Maybe the animals are more important God did create them first.
Without God, Do Humans Have More Intrinsic Value Than Animals?
by leavingwt 64 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
james_woods
Maybe the animals are more important God did create them first.
Then that would make the one-celled bacterial ancestors the most important of all, right?
-
leavingwt
SBC: Interesting points. I'm confident that I will remain a carnivore. Yet, I struggle to justify my actions, if pressed. There are people working on producing meat without animals. That will be a game-changer, to some.
-
just Ron
Well their is good and bad bacteria. The bad could take you out pretty quick so who is God? bacteria
-
Vanderhoven7
No.
Nothing has intrinsic value.
It, the universe...just is.
Objectively speaking.
-
james_woods
In his novel "The Shirmer Inheritance", Eric Ambler begins the first chapter with a WW1 soldier escaping the Russian Front on his horse.
He arrives at the Yugoslavian farm cottage of a small family. They are all in danger of starvation through the coming winter.
Shirmer, the soldier, immediately shoots the horse he was riding for food - and ends up marrying the daughter of the family and thus starts the story of the novel.
That horse had first the intrinsic value of transportation, later the intrinsic value of a food source.
The humans had the intrinsic value of life as humans - which was a greater intrinsic value than the life of the horse. That would still have been true even if that had been the last horse on earth.
And thus it has been all through human history.
-
botchtowersociety
If there is no objective "God" standard, then we make the standards.
Protagoras said man is the measure of all things.
By my measure, human life is more valuable than animal life, and this isn't controversial.
We even distinguish between the value of lives among different kinds of animals.
People donate millions towards sheltering dogs and cats while calling the pest exterminator to visit their home.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
James: It depends on how much worth the species adds to society. Human society.
Okay, so you've decided it has nothing to do with how close an animal's DNA is to our own.
Sounds like it boils down to "what's this animal done for me lately?" Am I understanding that correctly? Again, I'm not picking on you and I don't know how I actually measure one species against another. I just know I don't have a good answer so I'm trying to figure out how I reached my current view.
Again, what about H. erectus and H. habilis if they still walked the earth? More/less/equal value to apes? More/less/equal value to humans?
That is because I am human - simple as that.
Walk me through it - which part is simple? That most of us care about our own species more than non-human life forms so we dominate those to satisfy human needs (which could, many times, be met other ways)? That seems to be how I act personally. I also care more about my wife and kids than any other humans so if I had to make a decision between your life or that of my son, nepotism would rule in my son's favor, James.
But how often will things come down to a dichotomous choice of James Woods or Cheezits, Jr? That decision aside, I would like to treat you fairly and do my best not to trample on your rights as a living being.
And thus it has been all through human history.
Do you see a pattern, though, where allowing sociocentrism/in-group bias to dominate one's thinking has led to a great deal of injustice throughout human history? How many times has man used that kind of thinking to justify the trampling of the rights of those OUTSIDE of his group?
Humans add the most worth - horses, dogs & cattle, some value, but less than that.
So an animal's life is only worth what it brings to the table for humans.
I'm not enjoying this because the more we talk about it the less justified I feel in using animals to satisfy my egocentric desires.
Aliens are off topic - the OP said Animals - which means earth non-human species.
What?? C'mon, James, is that a cop-out? We're still talking about the value/rights of animals - in this case the human animal.
It's an illustration, Topic Officer. Permission to use an illustration so that the Mr. Woods can empathetically remove himself from the top of the food chain, sir?
Science hasn't - to my knowledge - discovered any life forms more intellectually advanced than H. sapiens so if you don't mind rolling with the hypothetical sitch, I'd be grateful.
-
leavingwt
"By my measure, human life is more valuable than animal life."
I think this is good enough for most of us. Further, if you and I enter the wilderness unarmed, the animals hold a similar view of us. They view us as 'fair game' for food, etc.
-
james_woods
Okay, so you've decided it has nothing to do with how close an animal's DNA is to our own.
Yes. I once read that other than the higher primates, the cat family has the closest animal DNA to human. That does not make a cat more valuable than the winner of the Kentucky Derby.
What?? C'mon, James, is that a cop-out? We're still talking about the value/rights of animals - in this case the human animal.
It's an illustration, Topic Officer. Permission to use an illustration so that the Mr. Woods can empathetically remove himself from the top of the food chain, sir?
I am not trying to piss you off, SBC. I am just saying that the value of a human is greater than the value of an animal. Just that simple.