Does all life have equal value?

[Tricky]

(This thread is started to squelch a major derailment in the I-Ching thread over in the paranormal forum.)

Does all life have equal value? The egalitarian in me wants to shout "yes" immediately, but the rationalist in me knows that this is hypocritical.

All humans obviously value some life more than others, and human life the most (with rare exceptions). Humans culltivate and harvest certain living plants, they raise and slaughter certain animals, they even use some of their closest relativess, chimpanzees, for laboratory research.

My own feeling is that humans try to protect those most like themselves. (Credit to Richard Dawkins for eloquently fleshing this out in The Selfish Gene. We care more about our immediate family than our distant relatives, more about our kin than our other countrymen, more about our country than the rest of humanity, and more about humanity than other living things.

Additionally, we care more about things with which we share traits than we do about other things. We like smart animals, like dolphins. We like animals that look like us, like chimpanzees. We like animals that behave according to our wishes, likes dogs, cats and horses. We like "cute" animals, like pandas, koalas and almost any baby animals.

But what about the "other" organisms? Is it all right to kill a pig, a very intelligent animal, in order to eat it's flesh? Most folks, including myself, say yes. We don't even have second thoughts about killing a carrot. Because all of us, to some extent are blatant specists. We care about and protect our species to the detriment of other species (and sometimes to their benefit).

Where do you draw the line at what it is okay to kill for our benefit?

[El Greco]

myself > my family > my friends > social groups I belong to > humans > mammals > other animals > plants > bacteria etc.

There are also other scales which would list my reasons for killing each of the above in order of importance.

Anything varies according to society, legislation, education etc.

So, the reason you kill becomes very important. Is your question limited to "kill in order to eat" ?

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by El Greco
So, the reason you kill becomes very important. Is your question limited to "kill in order to eat" ?

Not at all. The thread was inspired by a sig line from T'ai Chi that said, "I would never keep a pearl if I had to throw away the oyster". I regarded that as silly, since we use animals (and plants) for a variety of reasons other than just as food. He (she?) seemed to think that because we were only killing the oyster for a useless bauble, that it was wrong. I disagree.

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

Not at all. The thread was inspired by a sig line from T'ai Chi that said, "I would never keep a pearl if I had to throw away the oyster". I regarded that as silly, since we use animals (and plants) for a variety of reasons other than just as food. He (she?) seemed to think that because we were only killing the oyster for a useless bauble, that it was wrong. I disagree.

My exact quote is below.

[Zombified]

Who says baubles are useless? They attract mates.

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zombified
Who says baubles are useless? They attract mates.

Well they are given to mates anyway.

[Yahweh]

Well, I wouldnt know where to draw the line.

I know I wouldnt believe the equality of life can be determined by one's own personal circumstances. For instance, I would be more concerned if something bad happened to Sister Yahweh than if something happened to a nameless faceless stranger in Afghanistan. But that doesnt make Sister Yahweh more important, because I'm sure stranger in Afghanistan couldnt care less what happens to stranger Sister Yahweh in America. And that is where stalemate comes from, the personal bias cant be used to verify imporance of life.

How about numbers? The endangered Condors have more protection than an animal such as mice. Well, I think the condors (human-labeled) endangered status would tie into "personal circumstances", but I havent fully decided whether importance is inversely proportional to numbers. One possible motive to think otherwise is the humans Specist motivation (there are certainly more human organisms on the planet than some other species of organisms, yet humans give much less value on the equality of life for those other organisms than humans). The Rationalist Pixies which fly through the inside of my head speak to me sometimes, they tell me its almost morbid to think importance of life is inversely proportional to numbers.

Personally, I would find killing an animal for its flesh to borderline on immoral, but its very hard to live in a world where all decisions are moral absolutes. Humans killing an animal for its flesh is probably a "necessary evil" (Note: I would consider killing animals for sport to be immoral).

As for the rest of the animal kingdom who kill other animals for survival, I choose think of it as a demonstration that Nature is mercilessly indifferent.

[Igopogo]

A quote from Tricky:
"Where do you draw the line at what it is okay to kill for our benefit?”

This is a very good question. I’d say for most folks, the general answer would be:

“We will kill that which we gain even the slightest benefit from killing, as long as we don’t notice or acknowledge any direct negative effect to ourselves.”

IMO, common sense, skepticism & 'value' have nothing to do with most peoples' views on killing stuff.

[FireGarden]

RE: "I will never keep a pearl if it means discarding the oyster."
--T'ai Chi 12/24/03

I had a few goes at rephrasing this, but failed to come up with anything good.

Does T'ai mean an oyster in particular, or oysters in general? As in "The white rhino is close to extinction"

My best attempt at rephrasing:
"I will never fish for cod if it means depleting the fish stocks to such a level that they will never recover."



If you want to agree with something, then you just have to twist and bend it for long enough. A kind of reverse-Strawman.

In fact....







Wait for it....












A Wartsman!

[sorgoth]

I'm going to begin by saying I don't know.

But, now I'm going to try to explain how I see things:

Death doesn't matter. When something is dead, it does not care that it is dead. However, it is while it is alive that it matters.

I have nothing against people who hunt wild deer for food. The deer did deer-y things all it's life, might have been able to mate a couple of times, and overall had a life it was happy to have. It died, so what? It happens in nature.

However... When you keep a cow in a tiny pen, treating it badly, not giving it affection, freedom, etc. that is MUCH worse than killing it. It is merciful to kill the cow when it is in that situation.
In fact, killing the deer for sport is more moral, IMO, than keeping the cow a prisoner all it's life.

If something doesn't care whether it lives or dies (Carrots, bacteria, etc), then there is nothing wrong with killing it, unless it brings pain to things that DO care.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by sorgoth
However... When you keep a cow in a tiny pen, treating it badly, not giving it affection, freedom, etc. that is MUCH worse than killing it. It is merciful to kill the cow when it is in that situation.

There are situations where this happens (the rasing of veal for example) but in for the most part, cattle are in much better condition than they would be if they were kept in the wild. They are treated for diseases, they have plenty to eat, they are, in general, taken care of. You don't see herds of cows breaking down the fences to return to freedom and/or escape their horrible living conditions. Or chickens. Or pigs. They are domesticated. Death comes quickly and relatively painlessly. Yes, they are our slaves, but not necessarily unwilling slaves. If you took down all the fences, probably most would still return to the barn at night.

Some animals do not do as well in domestication, and so we go to their (relatively) wild environment to harvest them. But I don't think that it is wrong to use animals, wild or tame, for our purposes. You can be sure that no lion or crocodile would have a second thought about eating a human because they had a streak of empathy. Animals (and plants) compete. That is the essence of nature. We are not violating nature by using animals, we are honoring it.

Sometimes animals are so stupid that they hunt their food species to near extinction, then the predators die too. As the "big brained" animal, I'd like to think we are smart enough to realize that we need to protect the environment we live in if we wish to continue to use it. Here is where we fall down as a species. We have hunted some species to extinction and caused others to become nearly extinct by destroying their habitats. We can no longer use those species because of our short-sightedness. We need to protect our environment for our own good, not because of empathy, but because of self preservation. Humans are my first priority, but because I take the long view of humanity, I realize the need to care about other species as well if we want to survive for long.

[elliotfc]

Nice topic.

I think it is simply not possible to believe that all life has equal value, for the simple fact that all life will eventually die. All lives are lived at the expense of other lives, so you have an inherent contradicition if you believe that all life is equal. Even the most idealistic person has killed ants or swallowed bugs in their sleep. The interaction of living beings, and the fact that individuals would rather live than die, dictates that a hierarchy of life be established.

It's a nice idea though, if applied reasonably. This is where morality kicks in, right and wrong and all that. But the decree that "all life has equal value" can't possibly stand on its own as an end all be all to existence.

-Elliot

[neutrino_cannon]

I'd say that there's quite a bit of life that is both important and unimportant. Take, for example, the bacteria in the bowels of Shemp, or anybodie's bowels if you can't stand to think of Shemp's.

They die, billions upon billions. There are more bacteria in your gut than there are people on this world, and they die on a massive scale all the time. When one dies, I could care less. it makes little, if any, discernable difference to my metabolism, no important difference tto be sure, if a million of them were to die at once. In fact, a large proportion could die off, and all I would suffer is a little gas at the worst. That doesn't make them unimportant, I am quite fond of my ability to digest food, and were it not for the little guys down there, I would waste away and the poor world would be denied my enlightening presence.

My heart would go out to them, but if it did it would be in entirely the wrong place, and they'd probably eat it anyhow.

As for macroscopic life, I think that at the very least we should attempt to leave representatives in place. there's no way to have no impact, whatever that impact turns out to be, even if we were all to vanish, that would have an impact. We are part of the environment of Earth, whether we like it or not. It is in our intrest, and of course the intrest of the rest of the biosphere if you attribute any importance to their plight, to ensure that a level of biodversity is maintained, and that extant ecosystems remain intact.

I do not know, or even pretend that anyone knows, what the correct amount of meddling in the environment is. On the one hand, I would love to see thylacines resurected, and there seems to be some justice in it, since it was our species that killed them off. But what about the dingo pups that get displaced by the new thylacines? What if the thylacines don't make it for some or another reason (including but not limited to aforementioned dingos)? Are we responsible for their suffering since we resurected them?

This is why I hate ethics. Too many questions, all effectively (but perhaps not absolutlely) unanswerable.

[sorgoth]

The thing about ethics is, though, that many of those questions NEED to be answered. I guess what ethicists try to do is answer in a way that benefits the most people.

[Zero]

I'll tell you what, if it came down to it, I'd kill and eat any one of you...



*shrugs* I'm picky, but if it comes down to me starving or eating your arm...well, you had better get used to the nickname 'Lefty', ok?

[epepke]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
I'll tell you what, if it came down to it, I'd kill and eat any one of you...

*shrugs* I'm picky, but if it comes down to me starving or eating your arm...well, you had better get used to the nickname 'Lefty', ok?

For shame!

Legs have more meat and are easier to roast.

[Zero]

Quote:

Originally posted by epepke


For shame!

Legs have more meat and are easier to roast.

Yeah, but I thought 'Lefty' was funnier than 'pegleg'...

Screw you guys...I value my life, you folks can fend for yourselves...

[epepke]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero


Yeah, but I thought 'Lefty' was funnier than 'pegleg'...

How about "Gimpy"?

[Zero]

Quote:

Originally posted by epepke


How about "Gimpy"?

No, that's just not cool...I would never cut a slice off someone named 'gimpy'...

[Dorian Gray]

Does all death have equal value? Ahh, that's what you meant to say, I know it!

[max]

I believe that all life should be equal. I also believe we should be vegetarians and not breed animals for slaughter/food
I watched a prog on travels in Siberia recently and the people there have herds of deer. It showed how they lassooed the antlers of one deer to capture and then kill it. The deer struggled and struggled for a long time to get away from its captor, to no avail. I felt terribly sad and sorry for the beast that in effect was enjoying life with the rest of the herd but was needed for someones dinner. I felt the same sorrow when I watched a prog on how fishermen cast their nets and in doing so, sharks become entangled. At least there are divers who do all they can to free these unfortunate fish. I realise also that one false move and the shark would have the diver for dinner but it doesn't know any better.
If we continue to kill off our wild animals even if it's just one at a time, it's like unpicking a stitch in a sweater. Bit by bit the sweater would disintegrate and there'd be no sweater at all.
There's a Cree saying:
Only when the last tree has been felled.
Only when the last animal has been slaughtered.
Only when the last fish has been caught and the last river has been polluted.
Only then, will we realise that man cannot live on money alone.

[FireGarden]

Quote:

There's a Cree saying:
Only when the last tree has been felled.
Only when the last animal has been slaughtered.
Only when the last fish has been caught and the last river has been polluted.
Only then, will we realise that man cannot live on money alone.

I wasn't aware that the Cree were vegetarian

I think the point of the quote was to make sure that when you harcest from nature you make sure that what you do is sustainable.


Agriculture can be bad for the environment. You can overwork the soil, and clearing forests for land can leave with you with desert. (Or is that dessert? )

[max]

Firegarden
I am well aware of what the Crees were intending to say with the quote, they didn't need to be vegetarian. What they were pointing out is that the white man willy-nilly kills, hunts for the sake of it, in exess of what he needs to eat to sustain him. Doesn't mind polluting rivers with chemicals etc, doesn't mind felling rain forests.
Didn't mind slaughtering nearly to extinction the buffalows. In fact man has brought many species to extinction which the Indians didn't. They looked after the earth/plants/animals
They are in effect saying that man will ultimately be responsible for his own downfall because we will kill everything and pollute everything by the time a few more centuries have passed. One day it will be far too late to correct any of it.
And as the Crees said.......we can't eat money

[FireGarden]

Max,

Quote:

I also believe we should be vegetarians and not breed animals for slaughter/food

OK, max, sorry for taking the vegetarian bit further than you wanted.

I'll just say that I agree with the sustainablility idea you brought up, but not with the bit I just quoted above.

[max]

Do you not feel anything for the animals we slaughter,though?
They're happy grazing away in the meadows minding their own business chewing their cuds and then suddenly a human or two herds them into a slaughter house, and before they can say moo or baa, they're on someones plate.
Now if we didn't breed them for food, that would be fairer. I wonder if part of mans' comeuppance is mad cows disease

[Christian]

The materialist/atheist (MA) view presents a huge moral contradiction in this subject.

It is immoral to kill another human being but it is perfectly moral to kill a cockroach.

From the MA perspective, both are living things that have evolved throught time in different paths. Why should they be qualitative different?

Most MA live like if the Christian premise is correct (supremacy of humans over all other life forms) but, intellectually live with said contradiction.

[sorgoth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
The materialist/atheist (MA) view presents a huge moral contradiction in this subject.

It is immoral to kill another human being but it is perfectly moral to kill a cockroach.

From the MA perspective, both are living things that have evolved throught time in different paths. Why should they be qualitative different?

Most MA live like if the Christian premise is correct (supremacy of humans over all other life forms) but, intellectually live with said contradiction.

Not quite. You see, we show and express emotions, we show that we CARE if we die or not. As far as we know, we are the animals who can do this the most.

[jimmygun]

Max...Pick one of your closests and dearest aquaintances..mother, father, sister, brother, wife, child. If any of them became sick and were at death's door would you willingly let them die rather than administer a drug which would kill the germs which were killing them? Would you kill an animal to keep one of your loved ones from starving to death?

Death comes to every living thing. Without exception. Nothing man can do will keep any animal from dying.

To quote a comedian I heard the other day..."If hooking a monkey's brain to a car battery leads to the cure for aids then I only have two words...Postitive and negative!"

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
The materialist/atheist (MA) view presents a huge moral contradiction in this subject.

It is immoral to kill another human being but it is perfectly moral to kill a cockroach.

From the MA perspective, both are living things that have evolved throught time in different paths. Why should they be qualitative different?

Most MA live like if the Christian premise is correct (supremacy of humans over all other life forms) but, intellectually live with said contradiction.

Not necessarily true, as I explained in my first post. I believe that it is morally correct for humans to attempt to use other species. Each organism has as its primary obligations to its own species, even if that means harming other species. If I was faced with a man-eating shark, I would expect no mercy from it, and I would not sacrifice myself or any of my fellow humans in order to preserve its life. There is no moral ambiguity whatsoever.

I'm not sure what MA people you have been talking to, but the stance you describe sounds more like animal activists, who are just as likely to be Christian as MA. Probably moreso.

[Dancing David]

All life is equal, all non life is equal, all life equals non life.

Some are just more equal than others.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

All humans obviously value some life more than others, and human life the most (with rare exceptions). Humans culltivate and harvest certain living plants, they raise and slaughter certain animals, they even use some of their closest relativess, chimpanzees, for laboratory research.

And there you have it. Even animals are finicky about what they eat.

[Christian]

sorgoth wrote:
Not quite. You see, we show and express emotions, we show that we CARE if we die or not. As far as we know, we are the animals who can do this the most.

So what you are saying is that humans are qualitative superior to other living things because we can show and express more emotion?

Tricky wrote:
Not necessarily true, as I explained in my first post. I believe that it is morally correct for humans to attempt to use other species. Each organism has as its primary obligations to its own species, even if that means harming other species. If I was faced with a man-eating shark, I would expect no mercy from it, and I would not sacrifice myself or any of my fellow humans in order to preserve its life. There is no moral ambiguity whatsoever.

I'm not questioning the ambiguity. In practice I also see that there is none whatsoever.

My question (at the heart of the MA contradiction IMHO) is why are humans qualitatively superior? What is your logical justification for it?

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
tsoever.

My question (at the heart of the MA contradiction IMHO) is why are humans qualitatively superior? What is your logical justification for it?

They aren', there aren't. An atheist should see nothing special about the anthro centric view.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
Is it all right to kill a pig, a very intelligent animal, in order to eat it's flesh? Most folks, including myself, say yes.

Would you still think that if you were a pig?

[scribble]

This thread got me wondering how it is that human beings choose all the time to take their own lives. Do we ever see that behavior in other animals?

[epepke]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
No, that's just not cool...I would never cut a slice off someone named 'gimpy'...

Why not?

It's not as if he's going anywhere.

[epepke]

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
[b]sorgoth wrote:
Not quite. You see, we show and express emotions, we show that we CARE if we die or not. As far as we know, we are the animals who can do this the most.

So what you are saying is that humans are qualitative superior to other living things because we can show and express more emotion?

There's not much choosing here on principle, as the other side also relies on the idea of humans being qualitatively superior in showing and expressing emotion. They just interpret it differently to mean that because humans can empathize with life (well, life with cute widdwe faces, anyway--carrots don't count, and I'm not sure about Brussels Sprouts) there's a special obligation not to kill it.

At least it does not seem to entail the homo fecit that if humans were simply to curb their appetites, ecology would just magically work out. I remember when clubbing baby seals (cute widdwe faces again) was considered tantamount to anything the Nazis did. Now, the seal population in the Pacific Northwest is wrecking the ecology, to the extent that park rangers have to go out and kill seals to control the population.

[sorgoth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
[b]sorgoth wrote:
Not quite. You see, we show and express emotions, we show that we CARE if we die or not. As far as we know, we are the animals who can do this the most.

So what you are saying is that humans are qualitative superior to other living things because we can show and express more emotion?
]

Yes. And we can assume from this that almost all humans have this capacity for emotion, and we have pretty much no way of really reading the differences between humans scientifically, so we can assume most human life is fairly equal (Equal enough to receive equal rights).

[Chareen]

Quote:

Originally posted by scribble
This thread got me wondering how it is that human beings choose all the time to take their own lives. Do we ever see that behavior in other animals?

The answer to that question doesn't answer what you are looking for. It could be a question of intelligence. Take monkeys for example, depending on the type of monkey, if you put food out of reach of a monkey and sticks long enough to reach the food in the cage with him no matter how much he wants the food he won't use the sticks to get it. No other animal comes close to our intelligence. It takes a great deal of intelligence to even have a sence of self, let alone the idea of removal of onesself.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Would you still think that if you were a pig?

No, but if I were a pig, I would guess that I would have no qualms about killing humans to eat. And that's as it should be. Each species must consider their own species first.