Is the Value of Human Life Greater Than That of Non-Human Organisms?

[mtanti]

This may be a vegetarian vs meat lover debate...

Is it fair to kill animals for the sake of humans for reason such as medical tests and food?

I'm asking this here because I need a good philosophical answer rather than a layman oppinion... I believe that life has priority over other lives according to potential and ability for change. But I also believe that when you have more potential, then your mission is to help those who have less.

So this is a rather contradictory statement when it comes to the asked question.

10x

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Is it fair to kill animals for the sake of humans for reason such as medical tests and food?

I don't think "fair" is the correct terminology for such a question... In the end, killing for food is just the food chain. Is it "fair" for a Lion (or any other predator) to kill an animal for food? As for medical testing, well, it comes down to whether a person believes in statements of greater good. It can be questioned whether killing another animal for reasons other than food is ethical, but the natural world also has examples of killing for reasons other than food.

I'm asking this here because I need a good philosophical answer rather than a layman oppinion... I believe that life has priority over other lives according to potential and ability for change. But I also believe that when you have more potential, then your mission is to help those who have less.

You should probably try thinking this out a little bit more, because there are many "fuzzy" terms in there. Potential according to whom? What sort of potential? What "ability to change" are you referring to? Ability to change what? As you pointed out, you are also contradicting yourself, that doesn't bode well for a philosophical discussion.

 

[mtanti]

You should probably try thinking this out a little bit more, because there are many "fuzzy" terms in there. Potential according to whom? What sort of potential? What "ability to change" are you referring to? Ability to change what? As you pointed out, you are also contradicting yourself, that doesn't bode well for a philosophical discussion.

Potential to change your surroundings. There are those who have a greater chance to do it than others. I believe that change is the reason for life. The most meaningful life is that which does the greatest change.

I am contradicting myself because I say that those who have higher potential have greater priority to life yet I also say that those who have a higher potential have the responsability to help those who have less potential.

Food chain is an instinctive activity. What I am talking about is higher intellect, whether it is right to kill for food or not. NOTICE: Plants are also killed for food so it doesn't matter whether you are vegeterian or not.

Basically we don't have much choice but to accept the killing part, however it may still be wrong. So is it or is it not?

 

[Pythagorean]

it's not 'fair', but 'fair' is a human expectation, and not necissarily part of some absolute law of the universe.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Basically we don't have much choice but to accept the killing part, however it may still be wrong. So is it or is it not?

In philosophy, there isn't really any "right" or "wrong" answer, because moral contructs will vary widely based on belief systems and other things ("fair" is included in there). Ethics is a very deep subject in philosophy, just check out the forum dedicated to it. You need to be very deliberate in your wording around here...

I'm not really sure you have though critically enough about your "belief that some life takes precedence over others" or "higher life forms have a responsibility to the lower ones." You haven't presented any arguments for these statements (look into Philosophy: Logic) you're just saying you believe in them, which doesn't work. WHY do you believe these things? What makes you think this way; what you've seen or experienced?

And I wasn't looking for you to answer my questions explicitly in each case, I was throwing them out there to let you know what you might want to look in to.

 

[mtanti]

Heh, please excuse my mode of discussion for "I am quite a stranger to the ways of this place" (Socrates, The Apology). I have a scientific background and I tend to 'sum words up'.

Allow me to rephrase myself. Right and wrong are two human created adjectives which are driven mostly by feeling. However logic can lead to what we consider things to be better than others, better quality you might say.

Sacrifices are a part of life. Animals kill other animals for survival. Therefore a life is sacrificed for another life. Bacteria have less ability to change their surroundings than humans. It may thus be concluded that humans are better than bateria, for a lost life of a bacteria will affect less the future than a lost life of a human. Therefore humans have a higher precedance than bacteria. A whole list of priority may be generated of all matter in universe regarding importance of life/existence.

As for responsability, the most affective way to reach change (preferably for the better), is by all the living creatures working together to reach their potential and thus do change together. In order to make sure that we reach our maximum potential, help may be needed. This is because we need unleased potential to free up more potential, like investing money you already have to profit more money (the reason for this I believe is out of point). Now it may be concluded that in order to unlease our potential for change, we need others to show us how to make the first step. This is evident in books, as we read books in order to learn already processed discoveries by others so that we can continue discovering from where the earlier discoverers left. Thus we would be unleasing our potential to do new things rather than rediscover the discovered. So where do the less able or potentialed find help? From the higher potentialed ones! It is in the interest of the less potentialed to be able to climb up the ladder of importance whilst the high potentialed ones should realize that unless everyone works together, change will be slow (scientific value of discovering for the sake of truth and not of achievement).

Now the same goes for humans and non-humans. Humans should care for non-humans because it is their responsability, as high potentialed, to make sure that the less potentialed, non-humans, will reach the best of their abilities.

Now since we have this responsability, is it right to kill the non-humans for our interest?

NOTICE: I am using the word non-humans because humans are animals so I can say that and I am also referring to plants and all other organisms.

Now is this still incomplete? Please guide me to the way of philosophy!

 

[chroot]

Your argument is not sound, because it is fundamentally based on your subjective opinions of the world. Since, honestly, I think your subjective opinions are poorly developed, I discount the entirety of your argument.

"The most meaningful life is that which does the greatest change" is a very unsettling statement. After all, no single change can be viewed by everyone on the planet in the same way. Sure, Abraham Lincoln helped free the slaves -- the slaves loved the change, yet the plantation owners did not. Spraying your countertop with bleach is beneficial to humans who use the countertop, but rather upsetting to the Salmonella that were living there. The only conclusion that I can draw is that you fancy that you alone are capable of deciding whether a life is "meaningful" or not, and therefore whether or not that life is disposable.

I also must say that bacteria are capable of changing their environment to a much greater extent than are most human beings, including myself. Consider for a moment that a pathogenic bacterium is capable of reproducing itself rapidly, traveling from human to human, and killing millions of them every year. If that's not a tremendous capacity for changing the environment, I don't know what is. All such a bacterium has to do is find its way into someone's nostril.

- Warren

 

[mtanti]

Change can be seen as good depending on the ratio of those who benefit from it to those who are harmed by it. Absolute good is when all benefit or remain neutral and none are harmed.

Humans can kill and even breed bacteria, they can stop such a spread of disease as they had always done in the past. Therefore humans are superior. Of course there are illnesses which are superiour to humans, but since humans have the potential to fight it back with advances in medicine, then humans have a higher potential.

You critique of my argument is not very constructive as I am finding difficulty to improve it based on your replies...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Personally, I think you're going in the worng direction to prove your point...

Here's an idea- let's just drop "right" and "wrong" for the moment and ask another question, is it natural for humans to kill other animals for the betterment of the species?

I would argue yes, and the reasoning would probably have something to do with the fact that almost all basic instincts in living organisms can be traced to the propagation of the species (competition for mates, survival instincts, camouflage, etc.). Natural selection dictates that the better adapted of the species survive, while the lesser adapted die (or at least don't pass along their genes as often as the stronger). By using animal testing to cure diseases, humans are helping to ensure the propagation of the species.

By the way, even this is a slippery slope, its very hard to decide what might be a better adaptation...

Abstracts ideas like "better" and "lesser" species are way too flimsy to hold up to criticism. All of this ambiguity needs to be removed from the argument for it to even think about flying.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Therefore humans are superior. Of course there are illnesses which are superiour to humans, but since humans have the potential to fight it back with advances in medicine, then humans have a higher potential.

I'm telling ya, relative comparisons (especially arbitrary ones) will get you no where in a philosophy debate.

 

[chroot]

Change can be seen as good depending on the ratio of those who benefit from it to those who are harmed by it. Absolute good is when all benefit or remain neutral and none are harmed.

This sounds like a rather ad hoc embellishment, a patch to keep your flawed idea afloat. Shouldn't you also consider the "value" of each entity that is harmed or helped?

After all, there were many more slaves than slave-owners. If you assume that all people are of equal value, then freeing the slaves achieves a help/hurt ratio of more than one. However, if you assume that slaves are "less valuable" than slave-owners, as was the social status quo at that time, then the help/hurt ratio may be far below one.

Again, the very concept of "value" is inherently subjective, and there's no way you can assign "absolute value" to any action.

Humans can kill and even breed bacteria, they can stop such a spread of disease as they had always done in the past. Therefore humans are superior.

Except that, given a sufficient time period, every disease known seems capable of building up resistance to any antiobiotic or vaccine we can cook up. It sounds rather like you're advocating that we base value decisions on games of rock-paper-scissors.

Of course there are illnesses which are superiour to humans, but since humans have the potential to fight it back with advances in medicine, then humans have a higher potential.

You don't know this. Who's to say we won't simply run out of ideas eventually, and will not be capable of producing any better antiobiotics or vaccines? How can you evaluate humankind's potential -- for all time -- without any information except our performance in the past? For all we know, we may end up being literally made extinct by some yet-to-be-discovered pathogen.

You critique of my argument is not very constructive as I am finding difficulty to improve it based on your replies...

I have no intention of helping you "improve" your argument. I have the intention of demonstrating how flawed and pointless it is, and accepting your inevitable resignation.

- Warren

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I have no intention of helping you "improve" your argument. I have the intention of demonstrating how flawed and pointless it is, and accepting your inevitable resignation.

- Warren

LOL Yes! That is awesome...

Surrender or die

 

[mtanti]

I asked a question because I need guidance about it... Isn't that what foraa are for? Why are you taking such an offensive stance? Is this what you do? Keep people from getting answers?

Fine then, let's ask this question in another way. Should humans be considered equal to the rest of the living species? Should humans act as such?

You are obviously going to argue about the word 'should' but I have no idea what word you guys use for such a question.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I think I'm on to something with the following question:

"Is it natural for humans to kill other animals for the betterment of the species?"

Go with this, you might triumph over Warren yet!

EDIT: Bravo on the plural of "forum" BTW...

 

[WhyIsItSo]

How about this...

Many higher organisms are equipped with a mechanism that kind of "shuts off" suffering under certain conditions.

I can personally attest to such an experience in the midst of a motorcycle accident many years ago. It was a distinctly different state of concious. I did not feel the impact. In fact, I felt mothing till I came to rest in a ditch. Then, I suppose as my consciousness returned to a more "normal" state, pain began to register, and shortly thereafter I went into shock.

I strongly suspect such a mechanism might be in play in a hunter-hunted scenario. It just so happens I have no problem with killing for food; conceptually, if not practically. It is not easy at first to kill with your own hands; very different from buying that packaged chicken in the supermarket.


As for testing, I view this a little differently. First, whether this is necessarily true or not, I associate suffering with testing on animals. I have questions about the necessity of testing in this way. I have questions about the treatment of these animals in general, even while not specifically undergoing tests.

For me, the bottom line is killing for food is the natural order of things. Testing (whether killing the animal or not) has a great many ethical perturbations, and I really don't expect there to be an easy answer.

I could give you my opinion, (I have one more or less), but it would be meaningless. It is based on my perceptions, values, and is necessarily subjective.

But I think this demonstrates that killing animals for food and for testing are not equivalent issues. At least in my subjective opinion :)

 

[chroot]

Why are you taking such an offensive stance?

Because you're promulgating an offensive concept, that of absolute value.

Anytime anyone tries to assign an absolute label of "good" or "bad" to any event or action, air raid sirens should automatically spring to life.

- Warren

 

[Rade]

...Anytime anyone tries to assign an absolute label of "good" or "bad" to any event or action, air raid sirens should automatically spring to life.

Should not the events and actions of "life" as an end in itself be given the label as absolute good ?

 

[mtanti]

OK thanks for trying to answer, I appreciate it. So till now we concluded that killing and testing are natural since we want to ensure our propagation. This is so natural that when we kill, we enter a state of numbness to assist in our kill. Second, we might have concluded that we need to treat the testing animals humanily before testing on them (and possibly while testing). This makes testing sort of more human orientated.

Now to further the topic, it is natural to do these things in a wild way and thus may be pardoned if we do so. However we raise animals and plants in farms in order to kill them for food. We do not follow the survival of the fittest law. We kill the fittest for food and dispose of the weak, no one has a chance. Animals are born imprisoned having no option but to accept to be killed and eaten which they could probably have avoided in the wild if they were fit.

Now is this natural and thus acceptable?

 

[chroot]

I still cannot understand why you are unable to distinguish your opinion from some kind of value system that should be agreed upon by everyone. Personally, I don't think "we" have concluded anything at all, but thanks for playing.

- Warren

 

[mtanti]

So there is no way to generalise what starts as an oppinion? An oppinion will always remain an oppinion? Aren't philosophical discussions there to prove that your oppinion is the truth? If not than I am sorry to have ever started such a question...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So till now we concluded that killing and testing are natural since we want to ensure our propagation.

"We" haven't concluded anything, I was just saying that your topic was going nowhere and you might want to redirect you argument to something more like the one I suggested. I didn't really "prove" it for you though

This is so natural that when we kill, we enter a state of numbness to assist in our kill.

I don't think this "state of numbness" has anything to do with what is natural.

Second, we might have concluded that we need to treat the testing animals humanily before testing on them (and possibly while testing). This makes testing sort of more human orientated.

Not really. I think there are examples of "testing" in the natural world that have nothing to do with humans. Learning from the death of another animal can be seen many places in the natural world. Also, the fact that testing HAS to be done humanely is an ethical issue, not an absolute one. So, this is not really getting you anywhere.

Now to further the topic, it is natural to do these things in a wild way and thus may be pardoned if we do so. However we raise animals and plants in farms in order to kill them for food. We do not follow the survival of the fittest law. We kill the fittest for food and dispose of the weak, no one has a chance. Animals are born imprisoned having no option but to accept to be killed and eaten which they could probably have avoided in the wild if they were fit.

You can't compare domesticated livestock to the wild because all domesticated animals have to some extent been selectively bred to be docile and compliant. You can however look at hunting and see that natural selection is still in effect with some foods that we eat. Additionally, there are examples of "domestication" in the natural world, especially with insect colonies, so it can be argued that even this is not necessarily a human-only trait.

So there is no way to generalise what starts as an oppinion? An oppinion will always remain an oppinion? Aren't philosophical discussions there to prove that your oppinion is the truth? If not than I am sorry to have ever started such a question...

I'm not sure of the definition of a philosophical discussion, but I'm sure that's not it

 

[WhyIsItSo]

So there is no way to generalise what starts as an oppinion? An oppinion will always remain an oppinion? Aren't philosophical discussions there to prove that your oppinion is the truth? If not than I am sorry to have ever started such a question...

Think about what opinion means. It is necessarily subjective.

You might do better to proceed from the basis that certain opinions are commonly held, and that the reasons for this may be found in the results of certain actions.

If I touch a hot stove, it will burn me, which will cause pain, which I do not like. My opinion then is that touching something very hot is a bad thing.

Probably a very common opinion. I might be tempted to argue this is a truth. Yet, is it inconceivable that some may disagree?

And what happens when the issues become highly complex, such as your OP?

So much about Truth is a function of faith; you "believe" your opinion is correct, else would you not change it? Yet how can your "proof" be any more valid than mine?

What about Abortion? An intensely emotional debate could ensue. I have a very strongly held opinion on the matter, and I believe my logic underpinning my belief is sound and makes sense. Yet it is still my opinion. My argument would be based on definitions of life and such; areas I really cannot provide uncontestable proof for. What is life, anyway?

Thing is, I recognize that I would not likely have any success converting someone with opposing views no matter what I said, and vice versa.

Why? Because data is not information; it is not truth. Data is interpreted by each individual according to their beliefs.

Religion, Death Penalty, Creation vs Evolution... All suffer from this impasse. Everyone has an opinion.

And yet we must proceed from our opinions. As the humorous retort to the accusation of "Thinking you are always right" says...

"I find it impractical to proceed from the opposite premise".

 

[mtanti]

Then how do people discuss in philosophical discussions if not using that which they think and therefore their oppinion? If what you are saying is correct than no one can ever discuss anything because no matter what you say it will just be your oppinion and thus cannot be proved...

What you say is clearly found in agnostics... What ever you tell them about god they just reply 'that's what you say...', therefore no discussion.

 

[chroot]

This discussion isn't actually about philosophy, which is essentially a branch of logic. It isn't logic, because it makes no logical assertions. All this discussion is is you talking about your ill-founded opinions.

- Warren

 

[WhyIsItSo]

mtani,

I picked a piece to quote at random. This is your first paragraph fro post #8...

Change can be seen as good depending on the ratio of those who benefit from it to those who are harmed by it. Absolute good is when all benefit or remain neutral and none are harmed.

You see, your problem here is that you are making assertions based on assertions. Effectively, there is no argument there. You are expressing your opinion, and that's ok, but you are not supporting it with logic, and that's not ok.

I follow what you are trying to say, and I'd go so far as to add that a lot of people would agree with your statement.

But let me play Devil's Advocate here for the sake of illustration. I might counter by saying, "No, that is not how it works. What is best is what benefits those in power".

Everyone reading that would ask, "Yeah, why?". See, I've given no logic for it, I've ONLY stated an opinion (which, for the record, is not my opinion).

I could point out to you that a nasty Dictator would not share your view.

What you are missing is why is the ratio meaningful?

As Chroot points out, opinion only is entirely subjective. We began with your question about animals, and killing them for food or tests. Your statement I've quoted here is along the lines of "the ends justifies the means". Try telling that to the cow that provided the steak you ate last week.

Your OP seems to me to be about the moral justification of the acts under question. That's a very personal thing. As has been said, the "truth" about the matter is subjective. Obviously, some people are vehemently opposed to killing animals for any reason. Others think nothing of it. Many are somewhere in between.

Now, you kinda got going when you talked about the necessity for food, and pointed out that plants too must die for our nutritional needs. I might challenge those arguments, but they are arguments. There is some logic to what you said there.

If this thread proceeded along such lines, then there wouldn't be a problem. But if you truly expect a definite answer to your OP, you must necessarily be dissapointed, for none exists.

 

[mtanti]

Right. I just didn't think I had to explain each point I said since they were not about the question itself, just some side lines to assist people to answer 'me' in a way I would understand. Well then, if no answer will ever pop up, at least I want some arguments regarding if humans should be considered superior to animals or not. I can sometime later start threads about some arguments I started here and did not explain as I should have.

Lets start from here, someone says that it is better to test on animals rather than humans (recall the recent incident about a new medicine tested on people in exchange for money and ended in a disaster). According to you guys, why would someone think that?

 

[WhyIsItSo]

Right. I just didn't think I had to explain each point I said since they were not about the question itself, just some side lines to assist people to answer 'me' in a way I would understand. Well then, if no answer will ever pop up, at least I want some arguments regarding if humans should be considered superior to animals or not. I can sometime later start threads about some arguments I started here and did not explain as I should have.

Lets start from here, someone says that it is better to test on animals rather than humans (recall the recent incident about a new medicine tested on people in exchange for money and ended in a disaster). According to you guys, why would someone think that?

I could begin by arguing that testing on humans who volunteer is the ideal, since they have a choice and (presumably) understand the risks.

Quite honestly, however, I suspect that may not be the case. How well can a non-medical individual visualize the consequences? I suppose "possible death" would be a rather clear "risk", but I question if the risks are so clear cut.

Your question might be better asked "is it preferable to test on animals". I imagine proponents of that thought would view animals as less developed cognitively, and therefore expendable. This attitude would seem to be supported by the rather "standard" practice of euthanizing seriously injured animals.

On the other hand, such injuries are typically accidental or related to old age, whereas we are talking about the deliberate injuring (mistreatment?) of animals.

Perhaps then we are discussing what might be characterized as a "necessary evil". Ah, back again to "the ends justify the means". Not a philosophy universally shared by all.

I think you see now why I for one think this discussion cannot resolve to anything definitive.

The only practical result might be to discover what popular opinion is, and adjust your political strategy (for or against animal testing - or whatever) according to what most people say.

 

[mtanti]

Yes that is what I want WhyIsItSo, I am looking for well thought responses about the subject since my surroundings (people) provide few of those responses. I thought maybe I'll read something which makes sense over here.

So when you ask a philosophical question you must not use absolute words like better or right but more subjective words like preferable?

So what do you guys think? Is it preferable to test on testing animals rather than humans who choose to be tested on? (topics that may be discussed: value of life, freedom of choice, animal rights, ends or means, humans or animals)

 

[Rade]

...So what do you guys think? Is it preferable to test on testing animals rather than humans who choose to be tested on? (topics that may be discussed: value of life, freedom of choice, animal rights, ends or means, humans or animals)

If we hold (as I do) that the root of all evil is the forced use of individual humans (either by society or another individual) as a means to an end without their consent, then we find a solution to your question. Many humans agree to be tested on for research.

 

[arildno]

Bacteria have less ability to change their surroundings than humans

Eeh, no!
Do you want to know who perpetrated the greatest environmental shock this planet has experienced?
That were uni-cellular organisms that freed oxygen into the air. About 95% of the previously existing organisms died as a result of this disaster.