BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Hmm well that's ok thenScribble said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why do some people value animal life over human life.
- Thread starter fuzzyreactor
- Start date
- Status
kame-sennin
Member
fuzzyreactor said:
The question itself seems a bit strange. Humans are animals. Perhaps it's your misunderstanding of this fact that leads to your confusion as to the motivation of so-called animal rights activists. I don't believe that most people who campaign in defense of non-human animals do so because they value the lives of other species over members of their own. Rather, it seems that they are reacting to the tendancy of our species - a tendancy that most life forms share, it should be noted - to treat other species as inherently inferior. In attempting to change the public perception of non-human animals as inferior beings, activists often make comparisons between human suffering and the suffering endured by non-human animals. If one already has the predisposition that other species are inherently inferior to humans, then any comparison would by default seem derogatory - a lowering of humanity while propping up "lesser" creatures. However, when such a predisposition is removed, it becomes much easier to have a rational conversation about the treatment of non-human species and where individual species fit in on a continuity of rights, from the species that can most appreciate them, to those with the barest concept of said rights.
And this is a predisposition that should be dropped. It should be dropped because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that any one species is superior to another. Beyond sheer arrogance or human exceptionalism, the idea that humans are the pinnacle of all life on Earth is a notion that can only be found within religious scripture, or by a deliberate misunderstanding of Darwinian principles. The religious argument is easy enough to counter; we are most precious amongst God's creations because God deemed it so. Anyone who does not believe in a deity or in the scriptures supposedly provided by a deity has no reason to believe such a proclamation. Unfortunately, many rational individuals still subscribe to the notion that humans represent the pinnacle of evolution. That we are, in a biological sense, the most advanced species on Earth. Anyone who actually understands evolution can easily counter those claims. Evolution has no end goal. A species is prized by the evolutionary process only when it is suitably adapted to its environment. Survival is the only goal. The human body may be more complex than an amoeba's, and the human brain my be the most powerful on Earth, but that doesn't make us "more evolved". We are intelligent because we needed to be. We required such large brains to survive in the environment we evolved in. Looking at other species as inferior because they lack our cognitive abilities would be akin to a bat looking down at humans for lacking its aural sensitivity. We simply didn't need it, thus we don't have it. So go our cousin lifeforms and the cognitive abilities we so cherish.
So, given a greater understanding of humanity's place in the tapestry of life on this planet in contrast with the startling brutality and control we exert over non-human animals, the more appropriate question seems to be, why do humans place so little value on the lives of other species?
DonMigs85
Member
Not true. My uncle gave us his 8-month old Lab back in December 1997 and for the first 3 months we had him he was kinda shy and mopey and we practically had to force him to eat by putting powdered milk on his food and hand-feeding the kibble. Eventually he got used to us, gave us lots of love and turned into an eating machine.Lead Based Paint said:
We had to put him to sleep last week at the age of 13 due to cancer, we really miss him...
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Quinn: You can't test drugs on humans! There are rules, procedures. It has to be tested on animals first.
Sparks: WHY? Why does all the crap we consume have to be tested on animals first?
Quinn: Because that's...
Sparks: Et-hey! A rat doesn't wear lipstick okay? A rabbit doesn't use hairspray! A monkey doesn't need pills, to get ramped up for hot monkey sex! It's people, man! We're miserable! So why shouldn't we try it all first?
Sparks: WHY? Why does all the crap we consume have to be tested on animals first?
Quinn: Because that's...
Sparks: Et-hey! A rat doesn't wear lipstick okay? A rabbit doesn't use hairspray! A monkey doesn't need pills, to get ramped up for hot monkey sex! It's people, man! We're miserable! So why shouldn't we try it all first?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
winter said:
1. I apologize for the assumption. I misread your earlier post about the validity of various arguments.
2. I disagree that vanity is required to raise the fruits of mankind over those of other species. Certainly, animals have created amazing works; just look at the video where researchers filled the ant colony with cement and discovered a huge and complicated city. However, in both number and quality (in terms of complexity of thought required to create and understand them), the fruits of mankind are far greater than those of all other animals.
3. I see nature as a meritocracy between species, not within them. We have a responsibility to one another to treat each other with respect and dignity, both morally and instinctively; thus, no eugenics or infanticide. Relative to other species, though, we have proven ourselves to be the most meritorious; we have, in a relatively short amount of time (evolutionarily speaking), established a decently firm basis for the health and survival of the vast majority of our species (and are doing our damnedest in those cases where this is not true, such as in the third world or in despotically-ruled countries) and are doing our best to tame the planet (while taking the occasional baby step toward spreading ourselves to other parts of space, though I'm not entirely sure that we will ever get there). There are certainly hang-ups that come with rational thought, but by and large, it has proven an asset to our species and would likely serve similarly if introduced into other species.
DonMigs85
Member
Basically the Nazis treated Jews, even children, the same way or even more inhumanely than the creatures involved in animal experiments today.Tyrant_Onion said:
I noticed we also tend to have less sympathy for grown men getting killed, even if they weren't "bad" people. We get more worked up over women and children getting killed.
Also we tend to get sadder over friendly, human-trusting animals like dogs or cats getting treated or killed inhumanely, compared to, say, a zebra or crocodile.
Silver_DNA
Member
My cat loves me more than anything else. I don't think she cares what happens to the animals outside as long as she gets to snuggle in my armpit.
So, in reading through this thread it seems that you's alls think that holding one species over all other means you would willingly kill the lower species, for survival or otherwise. What's up with that? Can't you think humans are superior without killing or eating everything else? Can't I go up to a mouse, look it in the eyes and say, "I value my life over yours. Have a nice day."?
So, in reading through this thread it seems that you's alls think that holding one species over all other means you would willingly kill the lower species, for survival or otherwise. What's up with that? Can't you think humans are superior without killing or eating everything else? Can't I go up to a mouse, look it in the eyes and say, "I value my life over yours. Have a nice day."?
That's pretty fucked up, but I think you're right on in your first sentence.Chatin said:
If someone really does value the life of an animal over a human, he's not seeing the big picture of our existence. Our whole reason for being is because we've survived by competing with other species. We live to prolong our genetic code, and the best chance we have at doing that is to help other humans, not other species (and on an evolutionary level, other species are the enemy).
Someone already brought up the declining bee population, and while we're trying to save them in part for our respect for the beauty and diversity of life, we also know how bees affect our own existence. If bees die, we could die as a result. The same can be said about our trying to keep other species from going extinct. We don't know how any species' extinction can affect the ecosystem we are a part of, so on some level we're trying to save our own asses by helping other animals.
That's not to say I can't empathize with animals, or those who devote their lives to caring for animals. But when it comes to someone who literally values the life of an animal over a human, that someone is perverse in my eyes. Unless the human life is somehow jeopardizing the lives of other humans, there is really no justification for valuing the animal's life.
And having written all of that, this news clip still warms my heart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBtFTF2ii7U
JumpJeff84
Member
Norwegian Wood said:
Go play with polar bears and then get back to us, Woody.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
What about those dogs who have mauled children and such... come on. We just put them to sleep and forget about it. Next time we'll give them a big trial in the Hague so your example will be fair. :lolNorwegian Wood said:
Air Zombie Meat
Member
btrboyev said:
That doesn't really hold up. Domestic cats\dogs kill for the sport of it without eating their kill.
Animals are less of a threat and annoyance for the most part in our daily lives, nor are they direct competition for most of the things we need and want. The value of any individual/group of animals or humans is determined solely by whichever one will provide a greater benefit to one's self interest.
DonMigs85 said:
This is behavior that I often get sick about. People that find women and children more worthy of life than men. Aka "women and children first!". Nobody is worth more than another one, and if anything, a grown up men is worth more than a child, because a grown up man is a fully developed person/character, whereas a child is just something that has yet to grow into something.
Pfft, GAF... quite anthropocentric, are we?
I personally don't value animal life over human life. I view them as the same because animals are sentient and can feel pain, just as humans can. We are animals, so what gives us more value than animals? Granted, I'd likely choose to save a human over an animal depending on the situation (quite hypocritical, I know), but I would still feel incredibly sad about the loss of the animal. I kind of take on Dr. Peter Singer's approach to the issue. His work is very interesting for those of you who haven't heard of him.
I personally don't value animal life over human life. I view them as the same because animals are sentient and can feel pain, just as humans can. We are animals, so what gives us more value than animals? Granted, I'd likely choose to save a human over an animal depending on the situation (quite hypocritical, I know), but I would still feel incredibly sad about the loss of the animal. I kind of take on Dr. Peter Singer's approach to the issue. His work is very interesting for those of you who haven't heard of him.
Lamel
Banned
While I don't believe that animals are better than humans, they really dont pull all the shitty stuff that humans do. I guess I believe this because I was close with a few pets of mine back in the day. Humans rock, but animals also have some great qualities to them: loyalty, companionship...taste
TheGreatGatsby
Banned
diunxx said:
Agreed. I would go as far to say that if I had a choice between my dog and the life of some random cute innocent baby, my dog would win every single time.
Probably this. They obviously aren't; animals kill and rape each other all the time. If animals had access and the capacity to use guns and weapons, they would.Calcaneus said:
And... humans are animals. Some people try to think we are somehow above this but we aren't.
Animals are inherently more interested in the well being of their own kind than the well being of other species so when humans obsess over animals it's probably a mental issue of some sort.
Point is, the child didn't have a chance to live for very long and they weren't really capable of self defense. It's not about being more worthy, it's just sad when a child dies. The women part also comes from the idea that the woman couldn't defend herself I'd assume.selig said:
GillianSeed79
Member
fuzzyreactor said:
I think it's more along the lines that some sane animal lovers get upset that animal life is often valued less than human life. I say sane animal lovers because I think many animal lovers love there pets or what have you but understand things like people eat animals for food, hunting is just as much about controlling animal populations as it is a sport and wild animals are wild animals. Stuff I get pissed about is animal cruelty to say cats and dogs, hunting animal populations to near extinction just for stuff like ivory or penis enhancing old wives tale remedies or deliberately destroying an endangered animals habitat.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
The real question is, would you do that if said junkie was a mass murderer and a child rapist also? Or how would you feel if you did that, and found out about his 'hobbies' afterward? Keep in mind also, some of those dogs you'd kill seemingly without giving it a second thought are life lines to blind or otherwise disabled people.Whoompthereitis said:
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Actually, from a purely rational point of view "woman and children first" has merit. First, as stated above, women are important for continuation of the species. Children however, do not have the capability to defend themselves as does a grown man. In a burning building or on a sinking ship, a man has a much better chance at swimming, leaping out a window, or breaking down a wall.
Also, while an adult male /may/ have some viciously practical value to society at this moment in comparison to "only a child" the child's very potential to grow is what's valuable. A single child has potential to grow into an improved human being, having learned from the previous generation's discoveries and mistakes. A grown man has already made many, if not all in some cases, of his critical contributions to the world. This is in fact why many adults willingly put the child first in a life and death situation. It's not just sentimentality for the innocence of a child; it's practical realization that the child has a lot more yet to do in life.
It is of course, all situational. When the airplane is going down, you'll want to hurry the man who knows how to fly a craft to the cockpit over taking a moment to strap in a kid.
As for the OP topic, an interesting comment upthread about animals inherently preferring their own kind, thus too much interest in human animals must be some kind of mental disorder, actually opens up a few more questions.
First, other animals can, and do, empathize with an accept other forms of life as "one of their own". Some animals will raise a member of a different species as their offspring. Others will pack-bond with outsiders; with the obvious example being that canines will bond with humans as alpha leaders. (They've been bred for subservience, but the point is that it happens.) Other animals from cetaceans to great apes can and will recognize others, such as humans, and respond to them in a manner equal to their own kind.
Second, humans may be animals, but there's a particular fallacy sometimes called the Naturalistic Fallacy. This basically says it can be misleading to apply "natural" standards to human behavior not because humans are not animals; but rather humans are animals capable of subverting nature. The human animal has gained sufficient sentience to adapt to the world around it in ways most other animals cannot. This changes how humans relate to other species, as well.
For example, one could say that the reason why a dog may take on a kitten and raise it is because of "confused instincts". It's small, fuzzy, and is too similar to a puppy. Perhaps; with humans though, the ability for the human brain to conceptualize relationships between animals is much greater than that of a dog. Humans can think more abstractly. So they can identify common traits between themselves and a wider range of other animals, even ones that aren't primates or haven't been specifically bred for human companionship, such as the dog, the house cat, or the domesticated horse.
All this, by the by, does open the door for special kinds of human malfuctions - since the human mind is far more flexible in forming connections with other animals, if something gets screwy, the results can be spectacular. (The PETA supporter who literally despises humans and thinks cows are far more important, the cat woman who collects 60 cats because she's obsessed with them, etc.)
I think the problem though is that some people are confused by the empathy others have for animals when they've never been in a position to develop that empathy themselves. To them, /any/ degree of concern or mutual identification seems utterly nonsensical and "insane". Ironically, it's also a facet of human nature that can cause people to not understand what they see, and judge (then dismiss it) in thin slices and first impressions.
Also, while an adult male /may/ have some viciously practical value to society at this moment in comparison to "only a child" the child's very potential to grow is what's valuable. A single child has potential to grow into an improved human being, having learned from the previous generation's discoveries and mistakes. A grown man has already made many, if not all in some cases, of his critical contributions to the world. This is in fact why many adults willingly put the child first in a life and death situation. It's not just sentimentality for the innocence of a child; it's practical realization that the child has a lot more yet to do in life.
It is of course, all situational. When the airplane is going down, you'll want to hurry the man who knows how to fly a craft to the cockpit over taking a moment to strap in a kid.
As for the OP topic, an interesting comment upthread about animals inherently preferring their own kind, thus too much interest in human animals must be some kind of mental disorder, actually opens up a few more questions.
First, other animals can, and do, empathize with an accept other forms of life as "one of their own". Some animals will raise a member of a different species as their offspring. Others will pack-bond with outsiders; with the obvious example being that canines will bond with humans as alpha leaders. (They've been bred for subservience, but the point is that it happens.) Other animals from cetaceans to great apes can and will recognize others, such as humans, and respond to them in a manner equal to their own kind.
Second, humans may be animals, but there's a particular fallacy sometimes called the Naturalistic Fallacy. This basically says it can be misleading to apply "natural" standards to human behavior not because humans are not animals; but rather humans are animals capable of subverting nature. The human animal has gained sufficient sentience to adapt to the world around it in ways most other animals cannot. This changes how humans relate to other species, as well.
For example, one could say that the reason why a dog may take on a kitten and raise it is because of "confused instincts". It's small, fuzzy, and is too similar to a puppy. Perhaps; with humans though, the ability for the human brain to conceptualize relationships between animals is much greater than that of a dog. Humans can think more abstractly. So they can identify common traits between themselves and a wider range of other animals, even ones that aren't primates or haven't been specifically bred for human companionship, such as the dog, the house cat, or the domesticated horse.
All this, by the by, does open the door for special kinds of human malfuctions - since the human mind is far more flexible in forming connections with other animals, if something gets screwy, the results can be spectacular. (The PETA supporter who literally despises humans and thinks cows are far more important, the cat woman who collects 60 cats because she's obsessed with them, etc.)
I think the problem though is that some people are confused by the empathy others have for animals when they've never been in a position to develop that empathy themselves. To them, /any/ degree of concern or mutual identification seems utterly nonsensical and "insane". Ironically, it's also a facet of human nature that can cause people to not understand what they see, and judge (then dismiss it) in thin slices and first impressions.
black_vegeta
Member
I love hugging puppies. <3
For me the question isn't human v. animal life, but life v. life. For picky starters humans are animals. That out of the way, I'm not sure why the lives of other humans who I'm not related to, or who don't have a direct impact on my life, are more valuable than other forms of life. I also need to qualify that I don't think killing is immoral, in part because I don't believe in morality. For me the question is essentially utilitarian: if I have to choose between killing A and B which will have more utility in the long run? The conclusion I have come to is that generally more utility is achieved if I avoid killing except when necessary for my own survival. The pragmatic reality of this is that I can think of no situations where killing humans in my life has lead to utility, but I kill other things all the time for other reasons (to eat for example). Thus circularly, while I don't intellectually value humans more than other organisms in practice I do.
abstract alien
Member
Kaijima said:
So well stated.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
fuck the dog, i'd kill the junkie.
Druz
Member
My dog of 12 years(Since I was 11) died last night out of no where. Crapped, pissed, puked and had her head arching back. Life expectancy of an American Pitbull terrier 12 years and she had her birthday a few days ago.
Why do people value animal life over human life? Like what was said... innocence. A lot of the time she acted very human. She knew when she was in trouble, when people were sad, never wanted to be alone was very nervous during thunderstorms, and was just a member of the family.
Compare her life to a piece of shit human and it's easy to value one over the other. I danno.
Why do people value animal life over human life? Like what was said... innocence. A lot of the time she acted very human. She knew when she was in trouble, when people were sad, never wanted to be alone was very nervous during thunderstorms, and was just a member of the family.
Compare her life to a piece of shit human and it's easy to value one over the other. I danno.
The benefit I get from raising my dog is greater than the benefit I would get from giving money to the hobo on the street corner. If the utility gained from one action is greater than the utility gained from another, wouldn't I go with the action that provides me with the greatest utility? What gives me utility might be a matter of philosophic contention, but given that raising an animal gives me greater benefit than helping out a completely and emotionally disconnected human, raising an animal is the easy choice.
I'm not saying I value all animals' lives over human life. But I would save my dog over pretty much most people that I don't have an emotional investment in. Paradox of thrift at work I guess.
I'm not saying I value all animals' lives over human life. But I would save my dog over pretty much most people that I don't have an emotional investment in. Paradox of thrift at work I guess.
Salacious Crumb
Junior Member
We are animals, we just separate our selves because we're more intelligent than the rest. To ask if someone values animal life over human life is too broad a question. I would kill a billion ants to keep a terminally ill human alive for an extra month, but I would not kill a dolphin for that extra month.
My point is why are humans the only animal we grant special rights too. Shouldn't a dolphin, or a chimp have more rights than a dear or cow (outside of being a protected species)?
My point is why are humans the only animal we grant special rights too. Shouldn't a dolphin, or a chimp have more rights than a dear or cow (outside of being a protected species)?
Trent Strong
Banned
kame-sennin said:
I agree with most of what you wrote, but evolution isn't as precise and exact as you're making it out to be. Humans didn't necessarily need our brains to be as big as they are, or to work exactly the way they do. Evolution just jury-rigs shit together a lot of the time. Some of what the human brain can do could just be an emergent property that wasn't really necessary. Plus, you've got to keep sexual selection in mind. There used to be a certain kind of deer or elk (I forget what it was called) that went extinct because the male's antlers became so huge that it could barely move through the forest environment it lived in. The reason the males had such big antlers is because the females would usually mate with the males who had the biggest antlers, and this process just got out of control. Something similar could conceiveably have happened to peacocks. Evolution just half-assedly hobbles shit together a lot of the time. (Darwin wrote a whole book about half-assed traits in plants and animals. "The Panda's Thumb", by Stephen Jay Gould also covers this topic.)
WickedAngel
Banned
It's kind of hard to discuss this unless you give a clear example of what you're talking about.
Are you talking about this in the literal sense or more indirectly (IE, my belief that livestock should be treated more humanely even at an extra expense to humans)?
Are you talking about this in the literal sense or more indirectly (IE, my belief that livestock should be treated more humanely even at an extra expense to humans)?
astroturfing
Member
the more we study animals, the more similar to us they seem. most mammals have very similar ranges of emotions that we do. just read any science mag.
i personally dont value any other species above humans, but to me it's heartbreaking to see some animals like dogs (or pigs, or horses etc. but not spiders, fuck them) being mistreated... because they just dont understand why someone would beat them or torture them or whatever. they might even think it's their own fault. human beings normally understand when they are at fault and when they're not.
for example, i would rather kick my girlfriend than a dog. because i can say "hey gf, i'll kick you a bit, so i dont have to kick that dog because it wouldnt understand"... and im sure she'd be ok with it because she too knows the dog wouldnt understand. so this is one situation that i would care more about the dog than a human. kinda.
do i make any sense? i dont know lol. just some random thoughts on the issue..
.
i personally dont value any other species above humans, but to me it's heartbreaking to see some animals like dogs (or pigs, or horses etc. but not spiders, fuck them) being mistreated... because they just dont understand why someone would beat them or torture them or whatever. they might even think it's their own fault. human beings normally understand when they are at fault and when they're not.
for example, i would rather kick my girlfriend than a dog. because i can say "hey gf, i'll kick you a bit, so i dont have to kick that dog because it wouldnt understand"... and im sure she'd be ok with it because she too knows the dog wouldnt understand. so this is one situation that i would care more about the dog than a human. kinda.
do i make any sense? i dont know lol. just some random thoughts on the issue..
oh and i have a more meat-focused diet than probably anyone else here. and i do feel guilty about it, to be honest.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
While I wouldn't say that I value the life of just any animal over a human's, I valued my dog's life a whole hell of a lot more than just about anyone I've ever met.
astroturfing
Member
Druz said:
yeah.. seriously. there really are lots of completely shitty humans out there. i mean people who are basically garbage and should be gotten rid of. i work at the local police department and you wouldnt believe the kinds of sick fucks we have... guy stabs his friend in the face 20 times out of the blue.... someone stalks a 9 year old and demands she allows herself to be raped....... four guys grab a random stranger off the street and take him to the woods to be tortured, and then hanged, for fun..... a racist neo-nazi tries to ram a brown-skinned 80 year old grandma into the wall with his SUV..... and so on and so on...
some people on this planet really are just fucking worthless shit. an insect is worth more to me than some of the degenerates i see in my city.
- Status