Animals >=< human lives?

While we should want people to be held accountable, I think we need to embrace changes in position. "Backtracking" and "Flipflopping" arn't inherently bad. They show a willingness to change one's mind when presented with evidence/argument to the contrary. Which is good! He should not be mocked -- rather, congratulated and supported.

That is to say, if he's remaining honest about his own position.

 

Then I was being unclear. He didn't remain honest, once he saw that people didn't agree with him, he went ahead and made up a whole other topic to debate, where his point would be seen acceptable, even though it was completely unrelated to the topic where it began.

 

Coming from a human...

When's the last time you had to make a choice like that?

I'm signing out on this thread. I never really stated my blunt opinion so here we go:
Animals lives are equal to ours, not superior or below. Why? Because we're all Animals, Earthlings, living, and all of our lives matter. If I were faced with a decision between saving a human and a cat, I would most likely choose my own species (Human) as would any other animal.

 

Go wild boar hunting. Getting charged by one of those will change your mind. Either you shoot it until it stops dead or it gores you until you're dead.

 

Do you believe that human lives are equal to the lives of any animal? Every single animal on the planet?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 2, 2016 ---

Then I would urge people to stay polite and civil. The nicer you are, the more likely they can be reasoned with, and visa versa.

 

There are two points that I want to make here.

1. I think that the rights of a species should be determined by the intelligence of that species (note that rights do not equal importance, as certain organisms are important to the world without individual organisms within these species deserving special rights). As humans, we are the most intelligent organisms on Earth; therefore, we deserve to have rights that surpass that of all other species. If we were to disregard intelligence and say that a dog deserves equal rights to that of a human, wouldn't we also have to say that a fish deserves equal rights to that of a dog, that a spider deserves equal rights to that of a fish, etc.? At this point, we'd be saying that insects and arachnids deserve equal rights to that of humans, which is absurd, but is there any reason to stop here? There's no reason that we shouldn't extend out of the animal kingdom; plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea are all living organisms too, so shouldn't they be given equal rights as well? While we could say that it's obvious that certain species are far enough below humans that they shouldn't be treated equally, why is it that dogs should be? If dogs should be treated equally because they're 'close enough' to humans, where do we draw the line? How would be stop this from spiraling into an obligation to treat all species equally in order to remain consistent? We could quibble over where to draw the line, but in reality, no two species are equal; therefore, no two species deserve equal treatment. As the species that's the most intelligent (as well as being on the top of the food chain), human's deserve more rights than any other species on Earth (unless there are some superior extra-terrestrials living among us). Furthermore, I'd argue that a chimpanzee deserves more rights than a monkey, that a monkey deserves more rights than a dog, that a dog deserves more rights than a lizard, and so on (Though some would argue that no animals outside of humans deserve rights, since humans are on the top of the food chain and/or since the only 'rights' that we give to humans are in order to protect our own species).

2. As humans, we have a biological obligation to protect our own species over others. Even if a species existed that was more intelligent than us (therefore, deserving of more rights), we'd still have the biological obligation to protect our species over them. We wouldn't have survived as a race if our early ancestors said, "Screw it, I'd rather save this cute animal," every time that a human was in danger. As an intelligent, social species, we have to protect our own in order to survive.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 4, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 4, 2016 ---

Not true; you'll spend zero years in jail for killing yourself.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 4, 2016 ---

You'd kill the human? I can't tell if you're saying that dogs or humans are the worthless species.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 4, 2016 ---

A lack of empathy for other people is a sociopathic tendency; however, a sociopath that lacks empathy for humans certainly is not going to have much (if any) empathy for other animals. Also, a sociopath that lacks empathy can still reason; while they might not feel bad if the human dies, they can still think that it's wrong to kill the human.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 4, 2016 ---

It might be easy enough to say that dogs are close enough to humans that they deserve equal rights, but what would you say about moquitoes, scorpions, corals, etc.? Do you really think that killing a mosquito is equal to killing a human?

 

same

 

I agree with (1). I don't think I agree as much with (2), as it seems to lead to the following contradiction with (1). I believe there are hypotheticals in which I would priority the lives of more intelligent species over the lives of humans. If we found alien life or even an undiscovered species that looked at us -- intellectually, not physically -- as we look at ants? Then I have few qualms with prioritizing their lives over humans.

Not only that, but if we believe the morally optimal position is for someone to save the dog over the worm, I don't think the 'decider' impacts the morality of the situation. Whether you're a human, a dog, or a worm? The morally optimal position would be to save the dog over the worm. It also seems to be an argument from evolution/tradition/biology, to some degree.

I think I'd go down a slightly different route with intelligence -- rather, the capacity for well-being. I think it's fairly easy to imagine intelligent life that just suffered constantly. I wouldn't seek to prioritize it's life too much, if at all. My morality comes from an offshoot of utilitarianism. I.e. How to maximize the well-being of sentient life, rather than maximizing the intelligence of sentience life (which seems to be where you've gone with it, to some extent?).

 

You're still hung up on that? Okay, let me give you guys the context of how this all started. I personally dislike dogs, for many reasons. I dislike when they lick (absolutely disgusting), I dislike their size, teeth, etc (call it fear, whatever, I'm an anxious person), their loud, annoying barks ,and the general fact that dogs seem to hate me back. This also stems from the fact that I deliver newspapers, and have to deal with annoying dogs barking their heads off every time I come close, which tells their neighbors to start barking, until we have the whole neighborhood barking. I've even had an encounter (on Christmas Day, mind you) where a dog on my paper route tried to attack me; luckily I was able to get out of the way. Anyways, so I had finished doing my paper routes and had just come home, and went on Meep to see some people talking about how much they love dogs. I'm pretty sure from there, I said something along the lines of "I hate dogs", and we started arguing, until eventually I said "all dogs should die". Seeing as I had not given much context or reasoning, I then started giving out (perfectly valid) scientific reasoning as to why it would not be bad if said event were to happen, as well as addressing moral issues with dogs, like how dogs are pampered whilst humans in other countries starve. Did I say something in the heat of the moment? Yes. Do I fully agree with the statement and/or would carry out such a task? No. However, I will change my quote a bit. How about "If all dogs did die, would it be a bad thing?", to which my answer is a whole-hearted no.

You calling me psychotic for believing that human life is more important than that of a dogs, even after I had explained the above multiple times regarding my original statement is something I don't agree with.

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think he might be claiming that it's psychotic to float around the idea that we should kill all dogs. Separate from the 'less important than humans' bit.

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between a hatred of them, and the morality of the situation. Some people hate bees, but they're amazing creatures without which we'd be stuck up s*** creek without a paddle. I've met people that hate bees, though they wouldn't want to kill them. Because they recognize how valuable they are for us, and how precious sentient life is in general. They're just a dumber, smaller version of us. They have brains, they think, they feel. All that good stuff.

To put it *really* simply? Do I like... most hardcore religious fanatics? No. Quite the opposite. I despise them. Would I want to see them die or for them to suffer? No, not really. Would it be better if they didn't exist initially? Perhaps, I might get 'on board' with that. Maybe it's just a breakdown in communication, but ending the life of a being is rather different from it never having existing in the first place. It's a core argument behind the Pro-Choice argument, for instance.

 

Did you just assume his sexual identity?

 

A species is supposed to protect it's own in order to survive. If we were to find a single alien that was superior to us, then sure, we'd need to protect it, but let's assume that there are as many of these aliens as there are humans. If our entire species prioritized their lives over ours, we could potentially die out. If these aliens came to Earth in the early days of humanity, prioritizing them over humans could've caused humanity to never grow into what it's become. In order for a species like us to prosper, we have to protect its own.

(Although, one could argue that humans have evolved to the point that our morality should not be based purely on biology)

I think that the capacity for understanding (that is, intelligence) is what should dictate the 'rights' of a species. Let's say that there's a species that's identical to humans, except for the fact that this species suffers constantly. A member of this species might not want to hold on to a life that's full of constant suffering, but if they do, I think that they'd deserve the same things as a human would.

Side question: Do you think that maximizing the well-being of sentient life is the best course of action if it's at the expense of other sentient life? For example, if we have five, murderous humans that are all depressed, would it be good to allow them to kill another human in order to obtain happiness/well-being? We'd lose the well-being of one person, but we'd gain the well-being of five.

 

@Supreme_Overlord -- A species is supposed to protect it's own in order to survive.

A true statement. If by 'suppose', you mean 'traditionally has done'. Though I don't think one has a moral obligation to do so, because I don't think protecting your own species is inherently a good thing. The beautiful thing about us, is that we can overcome our evolutionary urges. We can aspire to become more than just 'human', controlled+limited by innate hardwired desires.

If we were to find a single alien that was superior to us, then sure, we'd need to protect it, but let's assume that there are as many of these aliens as there are humans. If our entire species prioritized their lives over ours, we could potentially die out.

Yep. That's not inherently bad. Given the choice between exterminating ants or dogs, I'm assuming you'd exterminate the ants. Let's do that again, with dogs and humans. And again, with humans and far superior sentient creatures.

Please don't take this offensively, but it seems that you might be caught between "what is morally optimal" and "what is best for the human species". I don't think they necessarily overlap.

If these aliens came to Earth in the early days of humanity, prioritizing them over humans could've caused humanity to never grow into what it's become. In order for a species like us to prosper, we have to protect its own.

Same goes for all sentient life. If you gave ants billions of years to evolve, maybe they would create technology like ours. We don't protect them on that basis. Given a strict dichotomy between ants and humans, we save the humans. Because they're more intelligent, can prosper far more than we can, and can do more good for other sentient creatures. I'm applying this to our species.

(Although, one could argue that humans have evolved to the point that our morality should not be based purely on biology)

One could, and one does. I think it's the appeal to nature/tradition fallacy too.

I think that the capacity for understanding (that is, intelligence) is what should dictate the 'rights' of a species. Let's say that there's a species that's identical to humans, except for the fact that this species suffers constantly. A member of this species might not want to hold on to a life that's full of constant suffering, but if they do, I think that they'd deserve the same things as a human would.

I'm struggling with this analogy, because I believe we should try and increase the well-being of all sentient life. I think the human life is of more value in your example, fwiw. I think I may have a better one though, with which to distinguish the difference in our position.

I'm assuming you believe... a retarded billion dollar philanthropist has less of a right to life, than a 70yo with the IQ of 100. Because... 'intelligence'. "right to life" might dirty the waters a little though. I believe both have a right to life, but one of these lives is more valuable than the other. Given the choice between saving either, I'd choose the philanthropist. His life is more valuable, and I think saving his is the morally optimal decision. I'm guessing that you disagree, given what you've said about intelligence?

Save the life of... the leader of ISIS? Or... Sam the Guide Dog (seeing-eye dog)? Again, I assume you go for the somewhat counter-intuitive ISIS leader?

Side question: Do you think that maximizing the well-being of sentient life is the best course of action if it's at the expense of other sentient life? For example, if we have five, murderous humans that are all depressed, would it be good to allow them to kill another human in order to obtain happiness/well-being? We'd lose the well-being of one person, but we'd gain the well-being of five.

Sounds like a remixed version of the classic 'organ transplant' problem.

In short? No, because it's not morally optimal. Can the murderous humans get treatment elsewhere? What precedent does this set in the future for other people that are mentally ill? Will it cue them of their murderous desires permanently, or are we just delaying it? What sort of implications does it have to be a murderous depressed individual, as to what you contribute into society, and how valuable we deem your life to be? etc etc

There's a lot of language in there that might need to be elaborated on and unpacked, so it might help if I explain my position in my own words. "Good", "well-being",...

RE: Organ transplant problem. Do I think it would be moral to kidnap a homeless man, so that his organs can save the life of 5 that need urgent organ transplants? No, because we now live in a world where people have to factor this into their decision making. It decreases the well-being of millions, billions even.

Do I think it would be moral to kill a random person, in order to gain $10,000,000? Yes. Recent estimates (afaik) put the price of saving a life of someone living in poverty in Africa at ~$3,400. So... kill a random person working 9-5, to save the lives of 3,000 Africans? Sure. Increase the well-being, by sacrificing well-being. "The greater good".

 

Just to add I sincerely hope people would pick the ant; ants have many very important duties in ecosystems. Dogs? Not so much. Which leads me into my next bit (not directed at you Debathiest). For any of you saying that humans should die over animals because we are evil planet-polluters, then you really need to take a step back and look at how much we help our ecosystems too. Not even counting the animals we save / preserve out of the kindness of our blood-pumping organ, there are so many animals we (essentially) keep alive. Many scavengers, those pests like ticks, etc, and so many more I really can't think about it. Furthermore, even with the things we have screwed up around the world (i.e invasive species brough over ships, etc), if we're gone, then nobody can help fix those problems.

 

I think that all of this depends heavily on what we base our morality on. I would argue that basing morality on biology is not an appeal to nature, as morality begins as a part of biology. For less-evolved species, I'd say that what is "morally optimal" and "what is best for the species" are the same thing. Morality seems to begin through evolution as the biological obligation for an organism to protect its own species. The question here, however, is whether or not humans have evolved past this point. It's true that humans are capable of basing morality on more than simple biology and it's definitely is true that humans are capable of rising above our biology. For example, human's are capable of not wanting kids, even though we have a biological need to reproduce. It could also be said that controlling sexual desires and not raping people is rising above our biological desires as well, though not rising above these desires contradicts with our biological obligation to protect our species, so it's hard to say if this is rising above our biological desires or just giving in to the desire to protect our own. Regardless, I think that choosing to not have kids is a good example of how humans are capable of making decisions that don't go along with our biology. It's definitely true that humans are capable of having moral beliefs that don't follow biology (a lot amount of religious beliefs fall into this category), but should we? At this point, saying no could be regarded as an appeal to tradition, if we're just appealing to the tradition of how morality has existed in our evolutionary history.

After thinking about all of this, I do think that morality probably should be based on more than just biology.

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, as I don't have enough time to finish my response right now.

 

Imagine taking an adult. Is his life >,= or < his fathers. = to, right? Now do that a bunch of times until you get to homo erectus. Still equal right? If not, at what point does it stop being equal. Do the same all the way back to the common great ape ancestor, or fish, or even bacteria! (that's right approx 10,000,000,000,000 of your brothers are on you right now!)

Animal lives = human lives

If you disagree with that model, imagine a mound of sand. Now take 1 grain of sand away from it, is it still a mound? Continue doing this until you only have 1 grain left. At what point is it not a mound anymore?

 

@Supreme_Overlord -- I think that all of this depends heavily on what we base our morality on. I would argue that basing morality on biology is not an appeal to nature, as morality begins as a part of biology.

This isn't meant as a snidey rebuttal, but I think it elucidates the point expertly. Rapists and apologists for rape have used the rationale you are using here to excuse rape, violence included. There has always been tribalism for as long as our species has existed -- prior to that too. But that doesn't make it 'right'.

Give this a quick look and let me know if you disagree. Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For less-evolved species, I'd say that what is "morally optimal" and "what is best for the species" are the same thing.

See above link.

Morality seems to begin through evolution as the biological obligation for an organism to protect its own species.

I would argue that obligations/optimal actions begin the moment we know of conscious sentient life.

It could also be said that controlling sexual desires and not raping people is rising above our biological desires as well,

Ayyyy. Ya beat me to it.

After thinking about all of this, I do think that morality probably should be based on more than just biology.

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, as I don't have enough time to finish my response right now

Awesome. I look forward to it.

 

If a dog had to choose between saving another dog from a burning building, or saving a human from the same building which would it choose?

Does either answer seem morally wrong?

 

But they aren't the same. At one point homo sapiens and all other homo species developed enough differences to effectively be called a different species. At that point (especially considering the fact that we have such similar niches), we became our evolutionary enemies, and a fight for resources ensued. That's how scientists believe the Neanderthals were wiped out in such a small amount of time; we out-competed them for food. And if that had not happened, we would not be here to argue about it today. So no, animal lives do not equal human lives, however we do have to recognize the importance of some species to our existence. Because we are sentient and intelligent, we must decide which animals live (we said no to Harambe), and which animals should be allowed to parish, based on various criteria, including how it would affect our livelihoods, sustained survival, and well-being of our ecosystems as a whole. Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of *most* animal species, and I also understand the concept of evolution, but I think you're using it in the wrong context.

Also the "mound of sand" thing here really doesn't help your point. Of course, there's no consensus upon when it would change (except, with regards to the human / ape split, they have a good idea), but I think we can all agree that we wouldn't be calling it a "mound" when it's down to under 100 specs of sand. At some point, you would change your stance from "mound" to "small pile", then to "final brethren of sand", and finally, "last man standing". It works the same in evolution, and for you to say that me and the bacteria making my armpits stink are one in the same, well, it's just not true.

 

Humans contribute virtually nothing to the Earth whilst something like a bee or a turtle contribute. If an alien came to Earth and had to choose to kill a human or some wold animal, 99% of the time they would probably choose to kill the human.