Unless you're a vegetarian, and a strict one at that. Everyone who didn't vote yes is a lame hypocrite.
Poll
Is Human Life More Valuable than Animal Life?
| Yes | 64% | 64% - 110 | ||||
| No, all creatures are valuable | 24% | 24% - 41 | ||||
| No, endangered species are more valuable | 4% | 4% - 7 | ||||
| No, animal life is more valuable | 7% | 7% - 12 | ||||
| Total: 170 | ||||||
Well, I won't exclude the possibility of sapience in certain mammals, 'cause there's a whole lot of good science speaking for the possibility, but as to whether or not I would save a potentially sapient animal over a human, I can definitely say that I under normal circumstances wouldn't. Definite sapience trumphs potential sapience, and bond of species trumphs inter-species cognitive similarities.Bertster7 wrote:
You're right, I'm not being very tolerant or flexible on this, which I should be, since your definition is literally correct. From a scientific viewpoint however, your definition is incomplete since self awareness, thought and many other qualities fall under the umbrella of higher animal sentience (the relevant field), which from a literal standpoint I suppose would be regarded as sapient behaviour.mikkel wrote:
I didn't really expect you to lower yourself to throwing around snide insults to feel more insightful and educated than others.Bertster7 wrote:
It has not been proven that animals are sentient, the default perspective is scepticism.
If you think the definition of sentience is that simple, probably because you've just read it out of a dictionary - thinking is probably the most central concept to the debate and is an essential part of sentience. It's not just sensory and emotional response and it is that difference that separates us from animals.
You say one thing, then you say another, and insult me for saying it with the same decisiveness as you did. If you feel that you were too quick on the trigger, just say so. There's no need to insult others.
The ability to feel physical pain, an ability that has been witnessed in animals since man first came into contact with them, and the ability to feel emotional pain, an ability that is present and observable in many animals, whether naturally instinctive or developed over time, both cognitive traits shared by humans and animals alike, both speak to the sentience of animals. The sentience of animals is in question on the same level as the theory of gravity is in question. They're both present, but there there is no definite proof. If you want to go to the extremes of questioning the sentience of animals, you would very likely end up with a scenario that would put into question the sentience of human beings as well.
I think we've really been arguing at crossed purposes, which is mostly my fault for being so ambiguous and then so confrontational, sorry about that.
Hopefully we can agree that animals are not SAPIENT and be done with it, which was my original point, to demonstrate that the value of a human is greater than that of an animal.
Yes, human life is more valuable. This does not mean animal life has no value. Those who needlessly kill an animal are some of the lowest on earth in my opinion.
OP: If you're a human, it is. The primary objective to any species is to maintain that species.
Generally speaking, yes, human life is more valuable. I think it is instinctual human thought to believe that way.
Mankind is definitely not the most disgusting thing on this earth. Species (both flora and fauna) around the globe destroy ecosystems exponentially faster than humans have throughout their time on earth - not to mention the prosperity and evolution of human population in general.
Animals and humans can (and should) be able to coexist. It is not hypocritical to believe in 'animal rights' but eat meat. The problem is often the treatment of animals in the slaughterhouses - and that often includes fish and poultry. Same goes with dairy farming. Choosing to eat vegetarian is a dietary choice and not much more. You can call it a statement supporting your beliefs in animal rights, but at most it is an economic boycott of slaughterhouses and large agribusiness. Supporting animal rights (much like supporting human rights) has a basis in believing in the humane treatment of animals and supporting mutually beneficial interaction. Refusing to eat animal products because of the way animals are slaughtered is simply a reactionary decision that on an individual level (or even small a scale collective action) is largely ineffective to ensure humane treatment of those animals. Exposing the inhumane treatment of animals in the industry or society is far more conducive to developing and enacting a higher set of ethics in regards to treatment of all animals.
My ideology as far as human life isn't based on sentience or ratios to other animals. My ideology is based on what I perceive as innate feelings for the fecundity and perseverance of humans - much the same way a tiger would save it's cub over a human baby - not because the tiger believes that a human has less value, but because the tiger is hardwired to protect and ensure the reproduction of it's species.
Mankind is definitely not the most disgusting thing on this earth. Species (both flora and fauna) around the globe destroy ecosystems exponentially faster than humans have throughout their time on earth - not to mention the prosperity and evolution of human population in general.
Animals and humans can (and should) be able to coexist. It is not hypocritical to believe in 'animal rights' but eat meat. The problem is often the treatment of animals in the slaughterhouses - and that often includes fish and poultry. Same goes with dairy farming. Choosing to eat vegetarian is a dietary choice and not much more. You can call it a statement supporting your beliefs in animal rights, but at most it is an economic boycott of slaughterhouses and large agribusiness. Supporting animal rights (much like supporting human rights) has a basis in believing in the humane treatment of animals and supporting mutually beneficial interaction. Refusing to eat animal products because of the way animals are slaughtered is simply a reactionary decision that on an individual level (or even small a scale collective action) is largely ineffective to ensure humane treatment of those animals. Exposing the inhumane treatment of animals in the industry or society is far more conducive to developing and enacting a higher set of ethics in regards to treatment of all animals.
My ideology as far as human life isn't based on sentience or ratios to other animals. My ideology is based on what I perceive as innate feelings for the fecundity and perseverance of humans - much the same way a tiger would save it's cub over a human baby - not because the tiger believes that a human has less value, but because the tiger is hardwired to protect and ensure the reproduction of it's species.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-27 03:21:30)
But to do that, you need to exist first. Would you exist without all the previous evolutionary steps? Remember, bees and flowers exist way before than humans. Forget animals, we are less valuable than trees. Could you live without trees? Trees can live without you. In the balance, we have been a negative species to the planet. So, you may say that bees were more benefitial.Bertster7 wrote:
How many flowers can one bee pollinate? Mechanical pollenisation systems exist and whilst they are less efficient than bees, are far more efficient than one bee and can be operated by a single person.sergeriver wrote:
How can humans have a more benefitial impact on the planet than bees pollinating flowers?Bertster7 wrote:
That is precisely what I mean when I say value is subjective. The question you are posing now is quite different to the one you originally posed, which can be quite simply resolved by saying you could sell a person for more than an animal. It's not about intellect, it's about value (and intellect is extremely valuable).
The question now is about potential to benefit the planet, and I'd still say that a person has a much greater potential to have a beneficial impact on the planet than an animal. It may be that is not what people typically choose to do, but that again is not relevant to the question at hand.
I'd rather have a man doing it, who could also do the planting, ploughing etc.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-27 03:25:46)
All life forms are valuable. But humans are the most advanced, and therefore more valuable because it can contribute more to the world.
Or take away more from the world.....jeeez this is a hard question to answer. I voted yes anyway.
Or take away more from the world.....jeeez this is a hard question to answer. I voted yes anyway.
human kind has evolved beceause we got weak. we had to build houses for shelter, we have to make machines to feed us. our medical care has made outgrow the max population of the world. we are destroying our planet and with that the planet of the animals living on it. anymals have evolved as far as they need. They can find water, food and live where they belong.
animals can coexist together and never harm other animals, then to feed themself or for protection. most animals are misunderstood.
We humans can learn alot of the animal kingdom.
animals can coexist together and never harm other animals, then to feed themself or for protection. most animals are misunderstood.
We humans can learn alot of the animal kingdom.
Human life > all.
I hope this helps
I hope this helps
Anyway, what good did humans do to Earth? You are right - nothing. Everything has the right to live. Animals were here before humans and will be here after humans, so I am not sure what the deal is.Ender2309 wrote:
it depends on what you mean. seeing as this is bf2s and you are serge, i assume you mean idealogically. a person, because it is intelligent, is worth more than a tiger which thinks only eat drink sleep stay alive reproduce don't die.
however, if you mean ecologically, they are equal in value, discounting the shit today's man is spewing into the world. both occupy a needed niche and the world would collapse ecologically (in theory; in actuality either the single ecosystem would collapse or some other creature would rush to fill its place) if it were to disappear.
but concerning the sf tiger, they had no choice. they didnt kill it for attacking the men it attacked, the police killed it because it was rounding on them. had the tiger been subdueable in all likelihood it would have been put down, but they should have taken it to a preserve or something.
It's right here.Spearhead wrote:
Where's the "All life is the same, and not necessarily valuable" option..........
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Reiterate/kylef wrote:
We're the dominant species. It really doesn't matter who is right or who is not, we have evolved (through force, yes) and have taken over the world. Are we worthy? Maybe not. Are we dominant? Yes.
That's not of any impact to value. Previous evolutionary steps? They've been done already, they are no longer of any importance.sergeriver wrote:
But to do that, you need to exist first. Would you exist without all the previous evolutionary steps? Remember, bees and flowers exist way before than humans. Forget animals, we are less valuable than trees. Could you live without trees? Trees can live without you. In the balance, we have been a negative species to the planet. So, you may say that bees were more benefitial.Bertster7 wrote:
How many flowers can one bee pollinate? Mechanical pollenisation systems exist and whilst they are less efficient than bees, are far more efficient than one bee and can be operated by a single person.sergeriver wrote:
How can humans have a more benefitial impact on the planet than bees pollinating flowers?
I'd rather have a man doing it, who could also do the planting, ploughing etc.
Trees, individually, are also far less valuable than human life. You can't compare an entire species to a single life. In any case, people could survive without trees perfectly ok - it would be far from ideal, but it would be survivable. Surviving without any plant life whatsoever, that'd be extremely hard - but also way outside the scope of this debate.
You're clutching at straws now Serge.
Are you retarded? How about next time its you getting mauled and nobody shows up to help. You are being intellectually dishonest in the 'answers' to the poll and your op. Seriously, get some perspective. You are about as crazy as the people you constantly bitch about.sergeriver wrote:
I know this will start a "are you out of your mind asshole?" chain reaction. But the thing is after reading what you guys thought about the tiger that was shot dead at SF, I noticed that most of you think that human life is more valuable than animal life. And I don't share. I consider mankind to be the most disgusting species on Earth. We've almost destroyed our planet, most ecosystems are screwed, and because of that most animals are endangered or facing extinction within the next century.
Why is it that you consider a human life more valuable than a tiger's life. How many humans are in the World? 6,5 billion. How many tigers? A few thousand. How many whales? A few thousand. How many elephants? A few thousand. How many orangutans? A few thousand. How do you measure the value of a life? Just because we can talk and travel to the space, it doesn't mean we are superior. In fact, we did more bad than good to our planet and to the other life forms we share it with. So what God put us in this imaginary pedestal? Are we that worthy? I don't think so.
I was about to mention that water and sunlight were more valuable than trees...Bertster7 wrote:
You're clutching at straws now Serge.
I don't get the question? Could you explain?golgoj4 wrote:
Are you retarded.
In a literal sense, we're all worth the same.
In a practical sense, humans are worth more.
In a practical sense, humans are worth more.
Except for elephants, chimps and dolphins...Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, absolutely, 100%.
Sentience is the big issue here and animals are not sentient.
and capuchins, macaques, gorillas, orangutans, cercopithcines in general, prosimians, gibbons, dogs, seals, whales, otters, giant squid, crows, racoons, lab rats, etc. "Sentient" is pretty vague actually, its certainly not a word used often by the cognitive psychologists that study comparative intelligence in animals and it largely applies to the utilization of sensory organs, and philosophically, to the ability to experience pain. Even spiders are technically sentient.CameronPoe wrote:
Except for elephants, chimps and dolphins...Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, absolutely, 100%.
Sentience is the big issue here and animals are not sentient.
I agree, although these statements depend entirely on a person's values.Turquoise wrote:
In a literal sense, we're all worth the same.
In a practical sense, humans are worth more.
Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-12-27 18:40:52)
Little ironic there sport, typing this thread on a computer that are known for their pollution. Ie power consumption, waste components etc. I kind of understand your angst though Serge my friend, 'if the tiger was in its natural habitat and not in a zoo it wouldn't be there to kill someone'. However, it WAS there and it DID kill someone, and had to be taken down. I know for sure if it was one of my my family members that was in immediate danger from the tiger and I had the means to kill it, I DEFINITELY would. I suppose its all about the context and the situation as well to be honest. Nice thread Serge. Happy new year to you btw.sergeriver wrote:
I consider mankind to be the most disgusting species on Earth. We've almost destroyed our planet, most ecosystems are screwed
Well according to my knowledge the real point in life is to continue on your species.
Therefore because we are humans we should value one another, but with all other animals it's fair game, because in the wild they will act the same way. Only difference is we are smarter then they are. (Sometimes I wonder though)
Therefore because we are humans we should value one another, but with all other animals it's fair game, because in the wild they will act the same way. Only difference is we are smarter then they are. (Sometimes I wonder though)
No one is valuable we are all expendable. its sad but true. If we die there are more than 6 billion to take our place. pretty much the same thing with animals (mind the endangerd species)
It sucks that the tiger got killed... hopefully the cops used good judgment to prevent further injuries...
I think this is gonna come down to zoo negligence(they new that the cage had issues and didn't fix them....or that someone or something got the tiger agitated... ) I don't know the time line but i doubt anyone could have used a dart quick enough to stop the tiger...
I still would choose the human before the animal... unless there was abuse evident or some extenuating circumstance...
I think this is gonna come down to zoo negligence(they new that the cage had issues and didn't fix them....or that someone or something got the tiger agitated... ) I don't know the time line but i doubt anyone could have used a dart quick enough to stop the tiger...
I still would choose the human before the animal... unless there was abuse evident or some extenuating circumstance...
Love is the answer
We evolved first, we rule the land, obviously our life is more valuable. Yes, I care about animals, and all that. But then again, I do eat meat, and I voted yes on testing animals for medical purposes. Plus, consider the costs of raising a human vs. raising an animal. Also consider how drastically the earth has changed since humans have been around. I think it's undeniable that humans lives are more valuable (worth more) than animals.
I think that the issue here is what exactly is meant by 'valuable'.
From a human standpoint, then the decision is so obvious as to be non-existent.
From a purely objective standpoint - i.e. one of the ENTIRE 'animal kingdom' (I hate that phrase for scientific reasons), well, I think a lot of animals and the planet in general would have been a lot better off without us.
From a human standpoint, then the decision is so obvious as to be non-existent.
From a purely objective standpoint - i.e. one of the ENTIRE 'animal kingdom' (I hate that phrase for scientific reasons), well, I think a lot of animals and the planet in general would have been a lot better off without us.
Last edited by Spark (2007-12-28 03:41:50)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman