Are animals really not equal?

[Xorkoth]

That's actually my big problem with objective morality (with absolute objective morality anyway). If something is objective, shouldn't it apply regardless of species? Isn't it at that point some sort of universal truth? Otherwise it's still subjective to a species. In reality though, we can never get all members of our species to agree to what is moral and what is not, let alone all of life.

Also I wanted to ask, do you believe that a person being broke makes them less of a human? You made the homeless comment a few times (including in your rebuttal "okay, fine, a homeless person who stays homeless forever"), and now the comment you made in the post above. If so, why do you believe that? Money is a man-made concept, and is, at this point, entirely an artificial system. Who says that a person must be successful by our current society's standard to have value?

Sorry for just replying only to specific parts of your post, I'm too tired to digest it all right now.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

You miss understood. The point was to prove that she was incapable of buying the bread but needed to provide for her child.

As far as money goes... LOL. I think it's the single worst ideology in this world. Where else, other than religion, have you seen such a tool for grinding your own axe? Corruption, 'power over others' , discrimination, hatred in all sorts, war, bullying, etc etc. all have a root of greed and you don't have all that greed without the incentive of money.

I think, before they fell the fuck apart, the aztecs(dear lord I hope i am picking the right largest civilization to not use money) did it right. No money.


''In reality though, we can never get all members of our species to agree to what is moral and what is not, let alone all of life.''

That's the thing. You don't need to get the members of species to agree to what is moral and what is not. It's like saying you can't get everyone in the world to accept the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn't matter. Logic is objective and therefore it is Four regardless of anyone elses input on if it's four or not.

And it does apply regardless of species. You gotta read my entire points man :D

The point is that it applies to EACH species. That which degrades or devalues a member of a species is immoral and that which doesn't is not. It's universal. We can't make it a blanket statement of including ANYONE else except for the ones of OUR species because that doesn't make sense. It becomes subjective and then what. Where is the line drawn? Are bacteria also in need of being 'morally' respected? Soap is illegal and inhumane now.

What about plants? those are living too.

OOO you stepped on a flower and broke it's stem. It gets infected with bacteria and now it's permanently dead. DEATH SENTENCE TO YOU.

It doesn't work.

My input on the situation doesn't matter and neither does yours. We are not moral agents. We are creatures living within the rules of physics and logic. However, if we all of a sudden want to defy logic (hello emotions / Incoming nuclear winter) then fine so be it. The universe doesn't care. It will remain logical and constant.

But don't call it a basis of morality. It's a belief system you are trying to place just like all cultures.

 

[swilow]

^Why does human life have intrinsic value? Who has assigned this value? I think you are also conflating subjectivity with objectivity.

Would you consider it wrong if an incredibly advanced race of aliens came and destroyed us for food, a race whose value may exceed our own?

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Thats the thing. No one assigned this value. Yet by being human you inately and intrinsically have value. If we didnt have value, as a species into individuals, then how can morality exist at all? I already explained how a person, even without knowing he is human has the same intrinsic value of human life. Thus by being human, and so are you and I, we only care, roughly speaking, morally, about homo sapiens.

And... Yeah no shit i would feel it was immoral but it really isn't. From their point of view its not immoral. And you cannot say their value exceeds our own. As humans our lives matter more than all else so their lives would never have more value. Human life comes above all. However to slaughter my own point, those beings, if rational agents, would not do so for they would have intelligence enough to realize a difference between an animal (who is not a rational agent) and a human (who can act rationally) and thus have a different 'end'. To further break down my point instead of food humans could become underlings who could provide worth of "good" back to the rational agents themselves.

I don't see the hardship in this argument. What is hard or rather what is the part that becomes difficult to swallow? The mere fact of being a living human is enough to permit intrinsic value of human life. As a human you base your right and wrong off something that is intrinsic to all humans within a species because that is a life on par with your own. It is something shared by all living humans then devaluing it is bad. Upholding it is good. Once again, it becomes harder with relative moralism within the species. You only judge from yourself. Not from the aspect of all. Comes back to the argument for bacteria being living, viruses -which mimic living organic cells / organisms but are not - and plant life all being needed to be respected or it's immoral.

In addition - is all intrinsic value nonderivative is an argument which still, from the very core, recognizes humans as having value. It then tries to adhere intrinsic value onto other objects in relation to one self. Other than new age philosophy all signs point to humans existing in SOME form. And we all, if you are human, exist in the same general circumstance if we accept the rules of physics to be true - if you don't then fuck it. I am a god damn helicopter but no one else can see my roterblades.

 

[swilow]

What is hard or rather what is the part that becomes difficult to swallow?

I can't figure out why human life is more important then everything else. I agree, it is a principle that I subscribe to in part, but it doesn't make a lot of rational sense. It seems to be a subjective claim, and you agreed when you said that the aliens would not be doing something immoral, in their minds, if they eat us all. That means that their morality is different to ours. Neither one can be said to be therefore objective.

But I don't believe that human life having intrinsic value means that other life forms do not, or neccesarily devalus them. Whilst no one can know this, the behaviour of my cat indicates that she does have preferences. She has the capacity to suffer. Trying to avoid suffering underpins morality. Causing suffering for anything that can experience suffering could be the basis for immorality. But, morality should not be black and white, otherwise it becomes dogmatic and harmful.

I don't think animals and humans are equal, but its an unfair question. Only humans have the ability to both ask and answer it; we can't really hear from the other side, so we make inferences. All data indicates that animals are autonomous, have the capacity to suffer and, therefore, the right to avoid that. IMO.

 

[drug_mentor]

1) the fault of subjectivity.

I now assign that you, xorkoth, have zero value. It is my moral belief that those named Xorkoth are not worthy of value and you have diminished to net sum of zero value. Do you have zero value? No. Of course not. If you allow subjective morality you have this problem occur. SO what is this ''morality'' called? BELIEFS! Even cultural morality is just a set of BELIEFS. It is separate from logic and it's an observable idea from a cultures tendencies (this includes religion - even though religion can sometimes be morally correct.)

I agree with a lot of your post, there is a thread on Moral Relativism which I would encourage you to contribute to.

However, it seems to me there is an inherent flaw in your reasoning. You are essentially doing to animals what you are saying it is unacceptable to do to people, arbitrarily assigning them zero value.

What makes human life special? You haven't defended this claim whatsoever, and I think it is a claim which needs defending for your argument to work.

To assert that one species is inherently more valuable than another sounds speciesist. Without further exposition of your claim, it comes across like you are saying one group is superior to another due to purely biological traits. This is analogous to the reasoning behind racism. I would normally be charitable and interpret your claim to mean that people are generally superior because we are persons, but since you explicitly state that all humans have value (and not all humans are persons), it seems like your argument is biological.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Haha i love it. Speakers and listeners can convey a message completely separate from the one idea that is trying to be portrayed. It's genuinely humbling.

Human life has innate value because you and I are humans. If we are both humans then in every shape and form we are both equal and thus from a homo sapien point of view we are nonderivatively intrinsically good. An animal, who has value yet is lower than ours due to not being the same species, can still have intrinsic derivative good or a final value. Yet it will never be comparable to a human life because it's not human. To other dogs, if using this example, your dog is not worth more than any other dog. Regardless if you think your dog is the fucking shit (and i do too, pls let me cuddle.) But back to the point. An animal can have a high relative worth and thus increase intrinsic value by increasing your own 'good' but that still makes it a derivative good. Otherwise, where do we draw the arbitrary line. Bacteria illicit a defensive response when its membrane is getting infiltrated or hurt. Does that make killing bacteria wrong? It, as anyone with a microscope and eyes can see, has a response. It happens in ourown bodies as we speak. Te bacteria has a response. Without a neural connection we would not know it to exhibit a response but that doesn't make it NOT true. Why is killing an animal wrong but bacteria not??

It's too arbitrary.


Now what goes without saying is that morals should not be blindly followed. I, and many others, believe that words carry 0 worth. It, in reality, does not mean anything. They are all extrinsic values we have assigned to portray ideas. Does that mean I should bully others with words? Ridicule and spew hatred? No, fucking hell no. Why? Because emotions give me the understanding and compassion to go against logic. Even though logic states that emotions aren't valued I am not going to trample on a persons feelings for my own humor. But logically (to an extent) i could.

 

[swilow]

Thats a tautological argument...

 

[Foreigner]

Why do people ask if animals are equal to humans when not all humans are equal among themselves? It depends on who you ask, and their moral values.

Put aside survival needs. Those aren't relevant to this question. Our physical bodies have needs and that requires some species to be sacrificed. It doesn't mean we don't care about them, as any farmer will tell you.

If all things were morally equal then it would mean we have no prejudices, biases or preferences that cause favoritism. That's not the way humanity operates.

And what is the basis for judging equality anyway? Human laws? Natural laws? Power?

If you look at natural law, then everything is dependent on everything else for survival, so there is nothing that has the upper hand. As conservationism informs us, predators keep prey populations healthy by keeping their numbers in equilibrium with survival resources, and prey provide predators with food. Even the smallest insects are doing stuff that big animals rely upon.

Human notions of equality are too contrived. Nature has already figured it out as part of the holistic balance.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Thats a tautological argument...

Do you understand all the words? I can try and put it into smaller words if that's what you're looking for? This is pretty basic ethics here though. It's not like it's debatable. At least this portion.

The poster above me puts it into different words. I enjoyed it

People are stuck on morals always being positive and good and refuse to acknowledge it's harsh realities

 

[drug_mentor]

Human life has innate value because you and I are humans. If we are both humans then in every shape and form we are both equal and thus from a homo sapien point of view we are nonderivatively intrinsically good. An animal, who has value yet is lower than ours due to not being the same species, can still have intrinsic derivative good or a final value. Yet it will never be comparable to a human life because it's not human. To other dogs, if using this example, your dog is not worth more than any other dog. Regardless if you think your dog is the fucking shit (and i do too, pls let me cuddle.) But back to the point. An animal can have a high relative worth and thus increase intrinsic value by increasing your own 'good' but that still makes it a derivative good. Otherwise, where do we draw the arbitrary line. Bacteria illicit a defensive response when its membrane is getting infiltrated or hurt. Does that make killing bacteria wrong? It, as anyone with a microscope and eyes can see, has a response. It happens in ourown bodies as we speak. Te bacteria has a response. Without a neural connection we would not know it to exhibit a response but that doesn't make it NOT true. Why is killing an animal wrong but bacteria not??

I don't think your argument makes sense. I get that people are all equal by virtue of being people, but I don't see where you make the leap from people are equal to people are superior to animals. Animal life might not be comparable to human life, but why does this mean it is worth less? You could just as easily conclude it is worth more (please note I am not actually arguing for this position, just pointing out a flaw in your logic).

I don't think killing animals is universally wrong. I think it is wrong to kill them for fun, and I think factory farming is fucked up. I am an omnivore and eat meat almost every day, I don't have a problem with killing animals for utility. However, I subscribe to a personhood theory to account for why human life is generally more valuable than that of (most) animals.

This is pretty basic ethics here though. It's not like it's debatable. At least this portion.

Just because you were taught something in an ethics class doesn't make it a fact, it is an opinion. Plenty of people got taught different shit in different ethics classes (myself being one example). There are many ways to rationalise these things and they are all debatable to varying degrees.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

No. This is literally the core fundamental fact of ethics and logic. All reasoning stem from the intrinsic value of human life. We, as moral agents and humans... Cannot place something ABOVE us. If that was true you could then justify killing others for the sake of that value above us.

NOTHING in this world carries more value than oneself. Once you have that universal indicator (of human life once again) one that is absolute (no philosopher since fucking plato tries to argue that human life has no value. MANY can argue what the POINT of life is but not that LiFE (HUMAN LIFE) has no value)

Once you establish that universal indicator only then can you start to morally place things. Then relative morality comes into play and nonderivative morality vs derivative. Etc etc.

Simply by existing as a homo sapien will you have absolute value. The rest is all relative TO THAT VALUE OF HUMAN LifE.


"Animal life might not be comparable to human life" - done. That's it. Literally animal life is not equal to human life. It's worth becomes relative to a humans life. Either through direct statement of extrinsic value or it's innate value as increasing quality of life (te value of human life) regardless of our input on whether it does so or not.

 

[drug_mentor]

I am not arguing human life has no value, I clearly stated that I believe otherwise.

Why does animal life being incomparable to human life mean it has less value? Neither is comparable to the other, how are you establishing which one is more valuable?

Why is human life the universal indicator? Because we are all human and we are all equal, and animals are different to us? Your conclusion does not follow from these premises.

Now you are smuggling in moral agency, so it seems like your theory is hinged on personhood after all (either that or some theological stance).

Note that I mostly agree with your conclusion, I just don't think you are making a good argument for it. You would have been better off straightforwardly approaching this from the moral agency/personhood angle at the outset.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Yeah human life is the universal indicator to other humans because upholding human life takes priority over all. How much a life take priority is relative morality, from objective stand point human life > all. Just as if we were dogs, dogs > all.

But explain your point of personhood more. I'm intrigued how my conclusion can't be based on IVHL. It's pretty much based on natures law no?

 

[drug_mentor]

Yeah human life is the universal indicator to other humans because upholding human life takes priority over all. How much a life take priority is relative morality, from objective stand point human life > all. Just as if we were dogs, dogs > all.

This is a contradiction. How can objective morality be relative to the biological species the agent belongs to?

On your moral theory, the only reason humans have to care about other humans is that we all belong to the same biological species. Not only does that seem arbitrary (why not pick out other biological traits as morally significant?), but it is potentially very problematic. Imagine that some humans evolved in to a more advanced species, or that Earth was invaded by space aliens. According to your ethical theory, it would be perfectly moral for these non-human creatures to own, enslave, kill and consume humans, in much the same manner that humans currently do to animals.

But explain your point of personhood more. I'm intrigued how my conclusion can't be based on IVHL. It's pretty much based on natures law no?

I don't know what IVHL means exactly. I googled IVHL ethics, both with and without quotation marks, and it came up with nothing relevant.

The reason I believe that (most) human life is superior to that of (most) animals is not based on biological criteria, but based on qualities which could reasonably be said to make human life more worth living. This is generally referred to as a theory of personhood, I am genuinely surprised that you have not encountered this since you implied you have studied ethics. Anyway, some of the advantages of a theory of personhood are: it avoids arbitrary selection of some biological criteria as being morally significant (which is analogous to the reasoning racists employ), it means we can grant moral significance to other species which meet the criteria, it helps explain why human life is generally worth more than animal life, it helps to explain the moral permissibility of abortion, and it denies that potentially more advanced life forms could be morally justified in treating us like we treat cattle.

There are several different theories of personhood which include various criteria, but some of the most commonly included are: self-awareness, ability to use verbal language, complex reasoning ability, a biographical sense of ones self and moral agency.

 

[swilow]

Do you understand all the words? I can try and put it into smaller words if that's what you're looking for? This is pretty basic ethics here though. It's not like it's debatable. At least this portion.

The poster above me puts it into different words. I enjoyed it

People are stuck on morals always being positive and good and refuse to acknowledge it's harsh realities

Patronizing garbage imo.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Patronizing garbage imo.

Sorry, really tried to not come across that way. You said it was an argument based on repeating words. The thread on the immigrants have left you a bit jaded. Believe me, wasn't trying to be a twat.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Once again, yes it is exactly that. If an alien species came onto earth they could morally make us their bitch. But there's also a degree for being rational thinkers that would make you second guess it because there would possibly be more worth to hAve us alive. In the case of animals being eaten vs not. No it's not immoral but it could be if plant based eating caused this species to sutain longer. We are rational beings and thus, the higher intelligence creatures, would also be. Hence my point still stands. With application to the laws of nature... Intrinsic value of human life > All. That also means not trying to kill a more advanced alien race... Because you know... Progression and shit.

 

[drug_mentor]

Once again, yes it is exactly that. If an alien species came onto earth they could morally make us their bitch. But there's also a degree for being rational thinkers that would make you second guess it because there would possibly be more worth to hAve us alive. In the case of animals being eaten vs not. No it's not immoral but it could be if plant based eating caused this species to sutain longer. We are rational beings and thus, the higher intelligence creatures, would also be. Hence my point still stands. With application to the laws of nature... Intrinsic value of human life > All. That also means not trying to kill a more advanced alien race... Because you know... Progression and shit.

It is genuinely unclear to me what you are trying to say here. Is the possession of rationality and/or moral agency relevant in your ethical theory or not? You seem to be explicitly denying it whilst implicitly relying on them to make your theory work. It is quite puzzling.

Could you please explain what IVHL means? Did you mean to say UVHL, as in Universal value of human life?

You failed to address the contradiction in your previous post that I pointed out, which is not an insignificant problem when you are framing your theory as objective morality. Your theory seems relativist to me, which is not objective or universal. Personhood theories don't share this weakness, because personhood is not necessarily restricted to humans it is much more coherent to argue that it is an objective moral outlook.

Your theory is fairly unappealing from a logical and practical point of view, in my personal opinion. It is certainly inferior to a theory based on personhood, as that comes with every benefit of your theory, and much fewer problems.

 

[swilow]

Believe me, wasn't trying to be a twat.

I see you didn't really mean that.

A human is superior because its a human. You must do better then that.