Why do we value human life more than non-human life?

[dottedmint]

I admit that this probably isn't truely an abortion issue but this question was raised by a member in an abortion debate.

Also I'm not sure if there is a better place to put this issue.

The question was origionally something to the effect of...

"Why do you value the life of a fetus more than the life of a dog or some other non-human animal?"

This may not have been the exact wording but it is close enough for now.

I was unable to answer this question at the time (and still find it a tricky quesiton) so I felt it could be interesting to see what others in here feel.

One thing that I know some in here would argue is that humans are more valuable because humans have souls.

While I think this is true I am unalbe to prove that I have a soul and that my dog does not have a soul. (there are some days when he is very 'human-like')
Yet I would value the life of my kid over the life of my dog.

Why is that?

One thing that is suggested is that we value the intelligence that humans have vs that of other animals.

While this is true it is somewhat misleading because we do not value the life of an intelligent human more than a human of average intelligence.

So why do we value the life of humans more than the life of non-humans?

Is there a simple answer to this question?

Another question that was posed is...

Would we value the life of a human more than the life of some Alien :aliens1: species that some day came to Earth?

While I cannot speak for others in here this is my answer.....

No.

IF sometime in the future we are visited by some alien species that had similar ethics/morals/cultural standards that humans have I would say it would be wrong to somehow place a lesser value on their life vs human life.

This is of course assuming they were not here trying to take over the planet and enslave us......:aliens2:

So why do we value human life more than non-human animals?

I know there are some people who would claim that they don't value human life anymore than they value non-human animal life but I question their honesty.

I have no doubt that if they had to make a choice between saving their childs life or saving the life of their puppy they would save their childs life first.

So again....

Why do we value human life more than non-human animal life?

 

[1069]

Well, I'm a vegetarian, and animal life is very sacred to me.
That said, one cannot help seeing bloody, chopped-up chunks of animal flesh (often with bones jutting out every whichway) wherever one goes.
Meat is inherently a part of our culture.
It depreciates the value of animal life, at least in my eyes.

If we lived in a war zone, and routinely saw chopped up human body parts every time we stepped out the door, it would probably degrade human life in all of our eyes after awhile, because we'd become numb to it. We'd realize that humans are really just meat... that if you chopped a person up into manageable portions the way you'd chop up a pig or a cow, that person would look no different than the cuts of meat we see every day at the grocery store.

If given the option of sacrificing one of my cats in order to spare the life of an unknown person halfway around the world, I don't think I'd do it. I love my cats; they are part of my family.
However, if I had to kill one of them to save one of my kids' lives- or even kill every cat on the planet in order to save one of my kids' lives- I'd do it without hesitation.
Basically, people and animals I know personally and care about take precedence- in my personal set of priorities- to people and animals I do not know personally and am never likely to meet.
But people do not automatically take precedence over animals, in my hierarchy of importance.

 

[dottedmint]

1069 Well, I'm a vegetarian, and animal life is very sacred to me.
That said, one cannot help seeing bloody, chopped-up chunks of animal flesh (often with bones jutting out every whichway) wherever one goes.
Meat is inherently a part of our culture.
It depreciates the value of animal life, at least in my eyes.

If we lived in a war zone, and routinely saw chopped up human body parts every time we stepped out the door, it would probably degrade human life in all of our eyes after awhile, because we'd become numb to it. We'd realize that humans are really just meat... that if you chopped a person up into manageable portions the way you'd chop up a pig or a cow, that person would look no different than the cuts of meat we see every day at the grocery store.

Hmmmm... Soylent Green ???

If given the option of sacrificing one of my cats in order to spare the life of an unknown person halfway around the world, I don't think I'd do it. I love my cats; they are part of my family.
However, if I had to kill one of them to save one of my kids' lives- or even kill every cat on the planet in order to save one of my kids' lives- I'd do it without hesitation.
Basically, people and animals I know personally and care about take precedence- in my personal set of priorities- to people and animals I do not know personally and am never likely to meet.
But people do not automatically take precedence over animals, in my hierarchy of importance.

So even you would value your kids life more than the life of your cat....

But why?

I don't think there is really an easy answer to this....

 

[Chuck]

First of all, Anyone who believes the Bible will agree that some animals have souls too. At least they're in heaven, Wolves, lambs, leopard, goats, cows, bears. lions oxen and many more are mentioned.

Second, if your not religious and don't believe that God gave man dominion over all the Earth, man has evolved into the world's best hunter. Eyes to the front, opposable thumbs and meat cutting teeth, are my evidence. Man's tooth enamel is too thin to eat grasses constantly. I know many people chose not to eat meat, but that's unatural IMHO

Valuing human life more than others is natural too. Every species will protect their own, while very few try to protect another. Excepting of course, the cute little human interest stories about a cat nusing a baby rabbit or a pig or something like that. But wolves will protect other wolves, especially if say, a bear would attack a pack of them.

So it's only natural for man to value human life more than another species of life. This would be true in case of visiting aliens too.

Now me,,,,,,, I don't value ALL human life as much as others, or even my dogs. For example, I'd kill bin laden long before I'd kill one of my hunting dogs. And that kalid shiek mohammed? HE should be eating cheap dog food and my dogs eating his politically correct, religiously sanctioned meals instead.

Just my opinion, but I ain't running the world.

 

[1069]

Hmmmm... Soylent Green ???




So even you would value your kids life more than the life of your cat....

But why?

I don't think there is really an easy answer to this....

I'd value my kids more than your kids too, though. See how that works.
Nevertheless, I probably would sacrifice one of my cats to save your kid's life. Maybe. Probably. Yes. I would.

But to save the life of some hypothetical starving kid in Tanzania or the Ukraine or somewhere? Probably not.

I don't know; it's weird. At least I'm not hypocritical. There are only four people in this world I actually love, plus myself.
That doesn't mean I want bad things to happen to everybody else, or that I want them to suffer or be unhappy, or that I don't care whether they do.
It's just that I wouldn't take action- at the expense of myself or those I love- to alleviate their suffering or prevent bad things from happening to them.
If I could prevent bad things from happening to them or alleviate their suffering at no cost to myself or my loved ones, of course I would.

I had a friend die of ovarian cancer last year. She wasn't much older than me.
The experience taught me a lot about suffering and dying, because while I've known a few other people who died, they all died quickly and painlessly, as young people usually do- drug overdoses and car accidents.
So while my friend was dying, I thought a lot about life and death and mortality (she lasted just over a year from the time of her diagnosis).
I tried to heal her with my hands, just as an experiment. I'm not at all superstitious and I don't believe in the supernatural, but I figured it was worth a shot. My grandmother was said to have this healing power- was even sort of famous for it- so I figured, hey, it's worth a try. And my friend gave me permission to try it. But it didn't work, of course.
I thought about how- hypothetically- if I could take the illness away from her and give it to somebody else, someone we didn't know, I would do that.
I wouldn't give it to anybody I knew, and I certainly wouldn't take it myself, but I'd give it to somebody else, some stranger, if that would make my friend be healthy again.

That's the thing, though... it is all just hypothetical, because I am not a superstitious person and I know deep down that my thoughts and wishes have no effect on reality. So it's safe for me to make wishes like that- to wish I could take illness away from someone I care about and give it to a stranger instead- because I know there's no chance of this ever happening.
If I believed- objectively- that it might actually happen, then I might be more careful about making such wishes and thinking about such things.
As it is, these are just idle fancies.

We have a thread around here somewhere about whether we think some lives are more important than others, or whether we think some people have more value than others, or something like that. It was a few months ago we had that thread.
The people who were honest nearly all admitted that they assign greater value to their friends and family members than to strangers.

 

[Kandahar]

One thing that is suggested is that we value the intelligence that humans have vs that of other animals.

I agree with this answer, and it's the main reason I am pro-choice. A fetus has very little intelligence.

While this is true it is somewhat misleading because we do not value the life of an intelligent human more than a human of average intelligence.

In the grand scheme of things, the difference in intelligence between an intelligent human and an average human is almost insignificant, compared to the difference in intelligence between a human and an animal.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Hmmmm... Soylent Green ???




So even you would value your kids life more than the life of your cat....

But why?

I don't think there is really an easy answer to this....

_______
??????????WHY?????????? Your joking right!!!

 

[tecoyah]

Why do we value human life more than non-human animal life?

Likely, we value the Human because it thinks as we do, and is aware of what it is. We understand it "feels" as we do for want of a better term. Once this aspect of Humanity is gone, only a body is left and we often pull the plug, allowing the husk to become a corpse.
Without the ability to think as a human, at least in some rudamentary form, we do not place the same value on the creature.

 

[dottedmint]

I agree with this answer, and it's the main reason I am pro-choice. A fetus has very little intelligence.



In the grand scheme of things, the difference in intelligence between an intelligent human and an average human is almost insignificant, compared to the difference in intelligence between a human and an animal.

Then does this mean that you value the life of an adult more than the life of a child?

A child (especially a newborn) has no more "intelligence" than some animals and yet I would value their life more than the animals life.

In fact there are some animals that have more "intelligence" than a newborn.

Would you value the life of the "intelligent" animal more than you would value the life of the newborn baby?

 

[FutureIncoming]

There is a Biological Answer to that question. All through Nature, it is generally observed that when animals of different species fight, it is often to the death, but when animals of the same species fight, it is seldom to the death.

Think about it. A species that constantly fights itself to the death is going to become extinct more easily than a species that prefers to fight other species to the death.

The existing species of the world are the survivors, the ones that have genetic programs sufficient to let them cope, and prosper. Thus is it Perfectly Natural for any species to favor itself over any other species.

This includes humans, a species that in addition to Natural Genetic Programming, also has high analytic intelligence and Free Will. We are able to understand the influences in our lives, be they genetic or have any other cause, and if we take the time to think about it, we can choose whether or not to submit to those influences. Free Will lets us separate Stimulus and Response, but only when we use it. Thoughtless acts tend to be as purely animal as the acts of any ordinary animal that lacks Free Will.

So. Our "base instincts" include a prejudice for human life. And our base instincts do not know that too much of a good thing is always a bad thing. That is something we humans only understand at the intellectual level, usually by learning it the hard way.

The dictum, "be fruitful and multiply" is a pure expression of that built-in prejudice for human life. But it does not say how the increasing multitudes can be fed. It does not say where they can find sufficient fresh water, or what to do with the wastes they generate. It does not even say how to fit ever-growing numbers of humans onto the land surface of the world.

A global Malthusian Catastrophe would be humans learning the hard way that too many humans is a Bad Thing.

Now. We claim that our intelligence is a major reason for declaring ourselves superior to, and masters over, all ordinary animals. What good is it if we cannot master ourselves? Some would say that this means we should resist all urges to indulge in sex. Others would say our Wills are not truly Free if we can never let ourselves say "yes". And others would say that the average human adult already resists urges aplenty, to indulge in sex. After all, when was the last time you heard about a public orgy in the middle of a city, due to humans not resisting those urges?

So sex happens, and at a rate which might actually seem reasonable for Free Wills, considering that last sentence. Next and Biologically, sex is linked to reproduction, although rather less blatantly in humans than in most other species. Humans used their intelligence to figure this out, and concluded that they had the right, because of having Free Will, to decide whether or not pregnancies should be one of the consequences of sex. Various birth-control methods were developed, to enforce the Choices made by Free Wills.

Daffynition: Hysterectomy
"An operation that takes away the kids, but leaves the playground."

How about instead of asking, "Why do we value human life more than non-human life?", we ask, "Why should we value human life as much as human intelligence?" Because it's not obvious that we should. Indeed, the possibility of a Malthusian Catastrophe implies that it is NOT intelligent to value human life so thoroughly...mostly because about 99% of them will die if the Catastrophe is typical, so what good would it do, to value them before they die anyway?


Somewhat off-topic:
One of the odd things about birth control is that it has such a high failure rate. Name almost any other technology, and a 1% failure rate is considered to be totally unacceptable. (Inside your computer, failure to process data properly tends to occur at a rate of about 1 bit per trillion bits processed, not one-per-hundred.) While we cannot say that abortion was invented as a backup plan, for when ordinary birth control fails, we most certainly can recognize of the fact that abortion exists, and note that it indeed does qualify for use as a backup plan, when ordinary birth control fails. And since about 50% of abortions are done because ordinary birth control failed, it is quite apparent that abortion is indeed being used as a backup plan.

 

[rivrrat]

Why do we value human life more than non-human animal life?

I don't really value any animal life more than another. I value creatures I love and care about more than creatures I do not. For instance, I would save the life of my cats before saving the life of my idiot neighbor.

I would also save pretty much everyone and everything before saving a container full of embryos. In fact, unless said embryos were some rare medical discovery and were the last of their kind or something, I wouldn't even consider 'saving' them at all.

All in all, it comes down to our own survival and happiness. I dare say all animal species favor their own kind above others. It's instinctual.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

"Why do you value the life of a fetus more than the life of a dog or some other non-human animal?"

This may not have been the exact wording but it is close enough for now.

I think this question presupposes that I do value the life of some fetus more than my pet kitten, which would be wrong.

One thing that I know some in here would argue is that humans are more valuable because humans have souls.

While I think this is true I am unalbe to prove that I have a soul and that my dog does not have a soul. (there are some days when he is very 'human-like')

I don't there is any reason to believe we have supernatural eternal souls, nor would one be practical/advantageous to our biosphere. Technically we are all related to every animal on this planet. If we do indeed have souls, which I am NOT conceding, I don't see why our cousins in the animal kingdom wouldn't either.

Yet I would value the life of my kid over the life of my dog.

Why is that?

Your kid is your means of immortality, a propagation of your DNA. There is a biological reason for valuing your offspring more than the offspring of a different competing species.

One thing that is suggested is that we value the intelligence that humans have vs that of other animals.

While this is true it is somewhat misleading because we do not value the life of an intelligent human more than a human of average intelligence.

I value intelligent people more than human beings of average intelligence.

So why do we value the life of humans more than the life of non-humans?

Is there a simple answer to this question?

Sure there is, see above, its biology.

Would we value the life of a human more than the life of some Alien :aliens1: species that some day came to Earth?

It depends on their level of intelligence, technological advancement, and hostility. If they are peaceful, and offer to elevate us to their level, and we have xenophobic humans attempting to stop/harm them, I would fight the xenophobes and value the aliens more than the humans.

I know there are some people who would claim that they don't value human life anymore than they value non-human animal life but I question their honesty.

Or sanity.

So again....

Why do we value human life more than non-human animal life?

Because organisms that do not would not survive to pose such questions.

 

[dottedmint]

rivrrat; I don't really value any animal life more than another. I value creatures I love and care about more than creatures I do not. For instance, I would save the life of my cats before saving the life of my idiot neighbor.

And would you want your neighbor to have the same opinion?

Save his pet hamster before he saved your life???

 

[rivrrat]

And would you want your neighbor to have the same opinion?

Save his pet hamster before he saved your life???

I don't give a hoot what opinion he has. He is free, of course, to have whatever opinion he wants.

 

[Cephus]

The answer to this is really simple. We have enlightened self-interest. We want to think humans are special because we're humans. That's all there is to it.

 

[Jerry]

Why do we value human life more than non-human life?

Those of us who do value the unborn more than a stray dog do so because humans are made in God's image, in His likeness. A human body is a temple for the Holy Spirit, a dog's body is not.

 

[1069]

Those of us who do value the unborn more than a stray dog do so because humans are made in God's image, in His likeness. A human body is a temple for the Holy Spirit, a dog's body is not.

So you're saying that all those who value a human's life over an animal's are theists?
Or, conversely, that all theists categorically value all human life over all animal life?
And you even know their reasons for assigning this heirarchy of value, too.
Jeez, you're good. :roll:

 

[Rhapsody1447]

So you're saying that all those who value a human's life over an animal's are theists?
Or, conversely, that all theists categorically value all human life over all animal life?
And you even know their reasons for assigning this heirarchy of value, too.
Jeez, you're good. :roll:

Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any less true.

 

[moolanus]

I agree that birth control, when faced with statistics is actually abortion. Look up the ingredients, and then you will understand.

I think what makes a person a person, or in other words, human, is their chromosomes, and thats what seperates us from other animals. As a sperm has one set, and an egg has one set, they are not human, but when they merge together, the result is a set of chromosomes which makes the embryo, or whatever it is called, a human at conception. If you wait awhile, it turns out to even look human-most of the time:2razz:

Finally, I believe we value human life more because for those believers out there, we were put in charge of them. If we let them grow too much in population, bad things can happen, that is why we have regulated hunting. Also, I don't believe that animals have souls, but that doesn't mean they won't be in heaven, but it also doesn't mean they will be. They were not given the ability to reason, that is why we are in charge of them.

For people who don't believe, I don't know what that argument for them would be. However, I can state that animals can be very human-like sometimes, but that is only a learned response. An example of this is how animals react to strangers, compared to how they react to their owners.

By the way, not everyone values human life more than non-human life, and some people even put animals in higher regard than humans.

 

[tecoyah]

Those of us who do value the unborn more than a stray dog do so because humans are made in God's image, in His likeness. A human body is a temple for the Holy Spirit, a dog's body is not.

Not all of us fall into this category. Much as I value My own children more than any others, I value Human life more than a stray Dog. Its a matter of personal perspective on my own emotional attachment. But , if I had to save either a Dog, or a Clump of cellular material from a fire....likely it would be the dog, as I wouldnt recognize the cells as human. If however, the cells had grown into a baby....the situation would be reversed.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Those of us who do value the unborn more than a stray dog do so because humans are made in God's image, in His likeness.

SORRY, but there is far more evidence that God was made in humans' image, than there is evidence for what you said.

A human body is a temple for the Holy Spirit, a dog's body is not.

Why is it that unproved religion-based claims are swallowed so much more easily than other unproved claims? You can't even prove that the Holy Spirit exists, much less occupies your body (to say nothing of proving that it occupies an unborn human's body).

Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any less true.

Those who make positive claims must be able to provide the supporting evidence. So far, on that subject, all the evidence is nothing more than mere claims. Why should anyone believe mere claims?

I think what makes a person a person, or in other words, human,

FALSE. The definition of "person" does not require "human" to be part of that definition. Heh, anthropologists studying suviving Stone Age tribes in remote places typically found that each tribe called itself "The People", and all outsiders, even when they were human, were not People. So the word means something other than "human". And therefore, with our wider perspective on such things, we can recognize the possibility that an ExtraTerrestrial can qualify as a person, for example. So can an advanced-enough Artificial Intelligence. So even could "God", despite descriptions of God being non-human, non-biological, and even non-physical in manner-of-existing.

 

[Cephus]

Those of us who do value the unborn more than a stray dog do so because humans are made in God's image, in His likeness. A human body is a temple for the Holy Spirit, a dog's body is not.

In other words, the delusional people who talk to imaginary friends. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

[moolanus]

Thats why most "clumps of cells" remain in the womb-so they can appear human-like and you would then want to save it, if it were in a burning building. However, if I was able to even SEE a "clump of cells" on the floor, or wherever, I have to admit that I wouldn't touch it with a stick.

 

[moolanus]

FALSE. The definition of "person" does not require "human" to be part of that definition. Heh, anthropologists studying suviving Stone Age tribes in remote places typically found that each tribe called itself "The People", and all outsiders, even when they were human, were not People. So the word means something other than "human". And therefore, with our wider perspective on such things, we can recognize the possibility that an ExtraTerrestrial can qualify as a person, for example. So can an advanced-enough Artificial Intelligence. So even could "God", despite descriptions of God being non-human, non-biological, and even non-physical in manner-of-existing.[/QUOTE]


REPLY: I don't quite understand what you are saying. I defined what a human is to seperate humans from animals. You are stating that humans are not people based on what a stone age tribe called themselves. What kind of argument is that? Also, if aliens came from another planet, unless they had HUMAN DNA, they would not be human. You can call them people all that you want but, but the scientific evidence would prove that either they are or that they aren't human. So in other words, lets say I have a dog. I call my dog 'My People" and we live happily ever after...does that make my dog a human? If you want the definition of people, look in a dictionary, but don't waste HUMANS' time who are looking for answers. This is a debate forum, not an argument forum for the sake of arguing.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I think what makes a person a person, or in other words, human,

FALSE. The definition of "person" does not require "human" to be part of that definition. Heh, anthropologists studying suviving Stone Age tribes in remote places typically found that each tribe called itself "The People", and all outsiders, even when they were human, were not People. So the word means something other than "human". And therefore, with our wider perspective on such things, we can recognize the possibility that an ExtraTerrestrial can qualify as a person, for example. So can an advanced-enough Artificial Intelligence. So even could "God", despite descriptions of God being non-human, non-biological, and even non-physical in manner-of-existing.

REPLY: I don't quite understand what you are saying. I defined what a human is to seperate humans from animals.

FALSE. See original quote above, from #19. You equated "persons" with "humans". My reply consisted of pointing out that such an equating is NOT AUTOMATICALLY VALID. So, don't do it again.

You are stating that humans are not people based on what a stone age tribe called themselves.

FALSE. I did not at all say that humans are not people. I did say this:

the word means something other than "human".

In more detail, the word "people" refers to a group of "persons", and each "person" exhibits certain characteristics. Humans can be people whenever they exhibit those certain characteristics. (And so can aliens and robots and God.) Simple, although the list of characteristics needs to be specified at some point, of course.

What kind of argument is that?

It is an argument that uses actual facts, and better logic than yours.

Also, if aliens came from another planet, unless they had HUMAN DNA, they would not be human.

AGREED. But that does not prevent them from qualifying as "people".

You can call them people all that you want
...

I would only do so if they exhibited enough of the set of characteristics that can be used to recognize people (to distiguish them from mere/ordinary animals).

... but the scientific evidence would prove that either they are or that they aren't human.

OF COURSE. And totally irrelevant to whether or not they qualify as people.

So in other words, lets say I have a dog. I call my dog 'My People" and we live happily ever after...does that make my dog a human?

No, it just makes you a liar, for misusing the word "people".

If you want the definition of people, look in a dictionary,

I've done that. There is nothing in there to prevent nonhumans and other organisms from qualifying as people. They do have to exhibit rationality, though. So far, you are not doing a very good job of that....

but don't waste HUMANS' time who are looking for answers.

I'm not wasting time if I am successfully educating you about the concept of "people".

This is a debate forum, not an argument forum for the sake of arguing.

I'm free to debate any aspect of the overall topic. One such aspect is the terminology employed by those doing the Debating. Because if we cannot agree on the terminology, how can any progress be made in the main Debate?