question: why are humans worth more than animals?

by Realist 58 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  blacksheep

  so i guess in this context what i would want to find is more like a consistant logical reasoning that puts all human life over animal life based on some measurement. if we could say for instance that we suffer more than animals than this would make it reasonable to conclude that tortuing animals is less problematic than torturing humans. if there is no measure that distinguishes all humans from animals than wouldn'T we have to apply the same laws for treating animals and humans?

  Poor analogy with the ?torture? bit. Most human societies condemn the torture of animals: there are even laws against it. Native Americans held animal life in high esteem; yet they ate them. They did not kill them mercilessly or needlessly, but they ate them.

  If you are stuggling as to why human life is more valuable to HUMANS than that of animals, I?m not sure that anyone can help you out here.

  Objectively, animals are members of the food chain; a lion instinctively kills a weak zebra/baby zebra because he?s hungry. No thought, no guilt, no perception about relative value.

  The very fact that humans have highly developed senses of right/wrong, they have conciences, they create incredible works of art, can appreciate beauty, can create the concept of GOD?these in part explain why a human life is worth more than a cat?s life. Humans have made incredible strides in figuring out ways to rise above primitive existence to make life better, healthier. They?ve utilized their capacity to discover complext theories that explains the world around them, to send men to other planets. What great achievements have animal made since the dawn of time (save for naturally and slowly evolving to ensure they survive?

  Animals act based soley on instinct; little more. Humans act based on social norms, laws, the dictates of their conscience, feelings of love, etc. They usually suppress natural instincts because of an awareness of their responsibility toward other humans, which includes respect for other humans and human life.

  Face it, humans are the most highly evolved, complex, intelligent form of life on earth. They have far more infinite emotional and mental capacity to experience love, pain, emotions...to understand the consequences of their acts and others' acts.

  That?s in part, what makes my son worth more?to everyone?not just me-- than the family dog..

  And my dog worth more than the family gold fish.
• 

  blacksheep

  And, almost forgot, in additional to having the capacity to experience emotional feelings, humans have the capacity to recall events/pain/emotions, etc. They also have the capacity to recall and record history, and hopefully, learn from it.

  You may not think those are objective measures to determining humans worth over that of animals. I think it is clear they are. As I said, most people don't struggle too much with that concept.

  Still chilling to me is the story of the US man and his girlfriend; he loved bears and actually went to live out in the woods with them. Friends of his said he actually seemed to favor bears over humans. He felt he and his girlfriend were safer among them than in human society. Sadly, the bears didn't return those "feelings." He had his girlfriend were mauled and eaten by a couple of hungry bears. Actually, the horror of their last minutes while being mauled were somehow recorded--haunting/horrible.

  Again, animals act based on instinct, without thought, feelings, regret, any emotional connection. Humans have the capacity to feel; as most of us reading the bear story can testify. Most of us put ourselves into these people's unfortunate situation and cannot begin to imagine the horror.
• 

  Rabbit

  There is a natural pecking order to things, I believe it came about thru creation.

  Mankind is at the top, because of our intelligence of course...but, also, as has been said...we have a conscience. No other animal except us, will group together to protect other animals against predation by our own species. That alone shows that as a species, we have the role as caretakers.

  That being said...we're not doing too good of a job historically, we are becoming planet killers...there is close to 100 extinctions per day -- mammal, animal, insect, fishes and others. We have been especially hard historically on the most intelligent animals like the whales and primates.

  Animals have no problem hunting and eating other animals, because it is natural to survival. They also will occasionally hunt humans, because of this WE should help ourselves and them...by staying out of their territory. If we get eaten by a shark, crocidile, grizzly or polar bear or lions or tigers...it's our own fault. Usually, humans are not hunted, but if we are perceived as a threat against their babies...all bets are off...just like us. We, after all are smart enough to know they live there.

  As far as us eating other animals, I think it's OK as long as it's death is as humane as possible (i.e. what does a deer go thru when attacked and killed by a Mountain Lion?) as humans...if we shoot the deer...death is almost instantanious -- not so with predator/prey.

  I don't hunt any more, when I did I had a hard fast rule -- I never killed anything I did not intend to eat myself or in some cases the 'waste' parts would be eaten by my dogs. They better not expect me to go to war...lol

  I have a daughter who is a Vegan, no animal products at all...it works for her well. Sometimes I think I'd like to do that, too. But, I like Chicken Fried Steak, too.

  So, yeah... Humans are worth more (some humans) than animals, but as caretakers, we need to manage them properly and humanely.

  Lee
• 

  L_A_Big_Dawg

  I look over the past history of the world, and I find that no animal has created a hospital, education center, or government. Animals at the top of the food chain do not protect "the rights" of the animals lower on the food chain. Lions do not protect the young, old or injured antelope, rather they kill and eat them. Animals are not able to reason, but they instead act on instinct. Even Flipper, with all his "intelligence" could not create something from an abstract idea.

  Yes, I believe humans are superior to animals. I believe that animals should be treated with respect and humanely (i owned many dogs that were very well treated). I believe that animals should be used to serve humanity. On this point I disagree vehemetely with PETA. This was made clear on Penn & Teller's HBO program, Bullshit. On the show it was publicized that PETA opposes the use of guide dogs, and service dogs (dogs trained to assist the deaf or other physically handicapped individuals). They equate their (services dogs) use to that of human slavery. A charge I found laughable. They also attempt to degrade the immoral significance of The Holocaust by equating it to the slaughter of various farm animals.
• 

  Realist

  Hi Alan,

  so what do you think of the compenhagen interpretation?! i would prefer einstein's view on the matter...but then again...most people working in the field seem to agree with heisenberg.

  by the way...have you figured out what an observer is in the context of quantum mechanics? is it any particle that can be/is influence by an object? it doesn't sound reasonable at all to demand an intelligent observer.

  i am somewhat familiar with the cetral limit theorem....i was in the nyu phd program for molecular biology but decided to quit after the comprehensive exam inorder to switch to bioinformatics....so now i have to deal a lot with statistics

  have a nice evening!
• 

  TD

  Realist,

  If I understand you correctly, your question seems to ultimately boil down to one of ?fairness.? In other words, why do we consider human life of inestimable value when animal life is used and taken at will? Isn?t that arbitrary? Shouldn?t we have some logical, quantifiable system of gauging the relative value of different forms of life? (Sorry --- Not trying to put words in your mouth here?..)

  I think you?re trying to logically quantify a situation that wasn?t really founded on logic ?at least, not this type of logic.

  Respect for human life as a concept, was born out of necessity. Man started out as a social animal and human society originally consisted of family groups bound together largely by filial affection, which is pretty much instinctive.

  As human society grew and evolved into clans and tribes and tribal alliances and ultimately into nations and national alliances, man has had to embrace an increasingly wide and diverse group as ?family.? Filial affection is not sufficient at this point. Successful human societies invariably adopt as a moral axiom, the innate value of human life.

  If this concept were to be completely discarded, human societies would revert back to the size of family groups. However humans have often applied this concept selectively. Every single human nationality has as part of their history, shameful episodes in the past where they treated people deemed ?not completely human? only slightly better and sometimes far worse than most animals.

  Chinese and Russians captured by the Japanese during World War II were referred to as ?maruta? (logs) and used as human guinea pigs. The Jews didn?t fair much better under Hitler. Blacks suffered in colonial America. The list of past wrongs is probably matched only by the list of different ways that have been devised to exclude other humans.

  Animals are not peers within human society and likely never will be. It does not matter how closely related to us in terms of raw genetics a chimp may be, or how intelligent and loyal a dog may be, we do not view their lives as we view our own.
• 

  Mac

  I think it's because, in general, humans have a wider range of investment opportunities made available to them.

  mac
• 

  xenawarrior

  LMAO !!!
• 

  Mac

  Don't laugh...you know I'm sensitive!!!!!!!!!!

  mac
• 

  Realist

  TD,

  you understand me correctly and i agree with everything you say!

  If this concept were to be completely discarded, human societies would revert back to the size of family groups. However humans have often applied this concept selectively.

  but shouldn't we instead of discarding the concept expand it to include higher animals (or all animals that most likely feel suffering) as well?

  i think suffering is the main issue here...lets say we kill an animal without letting it suffer...does this pose an ethical problem? i think it does not. what causes the ethical problem is suffering.

  but if this is the case then the question arises why is it wrong to kill a human without causing suffering? from an objective standpoint the same rule should apply.