The value and rights of life (1 Viewer)

[kami]

This thread leads on from a tangent from the Abortion thread:

So I would conclude that unless anyone can find a reason (for which I have my own) that puts us on a higher level of priority then other organisms, it would be just as wrong to kill an animal as it would a human.

Although there is another piece to the puzzle. I don't know that I have really formulated an opinion on it as of yet, but would like to raise it anyway. Is there any difference in the moral value of mudering the same species as compared to another. Or would they be of the same value? (This assumes that both are of equal right to existance which I don't think we can prove anyhow.)

To further this, what is the point at which we distinguish between a being we may own and kill, and one we may not? And how do we compare the moral worth of the ownerships and killings of thing that are 'not us'(eg animals, artificially derived organisms etc) as opposed to what is 'us'?

 

[volition]

Here's a relevant website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/animals/animal_rights2.shtml

The website says that if
They have similar levels of biological complexity
They are conscious and aware that they exist
They know what is happening to them
They prefer some things and dislike others
They make conscious choices
They live in such a way as to give themselves the best quality of life
They plan their lives to some extent
The quality and length of their life matters to them

Then they are both 'subjects of a life' and should all have rights.

Giving rights to animals would be very limiting for humankind (as stated on that page).

 

[Silver Persian]

I'm a total hypocrite when it comes to this, because I believe animals deserve equal rights and treatment as humans and I hate the idea of farming them for food, but I'm not a vegetarian.

And I think most animals qualify as 'subjects of life' under volitions list...maybe not cockroaches.

 

[_dhj_]

I'm not sure if this is what the thread is about but the value of the life of animals is obviously just as subjective as the value of lives of humans. It depends on the proximity and worth of the subject in question from the person who's judging. Our immediate family would be worth more than a stranger. Someone of the same race would be worth more than someone of another race. Someone who's attractive would be worth more than someone who's not etc. It's the same with animals. If you own a pet cat and consider it to be part of your family, obviously its life is more valuable to you than a stray cat.

This is not necessarily how it should work, but it's how it works at present.

 

[gerhard]

there is no good or bad.

we place higher value on human life because we dont want to die, and this is an easy way to lower our chance of dieing, by punishing killers of humans. we place a lower value on animal life because we arent animals and we like to eat animals.

just because there are differences between animals and humans doesnt mean we can go 'ok then, that means its ok to kill them'. it doesnt follow.

 

[_dhj_]

there is no good or bad.

we place higher value on human life because we dont want to die, and this is an easy way to lower our chance of dieing, by punishing killers of humans. we place a lower value on animal life because we arent animals and we like to eat animals.

just because there are differences between animals and humans doesnt mean we can go 'ok then, that means its ok to kill them'. it doesnt follow.

The only reason why killing animals is considered wrong is that the animals offer value to other humans while they are alive. For example cockroaches aren't valuable to any human (or very few), so it's okay to kill them, whereas dogs and cats are valued by humans as pets. Other animals are considered valuable for their uniqueness and aesthetic worth to humans.

 

[transcendent]

So you agree that the only reason to preserve the life of animals is our subjective perception of the worth of the animal and how it is valued by the general human population? That the only reason to preserve the life of animals in most instances is the emotional or ethical attachment to that particular animal species?

I however only believe in preserving the life of certain endangered species purely from an aesthetic point of view, with a slight emotional attachment to them brought about by my interest in subjective documentaries that focus on one species point of view. I however do not feel the same desire to preserve domesticated animals but mostly refain from physically causing them harm due to the possible outrage it may cause from 'other' people, most notably those into beastiality.

 

[miss random]

the idea of killing animals for food is okay because lets face it animals kill other animals for food. Humans are still omnivores after all. The idea of cruelty to animals is a bit off though. It basically boils down to what your intention is. If its self-defence thats different but if its killing for the sake of killing tahts wrong

 

[kami]

Here's a relevant website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/animals/animal_rights2.shtml

The website says that if
They have similar levels of biological complexity
They are conscious and aware that they exist
They know what is happening to them
They prefer some things and dislike others
They make conscious choices
They live in such a way as to give themselves the best quality of life
They plan their lives to some extent
The quality and length of their life matters to them

Then they are both 'subjects of a life' and should all have rights.

Giving rights to animals would be very limiting for humankind (as stated on that page).

I would think that under that classification all mammalians and avians would be entitled to rights, as well as some reptiles.

I also agree that giving those rights would be limiting, for if we did so then it would force humanity to basically subsist on fruit, vegetables, fish and crustaceans. The increased land needed for agriculture would kill off many land species anyway, while the increased hunting of fish would make it hard for many aquatic species to survive.

Which in this case I guess if we wish to be practical, we are looking at the issue of whether it would also be detrimental/beneficial(as in health, finance, emotion etc.) to society to grant those rights before we grant them.

The only reason why killing animals is considered wrong is that the animals offer value to other humans while they are alive. For example cockroaches aren't valuable to any human (or very few), so it's okay to kill them, whereas dogs and cats are valued by humans as pets. Other animals are considered valuable for their uniqueness and aesthetic worth to humans.

There are plenty of humans that it could be argued are of no value to the majority of society (a mass murderer or theoretically a clone of an already living person) - is it then ok to enslave and kill them as we do animals?

the idea of killing animals for food is okay because lets face it animals kill other animals for food. Humans are still omnivores after all. The idea of cruelty to animals is a bit off though. It basically boils down to what your intention is. If its self-defence thats different but if its killing for the sake of killing tahts wrong

Humans kill other animals for food - does this justify human death as well?

 

[transcendent]

It is 'wrong' to justify human death because of the apparent affirmation one has for their species ( The Architect from The Matrix: Reloaded ) as well as the potential use of humans to contribute to society. Human life holds a higher regard in certain theistic views with no logical explanation except that 'God' deems it 'sinful' though this hasn't stopped him from previously condoning mass slaughter of entire cities whenever he felt 'compelled' to.

Also, certain humans feel that it is neccessary to hold this view to justify our higher standing in the food chain to separate animals from barbarians from 'civil human' beings

 

[volition]

So does anyone here believe that we shouldn't eat animals? If you do, why?

I'm thinking we're all animal eaters anyway, but we may as well see the arguments presented by an 'animal rights person' if there are any around

 

[Silver Persian]

So does anyone here believe that we shouldn't eat animals? If you do, why?

I'm thinking we're all animal eaters anyway, but we may as well see the arguments presented by an 'animal rights person' if there are any around

...because animals don't like being killed/eaten?

And I understand the argument that it is natural for other organisms to consume each other for energy - but just because something is natural doesn't mean its a nice thing to do.

 

[AntiHyper]

Geez .. uprooting vegetables from the ground is practically killing that living thing as well.

Picking a fruit from a tree is similar to eating an egg. The fruit wont have a chance to germinate and grow as we'll be eating them.

But of course, we can't hear fruits crying or moaning while we eat them.

 

[Silver Persian]

Geez .. uprooting vegetables from the ground is practically killing that living thing as well.

Picking a fruit from a tree is similar to eating an egg. The fruit wont have a chance to germinate and grow as we'll be eating them.

But of course, we can't hear fruits crying or moaning while we eat them.

Fruit, vegetables and eggs dont feel pain or have experience any consciousness, so by eating them you aren't taking anything away.

 

[transcendent]

lol that reminds me of the Nova ads where a person skinning an orange heard it scream out in pain every time he tried. bahaha

 

[kami]

It is 'wrong' to justify human death because of the apparent affirmation one has for their species ( The Architect from The Matrix: Reloaded ) as well as the potential use of humans to contribute to society. Human life holds a higher regard in certain theistic views with no logical explanation except that 'God' deems it 'sinful' though this hasn't stopped him from previously condoning mass slaughter of entire cities whenever he felt 'compelled' to.

Regarding the contribution issue, wouldn't it then justify termination of a human who is so disabled that they can contribute neither ideas or labor to society?

I'm also not quite sure what you mean by affirmation someone has for their species ( I haven't seen Matrix 2 in ages).

So does anyone here believe that we shouldn't eat animals? If you do, why?

I think at the moment, we can't justify that we have a right to own, kill and eat another species anymore than we can justify the moral right to do so to our own. To me, it just seems to use the same logic employed to rationalise enslavement (which grants similar powers) over someone of another race. For example:

The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit..." PBS

^That way of thinking places the same arbitrary separation on someone just because they were another race - is that really that different from the way of thinking relating to other species just because they are another species?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Fruit, vegetables and eggs dont feel pain or have experience any consciousness, so by eating them you aren't taking anything away.

Although what you've said I feel is totally undisputable...

There's debate about whether they can, although I can't find anything too reliable to source.

The thing that led me to say this is that I've heard (as well as others on the internet) that plants have some sort of energy level or something like that, and if a man hacked a tree one day, and returned the day after, the tree would remember the man and its "levels" will go crazy.

I wonder if its just an urban myth?


Can Plants Feel Pain?

" Well, an interesting subject. In Lund (Sweden) I participated in some
lectures given by a Finlandian scientist (from Turku University, I believe), one of the great figures in woods research. He affirmed that an intraspecific (chemical) communication exists in Pinus spp. as a reaction to stress: A fire, or mistreating a tree, he said triggered "immunologic-like" reactions in the affected individual as well as in its neighbors. A middle-size fire disenchained like reactions in the whole wood. Somebody among the attending colleagues suggested that so the Finlandian scientist was making reference to group selection and minding of superorganisms. The Finlandian scientist answered that. on the basis of his meditions, group selection might indeed be suggested. - Aldo-Pier Solari"

 

[kami]

Although what you've said I feel is totally undisputable...

There's debate about whether they can, although I can't find anything too reliable to source.

The thing that led me to say this is that I've heard (as well as others on the internet) that plants have some sort of energy level or something like that, and if a man hacked a tree one day, and returned the day after, the tree would remember the man and its "levels" will go crazy.

I wonder if its just an urban myth?


Can Plants Feel Pain?

Thats probably not that far-fetched - if I remember my biology correctly then as opposed to the nervous system of animals plants are co-ordinated completely by hormones. So it could be possible that certain plants are preset to release certain chemical when they are severely damaged (and thus suddenly deprived of heaps of nutrients) as some sort of survival mechanism...except plants can't run away so I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to inform other plants about a threat and 'upset' them. *confused*
Interesting point though uic, thank you for bringing it up.

Fruit, vegetables and eggs dont feel pain or have experience any consciousness, so by eating them you aren't taking anything away.

You could probably make the argument, that as the avian is conscious, your consumption of the egg is a violation of some of its rights - though I think it would be a very theoretical and pointless one without first establishing whether the avian has the appropriate rights to be violated:/

 

[transcendent]

Regarding the contribution issue, wouldn't it then justify termination of a human who is so disabled that they can contribute neither ideas or labor to society?

A disabled person has the potential to contribute ideas which may justify their existence, same as a mentally defience person make contribute in the form of labour. Those in a coma have a potential to contribute should they recover. Otherwise keeping someone in that state is more of an ethical or emotional attachment stand point and in most cases an unneccessary waste of resources, though some like to subscribe to humane treatment of these individuals for varied lengths of time in the hopes that a 'miracle' may ensure or by chance they should recover.

 

[Serius]

In Vietnam you can pay 10$ to beat up and kill a monkey. You can also pay about $1000 to beat up and kill a hooker, but thats cause the body is harder to hide and avoid prosecution.

so by that logic a humans life is 100 times more important than an animals.