punish people for their anti-species actions. We have teeth made for chewing meat as well as vegetables, and animal skins made wonderful protective gear before we discovered plant-based fabrics.
We understand the importance of animals. To kill whales you must have specific legal permits; we are working diligently to prevent over fishing. We put wolves and bison back where they were, to bring nature back into working order. But we are hunting all the boa constrictors in Florida that we can find.
It's all hierarchical, and sometimes you may not like the justification. But you can change those rules. It's being done every day.
Man is at the top of the tree so to say because he has so lived in all of the other systems we call mineral vegetable and animal also. We still sad to say for some of us an animal body to so contend with but not forever we say. We are not evolved as from Monkeys of whatever you may have thought that Darwin was meaning. The masters of wisdom are the custodians of all knowledge about all of earths vast histories including mankind. so we know this to be true. As yet animals have a vast instinct but we would not call it as such intelligence though it may to some seem that way. They are still based upon their own solar plexus for their own emotions and responses but we Still say my dog loves me etc. this is due to the fact that 90 % of folks are still polarised in their own emotions today. Tomorrow they will become mentally polarised as such and God speed that process .
That is a narrow minded view that leads to the question you pose. What one deems "better" is an arbitrary position. Surely animals don't place artificial value on thing as humans do, but we too are animals. It is just that we are more evolved, which does not imply better, only perceived to be .