Animals >=< human lives?

There's a difference between the abortion debate and what I was saying here, but I didn't explain it; my bad. I think that a better way to phrase what I meant would be that a three-year-old is a sentient being with the potential to be much more intelligent chimpanzee.

I agree with the Dr. Suess quote when we're talking about people, but I wouldn't apply it to all organisms.

Simply not wanting to kill an ant or a dolphin is a different thing than equally not wanting to kill either of them. While I don't subscribe to the belief that killing an individual ant is wrong, I can understand the belief that it is. I would argue, however, that killing a dolphin is wrong and that there's a huge difference between the two. If you want to refrain from unnecessarily killing anything, I can understand that, but I don't see how an ant is equal to a dolphin or a human, as biologically, dolphins and humans are superior.

Wouldn't it be wrong to do it then? If morality contradicts with biology or the natural order, then aren't we obligated to follow the morality?

Fair enough, I'll agree that it's obviously unnatural to use black people as slaves and that we have teeth that are designed to eat meat. Our teeth, however, don't prove that we're still meant to eat meat. We have tailbones that are left over from our evolutionary past; who's to say that our meat-eating teeth aren't remnants of our ancestors as well? Assuming that we are naturally meant to currently eat meat, we still don't know what types of meat. Perhaps we're only meant to eat fish. Back to an earlier point, I'd argue that if all animals are equal to us, eating any animal is wrong. I'm assuming that you'd take the opposite viewpoint and say that eating any animal is okay? Would eating a dolphin be the same as eating a chicken?

Sure, all lives are lives, but that doesn't mean that they're all equal. Some lives are clearly more evolved than others. If we're going to say that all lives should be treated equally (and that they're are deserving of equal value), I think that makes it wrong to harm any life, even if biology says otherwise.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 16, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 13, 2016 ---

By "best" I do mean what's best for the well-being of the species.

I explained the morality of chimpanzees/bonobos a bit: they adopt/raise orphans and they display fairness with others of their species. If you want a couple more examples, they mourn over deaths and they have been known to risk their lives (and drown) in attempt to save members of their species that have fallen into moats at zoos. These are examples of them displaying morality, are they not (I'm not just looking at them and assuming that they are, as the general scientific consensus is that they are)? I'll get more into what 'my morality' is soon, but I think that any display of what someone believes is 'right' is 'morality;' I'd say that a religious extremist that believes that it's morally correct to murder is still expressing 'morality,' just very incorrect morality.


Regardless, reverting to the chimpanzees/bonobos, neither of them are capable of the same rational thought that humans are. Both chimpanzees and their morality are less evolved than us and our morality, and their morality is controlled by their biology, not their rationality/thought. This seems to show two things: Firstly, that morality begins through evolution as part of an organism's biology. Secondly, that the morality of less-evolved species only affects how they treat members of their species (while chimpanzees and bonobos display morality towards their relatives/members of their species, they don't seem to have ).


Therefore, it seems as if "morality" and "what's 'best' (what's best for the well-being) for an individual's species" are the same thing in less-evolved species, such as chimps. In other words, it seems to be the case that morality evolves as the biological obligation for an organism to do what's best for its species. Humans, as we've discussed, have evolved to the point that we're capable of rational thought and developing morality that contradicts with what's best for our species. Hopefully, there will be less confusion now.

Yes, it would be an appeal to tradition.

Anyway, as I've agreed that we shouldn't base our morality on biology, let's move back to what we're actually debating.

I spent a little while thinking about this and I've changed my mind a little, so I'm going to reply to all of these segments together, as doing otherwise would be horribly confusing for the whole debate.

Anyway, I think it's necessary to draw an 'arbitrary' line at each species. When I first began thinking about this, I thought that it would be best to throw out any messy, arbitrary lines for a more 'simple' approach to a morality. This meant that I had to abolish intelligence as any basis for a life's value, as I don't think that a person's life should be valued more than another just because they're more intelligent. Briefly, I considered basing it off of the capacity to understand things like life, yourself, meaning, death, etc. I mean, the fact that we can understand that we're alive, that we can develop a meaning for our life, and so on are definitely things that show a cognitive difference between us and other species, but they don't differ that much within our species (that is, the typical person can understand these things in a way that is roughly on par with a genius). The issue here, however, is that some mentally disabled people can't understand these things in the way that a typical person can, but I do not think that their lives should be given any less of a value. I also have qualms about your idea of basing a life's value off of well-being. I think that valuing a happy person more than a depressed person is not any better than valuing a smart person over a dumb person; more importantly, I don't think that either of these scenarios are morally 'right.' The fundamental thing here is that I think that it's morally correct to value all humans as equal (with an exception that I'll mention shortly), and the only way to do this is to draw a line at the species level. What makes individuals of one species more valuable than individuals of another can be intelligence (I'd regard it as such), well-being, or something else, but regardless of the case, I'd argue that a line should be drawn at the level of each species. At this point, this is not really me saying, "Sometimes I value intelligence. Sometimes I don't;" instead, it's, "When comparing a species to another species, the more members of the more intelligent species have more of a right to life; however, I think it's only morally fair to say that all members of the same species have the same right to life."

As for what it means to make a moral decision, I think we might be closer to agreeing on that, as I'd say that a moral action is one that increases the well-being of others and that an immoral action is one that unjustifiably decreasing the well-being of others. This is why I'd say that the 'good'/'bad' actions that are done by somebody can affect the value of their life (this being the exception of the rule of all humans being equal). By default, I think that all members of a species have an equal value to their life, but if they do enough good/bad, they can raise/lower their value. Actually, it might be beneficial to say that I value the life of a human based on the good/bad that they do, but that I think all humans are equal by default.

If we assume that the genius is not going to significantly outweigh the happy guy with how much good is done, I'd say that their lives are both equal.

By "benefit" I mean well-being.

I would agree with you here, depending on the circumstances. Like I said, I'd agree that it's moral to kill someone in order to save 3,000 people. I'd technically say that it's morally justified (but neutral) to kill one person in order to save another person (assuming that somebody has to be killed in order to save the person), but I'd say that it's morally correct (so, good) to kill a person in order to save 3,000. Because of my moral hierarchy for different species, I would not say that it's morally correct to kill a person in order to save 3,000 mice, nor would I say that it's morally justified to kill a person in order to save one mouse. Considering that I'd say that a species is of more value when it's more intelligent, I would say that it's morally correct to kill one person in order to save 3,000 chimpanzees; however, I would not say that it's morally justified to kill one person in order to save one chimpanzee. I think that the value of one person is more than that of one chimpanzee, but that the value of 3,000 chimpanzees is significantly more than that of one person. (Side note: these scenarios regarding when killing a person would be moral are all assuming that the person is, for the most part, morally neutral)

Assuming that they can be regarded as morally equal beings, I would not value one over the other.

If the illness is terminal, no. If the illness is painful but not deadly, yes.

Euthanasia is good when the person wants to die; I don't think that a depressed person should ever be euthanized, as they can recover, but if somebody with a painful illness wants to die, it's good to help them do that. I would argue, however, that it's extremely far from good to go around killing depressed, disabled, and pained people just because you think that they're not in a state of well-being. As long as the person wants to live, their life should not be given less of a value just because it's doesn't have the same quality of well-being that another life does.

I would vote option (C), yes.

I like the idea of using a Discord group to discuss debatable topics, but I'm not entirely sure if it will be that beneficial for this specific topic. You have a much more sound opinion on this topic than I do, so debating this over Discord will probably be easier for you. Morality is something that I've still been deciding some of my ideas about (as you've seen here, I've changed ideas on some things a bit during this conversation). I don't know, it might be most beneficial for me to continue this debate on this thread so that I have the ability to spend time pondering over the subject of the discussion without rushing into a response. Regardless, I've joined the group, whether it be for this discussion or others!

 

How has this guy not been banned yet?

 

bc I'm more relevant than you will ever be c:

but I thought you had me blocked?

 

because he hasn't broken any rules

 

Let's take a quick look at the rules.

• Keep debates clean and orderly. [X]
• Be mature. [X]
• If a thread discomforts you, don't view the thread. [X]
• Threads and arguments should use logic and reason. [/]
• Fun debates are allowed. The Premier Online Debate Website | Debate.org has a very nice set up for debates and events. [ ]
• Do NOT rant or flame players on debate threads. This is not the forum to do so. [X]
• Do NOT create 'troll' threads/posts. [/]

Warnings will begin to be dealt to posts and threads which break these rules.
If you end up with enough warnings, a forum ban will be applied to your account.

His comment history is chock full of abuse and hatred. I hope something gets done about it.

You are. Sometimes I click on "Show Ignored Content" to see what @Ranger0203 's been contributing. Curiosity got the better of me.

 

oh yea idc about that why are you typing whole walls of text nobody bothers to read

currently have 0 warning points. therefore, you're stupid, and don't know what you're talking about. well i already knew that lmao

& i also don't care that you have me blocked if you have an issue with me that's your problem not mine. doesn't keep me awake at night lol

 

Without looking at it, I'm just going to guess that's it's not hatred (maybe 'abuse', but that's pretty relative). It might be dismissive, or rude, but people are starting to overuse hatred these days. I think people are losing sight of the idea that hatred should be reserved for people you really, really, really don't like. Today, it's becoming interchangeable with dislike.

I'm glad you love me so much

 

I would say that animal lives are a bit more important than human lives because they are perceived as innocent by us, while people have always done intentional wrong. Not saying people should die, but animal death is a bit more of a blow to society

 

Not trying to start a religious debate here but as a Christian we are taught that God gave us dominion over the earth and it's creatures, and that we alone are made in the image of God. Thus, we are vastly more important than animals. However, this does not mean that we should be cruel to animals on purpose. But if such a situation were to present itself, I would save a human over an animal any day.

 

There have been multiple occurrences of Nhjed insulting those who disagree with him and invalidating their opinions without actually making any argument. More importantly, he has also told those who disagree with him to completely leave the debate and that they deserve to be in a mental hospital. We can argue over the semantics of what's abuse and what's hatred, but regardless, the content that he's added to debates has broken the rules of the debates section.

 

He also said that slaves should obey their masters, and sent bears to mercilessly slaughter children for mocking a man's baldness.

My response would be less snarkey if you engaged in these conversations. But as far as I can remember, you post your opinion, and then you just leave. Which doesn't seem like a (healthy) debate at all.

If you're going to invoke the Bible, let's talk about that. Let's discuss it and have a (healthy!) debate. But at least have the courtesy to engage with people. If not... well, I'll cut myself off there. You get the gist.

 

Yeah... None of that's hatred, but it's certainly inappropriate.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 22, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 22, 2016 ---

Is it...? Not in my experience.

 

Unless the person is a minority, a child, or a person of high standard, people won't care. But we see animals as babies essentially, that's why we find things cute. We tend to second guess if people deserved to get shot or actually was secretly a bad person, but with animals we don't have that second guessing so we instantly feel bad about it. If that makes any sense.

 

What you just did was elevate minority lives above white lives (in the U.S., at least).

This isn't about how many people care, this is about value. Nobody cares that I made $100 last week, but that doesn't devalue the money. On the flip side, all my friends would care if I, say, got a girlfriend, but that doesn't necessarily make the relationship worth more than the $100. (perhaps a bad example, because a relationship is arguably more valuable than a hundred dollars, but you get my point.).

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 22, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 22, 2016 ---

Think about it this way, which would people think worse of me for, killing a mouse, or killing my friend?

 

Right, what matters to us doesn't matter to them, so lets not pretend they should matter to us.

 

What debate event do you run?

 

Today was ANZAC Day [Australian and New Zealand Army Corps], and we pay respect to those fallen in the war at Gallipoli against the Turkish in WWI. At my school, this year's theme was the animals, and the local councillor stated that over 160,000 animals died in the war that were from Australia. They weren't allowed to return to Australia/New Zealand in the fear of disease. And only 60,000 Australian/New Zealand men died [not saying this is insignificant, just comparing it to the animal numbers].

Relating this to the topic, I agree with @Toastie. They're both a really big no-no and you would probably find a way to avoid doing it anyway, if you had to choose.

 

Humans matter more because
A. If it is survival of the fittest then we are winning so we shouldn't care about some dumb animals
B. Humans actually are sentient beings (duh a dog isn't sorry)
C. We did not claw my way to the top of the food chain to be vegetarians.
D. If we are going to discuss Humans like we are animals, then if you notice in the wild each species sticks up for itself (there are exceptions to this, but Generally speaking) So why are we not sticking up for our race...

A bumble bee or a baby... WOW, do we even have to discuss that.

--- Double Post Merged, May 1, 2017, Original Post Date: May 1, 2017 ---

You can pull what I said apart and pick out all the flaws, but you get the general idea.

--- Double Post Merged, May 1, 2017 ---

I like meat, and there are lots of omnivores out there besides us that can survive on plants. They still eat meat, why shouldn't we?

 

God put meat on this planet for me to eat. Imma eat it. I refuse to eat a human so I'd kill any animal (even a dog) over a human.

 

who's bob tho
Really, to me, kind of depends on the person I'm about to kill/eat. I like animals (not the spooky kind tho, although not scared of them), but you gotta find something to eat. If you were to put a puppy (or any kind of baby animal) vs like a grown man, i'd probably kill the old man. Pup has to live.