I'm also interested in hearing why people think a human life is worth more than that of another species.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because they're human. I don't see any monkeys typing out articles for scientific magazines ran by hippopotamuses in partnership with toucans.
Animals are good as food and as source for extremely basic labor. Humans can do much more.
Comment has been collapsed.
So the value of an animal's life is decided by the complexity of the tasks it can carry out?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. That and because I can relate with the emotions of other people in an almost brother-like way.
Why? Because I'm human.
Comment has been collapsed.
Babies still have an enormous potential to achieve great things throughout a relevant period of time through teaching and human development. A pet has the enormous potential of developing blindness as he achieves the age of 6.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes they are, and I'm yet to see a monkey use a calculator. And what I meant with that metaphor is that a dog will still be the same dog independently from how old they are, blindness being the only thing altered throughout time.
Comment has been collapsed.
You think that using a calculator is a "great" accomplishment? In terms of learning, why yes, it would be. But when compared to a dog that rushed in front of a vehicle to save a young child from being crushed, and actually succeeded? And yes, that did actually happen, and the dog was horribly maimed as a result. Maimed, yes, but the dog did save a human that day. And I consider that to be "great".
Comment has been collapsed.
So that's one dog out of how many billions? He's the exception not the rule.
I do more good for the world in a single day than most dogs do in their lifetime, and I am not exceptional by most standards.
Also if my pet dog died my family would be sad for a month, if a random mother of 5 died, 5 children are without a mother and the father is crushed. The mother's parent's have lost, her friends miss her, if she ever helped people or did good for the world that is missing, etc.
This thread isn't really a choice between a human life and a pet, its a question of 'do you have basic empathy yes or no'.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, so? The guard dog was following his instincts. He probably thought he could beat the car in a fight, that's called bravery, which is by itself a product of ignorance. Go count how many people have risked their lives for others while conscious of the danger they were in: that's called courage, and THAT is truly great.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe the animals life to be more precious.
Us humans have room for mistakes, heartbreak, sadness, war.. all those horrible things. animals, roam free, poop when they wish, eat when they wish and most importantly don't have an enormous assignment due in for 9am tomorrow morning that they don't want to do because their species invented the internet.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really don't feel like getting too deep into this discussion, but I do want to point out that all animals are sentient.
Comment has been collapsed.
Stranger.
Pets cost money to maintain.
Plus, stranger MIGHT become forever in your debt. ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
That stranger might be your long lost once/twice removed cousin from [some country]! Who knows, but I'd take tnat chance.
Comment has been collapsed.
It depends on the circumstances really. In a normal setting, my decision leans more towards the pet. But in a post-apocalyptic setting, depending on the usefulness of either the animal or human in question. A dog can help me hunt game, a cat cannot. A person could help forage for supplies and whatnot, an animal cannot. Also factor in the age of the pet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah. Would be kinda stupid to choose a pet after the Apocalypse... that is if both of you aren't dead.
Comment has been collapsed.
The pet. Because I care about it and I don't give a flying f**k about the stranger unless I know more details about them (i.e., if I were to know (for a fact, not assume, or as a probability greater than, say, 90%) that the contribution of that particular human being to society would be greater than my own (not my pet's, but my own), in which case I would save the stranger). Without that knowledge, I would rather save the one I care for more emotionally, which is the pet.
Further, I would understand a complete stranger should they choose to save their pet in a scenario where they'd have to choose between it and myself. I would likely not be happy about it, but I would be able to rationalize their decision to the reasoning above and it does not affect me in any way to know that someone completely unknown views me as completely worthless, as I do the same with those I do not know or with whom I am not properly acquainted. I view and treat them as worthless beings (as I treat essentially any being I am not emotionally attached to) and expect and accept the same treatment from their part. So a complete stranger choosing their pet over me would only mean I'd be dying for my own ideal, which is one way I'd really like to go (the other being a classy suicide).
Comment has been collapsed.
A human mind has the processing power of fifteen super computers. If you call that worthless, you're the most arrogant xeno I've ever heard of.
Comment has been collapsed.
It does have quite a big processing power, although I would refrain from comparing it to 'fifteen supercomputers' - or to one, for that matter (for both structural and functional considerations). However, I'll go with it for the sake of the argument, as it's a very good analogy.
When that big processing power you're mentioning is the norm, first of all, it becomes average - any machine that defaults is easily replaceable. Moreover, human society can be compared with an interconnected arrangement of many of these machines.
Say you have a human that only has the processing power of 14 supercomputers. In the array that it's part of, it will drag down the performance of the other supercomputers it's connected to, as it will not always be able to process all the information it receives from more powerful machines as quickly and will therefore create data bottlenecks at times. You don't want that machine to be a server. You don't want it to be a major data terminal or intermediate component. In fact, you pretty much want to get rid of it, perhaps replace it with something better. Humans are easy to find, so given the average, yes, the 14-supercomputer guy is pretty much worthless, you wouldn't be able to cash it for pennies even if you wanted to given the billions of better machines on offer. A 16-supercomputer human, on the other hand, will be able to handle more data from more 15-supercomputer connections around it, so that slightly raises the performance of the surrounding array by processing more threads and is also harder to find. That particular supercomputer has more worth. The point is: worth is relative, saying a human has any worth simply because its brain (or reason, which is simply a genetic accident after all, just like the trunk of an elephant) has a huge processing power (relative to beings that have not even developed reason genetically or relative to devices made by the respective being) is pretty much like saying a cruise ship is better than a family car because it can store a number of humans 500 times larger. That might be true, but if you're driving on a highway, that ship won't get you anywhere. Further, if you compare the conditions on it with other cruise ships, you might not want to embark on one where the beds are just wood bunks in a huge hall that used to be that ship's oil tank. You may want to choose the one with individual rooms with beds with fitted sheets.
Even more, why would the processing power of a human as a trait make them more or less worthy from an objective point of view? I.e., outwith the species (where it's a quality required for mating and survival, indeed, so a human having more of it has more worth than one with less from a biological perspective), there is nothing that makes humans more or less worthy to live than any other species.
The point is - your view on worth, as well as the one I was talking about, are both subjective. I judge the worth of an individual human relative to their role in society. And while every role in itself has worth, those playing said role may not necessarily have the same value, as they may be replaced more or less easily. The default assumption is that there is nothing interesting in any human I see: until I learn anything about an individual, their worth is null. They are worthless and so am I for them.
Taking my example, from the social perspective described above, I am of above average intelligence and I am studying for a scientific and medical degree - surgery. I am likely to have more social worth than others, because I am not very easy to replace and killing me off would sent quite a few years of social investment in me down the drain. Nevertheless, assuming a stranger who does not know me at all chooses to save their pet instead of me and I die, there WILL be someone there to take my place, even if with some delay. Society overall will not miss me much and not even for long and that person will be happy for saving their pet. Society doesn't give a crap about my death, really, as I am still replaceable, and someone's better off with their action. My value would only increase should there be an abrupt and severe shortage of neurosurgeons around the world and no one willing to step in their shoes. Should I be the last one alive, then yes, society would be in a huge predicament if that stranger was to save the pet and might even end up lynching the guy. But that's unlikely to happen and wasn't mentioned in the question as a possible scenario. So that's back to square one, where there's no major impact on anyone if I die. Given that I see that stranger making the choice over myself quite naturally, I also see myself making the same choice.
To end, take the even worse personal example of my emotional worth. That's pretty much zero, as there aren't many (if any) people who care about me (as in, who'd be hurt if I were to vanish from the face of the Earth) and the reverse is also valid, I don't care much about anyone. Most people mean nothing to me. On the other hand, that stranger would care about their (beloved) pet quite a lot based on how the question is phrased, so that situation would simply be a no-contest between myself and the pet. If I were to have feelings involved, I'd probably not even need to justify my choice of pet over stranger.
TL;DR: Gabe busted the HL3 budget on a wild orgy with hookers and Linus Torvalds.
EDIT - Cun't spel.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've noticed you're a pretty conniving (read calculating) person, which troubles me even more regarding your moral choice. If humans are indeed easily replaceable, being the "supercomputers" that they are, then what does that make of the pets? Are they not easily replaceable?
Pets can't calculate and they can barely work for society. They're just mere psychological aid to things such depression and loneliness nowadays, and none of that can affect a machine, which is something you seemed to enjoy to use for your analogy. The presence of other humans can also serve as psychological aid, specially if you occur to save them from an early death, in which they'll be forever in your debt, because people do what they do because they want to live. While we all may seem like gears, we're not. Society exists so people can act together in order to live better and to survive longer. Picking a cat/goldfish over the life of a person who is more than likely "average" is inane, both in a mathematical and humanitarian way.
I'm sorry if you have emotional issues and total indifference towards the welfare of others, but others shouldn't pay the price of your selfishness with their lives, even in a hypothetical method.
Comment has been collapsed.
To me, this is a situation of self preservation. Saving the pet over another person is like making the choice of saving a human at the loss of your own arm. Yes, a person is more important than your own arm, but instinctively, you go to protect yourself. In this case a "Pet" is close to you, you will suffer at its loss. A human also has a loss, but thats more academic and not personal loss. Well, less personal than something you specifically love.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a name for looking after your own self over others, and it's called "egoism". Unless you're fighting in a free-for-all arena or some sort, you should never be egoist.
But no, I wouldn't give my arm for my pet's life though. For the life of another person? Just maybe. That's a whole different conundrum.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pets are pretty much as easily replaceable as humans.
However, as the calculation boils down to personal choice, and objectively there is no significant difference in social worth for either a pet or a human taken as individuals, the default is to fall back on the next criterion, which is that of personal attachment, where, as stated previously, the unknown stranger loses by a long shot. As the benefit of society is null regardless of which I choose based on my knowledge (which I assume to not extend beyond that provided by the question) and whatever was stated above, there is really no social reason why I'd choose either the human or the pet. Emotionally, there is a reason to choose the pet, but none for the human. Pet wins.
I agree with the fact that others should not pay the price for my selfishness, but given that the choice is mandatory from the question and that I see no reason to value human life more than that of any other living being apart from belonging to the same species (which is insufficient to create emotional attachment) and given that both species are thriving (unless I have ilegally obtained an endangered species as a pet), choosing the human does not have any basis in species survival or worth of life. Having someone pay with their lives for my 'selfLESSness' is just as stupid in this scenario - and a pet would die should I choose the stranger.
EDIT - Added some clarity.
EDIT 2 - Regarding the pet/human social worth (the part I failed to answer about the psychological aid).
Indeed, as you state in the reply above, pets serve as psychological aids for a variety of mental health issues, as well as companions. Some people in fact prefer pets over human contact and would become dysfunctional should they be deprived of their pet, sometimes even a particular pet (i.e., they would not become emotionally attached to a new one). The social worth of pets is, thus, again relative on an individual basis, as is that of humans (as described), which in this thought experiment remains unknown (as stated), so does not form a basis for comparison (i.e., default to null).
Comment has been collapsed.
What is a society, to you? I still haven't completely understood your view. You make it seem like society is some sort of striving machine, when it's actually a bunch of people living together in organization. It's down right concerning that there's someone like you achieving a medical degree (if that is true) and yet shows no sign of affection towards human life. Being useful to society means that you're giving somebody some sort of welfare, whether by selling paper in an office or by working in a fast-food restaurant, you're helping yourself, someone and more than likely everybody else as a whole in the common goal of achieving happiness of some sort, and in order to be happy you must live.
You completely dismiss the usefulness, the potential and the background life of a single human individual just so you can claim that there's no relevant difference between a person and a dog and from that just strike down to the final phase which is personal preference, where you point out your indifference towards a person's life and go straight to the little values. You can have a breed of dogs and give the puppies away, the mother doesn't seem to give a damn because they don't have a mental background like we do. Try having a woman generate 10 children, then give them away, see what happens. She'll go under a whole emotional breakdown and snap, probably ending up committing suicide. Humans only do what they do because they have an urge to live and feel well, and this forum, this language and the videogames were all made for our comfort. Society was made by people, for people, and the undervaluation of humanity before insignificant things such as objects and animals (which have been used as food and source of material for decades) is against the principles of society.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see society simply as a herd like any other and humans as social animals, with reason and/or judgement being simply evolutionary traits that happened to be favoured by our species. So while they define and separate humans from animals, I do not see these traits as special in any way. They make us 'special' in the same way trunks make elephants special, however they do not make humans superior in any fashion - it is our self-conservation instinct that provokes the greed and selfishness that make us feel superior, we need to believe we are superior in order to remain efficient predators, we need it because we need to cope with our own reason. It would be only natural for non-reasoning animals to lack it to the extent we have it, but it still exists in their kingdom in some form. It results in survival. A herd is different to a machine, in any case.
I haven't dismissed the characteristics of a single human individual in any way in what I've said above objectively, I have only dismissed them as part of the scenario that was being given: I do not know that person, I do not know what their potential, usefulness or background are. I cannot make assumptions based on nothing, therefore I cannot make any assumptions regarding that individual's abilities or usefulness. The default in this case, as I still need to make a choice, is to award him 0 points - null. It's similar to hiring someone for a position, you need some information to assume they are going to do a good job: a CV, references, certifications etc.. If someone who applies doesn't provide any information at all, you are unlikely to hire them if pretty much anyone else applies providing a minimum of information that would favour them in front of a 0. Of course, it's only a gross comparison, but that's the idea here: I have nothing to distinguish that person in front of a pet from a social perspective given all the information I have.
The example you are giving about the mother is invalid based on what I stated in the previous paragraph: our ability to have what we describe as 'complex feelings' and 'reason' is merely a species-differentiating trait, it is what has been favoured in our evolution. Having something disturb it, of course, results in our failure to thrive, the same way cutting off an elephant's trunk, a shark's fins or an anteaters tongue will result in their failure to thrive: those are essential traits for their survival and have been favoured within the species.
The essence is that I do not separate humans from animals (or any living organism) hierarchically by considering certain traits superior to others based on criteria that have to do with the survival of my own species (mainly because it's egocentric, I am assuming that a dog would thrive if it had reason, for example, which is an exaggerated assumption, there is no evidence to indicate that other animals would find any use for reason). There are no superior or inferior traits, merely those that favour a certain species in its environment. That means I value each life equally, not that I do not value life. I am as indifferent to humans as I am to any other animal, as mentioned before, as long as I do not know them in any way or as long as they simply don't interest me even after I get to know them. I value life for its own sake, not as opposed to death, simply because it is a beautiful, but useless occurrence in the universe (otherwise stated, I value it as something subjective for which I do not need arguments, because if I were to bring them, I would simply end up showing its objective purposelessness).
Comment has been collapsed.
Point taken, your indifference towards humanity itself in comparison with other species along with your lack of ego is somewhat odd before my eyes yet undoubtedly admirable. Not necessarily a compliment, but you do have a perfectly valid point of view which mostly stands on subjectivity, grounds I refuse to argue on.
It was considerably nice arguing with you. I'll no longer push this conversation any further, thank you for your time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Likewise, it was quite a nice discussion for me as well and I do see the validity of the points you made in their appropriate frame. Arguing on subjectivity is indeed pointless, but I find debates such as this one very good for exchanging points of view, even though the lack of space (and appropriate context) might make explaining their intricacies difficult.
One thing I'd like to make clear is that my indifference (and indifference as I define it in general) does not equal apathy towards others. It much rather aims to increase overall welfare where possible, or personal welfare where the former fails. For example, I find it natural to help anyone who asks or needs help if the nature of it does not negatively impact society or myself (i.e., if it does not involve any criminal activity). I would (and do) readily put aside my own activity in order to help someone who I don't care about at all if they require it should I consider that the time spent helping them would not negatively affect the completion of my own work at the desired quality level by the deadline when it's due. That's a simple matter of knowing how quickly I'd be able to finish my own job within time at top quality and assuming I'd be able to contribute to another individual's welfare (and therefore the general one going by what I said above), which is something I simply find natural. I would, however, prioritise helping someone I have come to care for over helping a complete stranger if given the choice, although I would need to use further differentiating criteria if helping two complete strangers when deciding the order (or just do it arbitrarily, say by tossing a coin or on a first come, first served basis, if all the information turns out equal). Similarly, in the case of having to choose between a human and an animal that are both complete strangers to me (and therefore indifferent), I'd choose the human by defaulting further to assumptions I am able to make using other inferred data. More precisely, given that social value would default to null in both cases and emotional (personal) value would do the same, the next criterion would be the statistical usefulness of either (which basically combines the prior two levels with general assumptions - I am saying that it combines them because this criterion is obviously biased towards humans, the reason behind this being that I personally tend to become much more profoundly attached to a human I come to know well than to an animal, which boils down to subjective matters). This means that, if I had no information or emotion for either, I would assume based on experience that the human has a higher chance of being socially useful than the pet (this is where I was saying the subjective nature of this criterion comes in, as you'll notice some sort of apparent species discrimination here which is in fact, as stated, rather of personal nature), and therefore help the human first. It may still not be a completely clear explanation (it would probably take more than a few pages to clarify if I were to dissect the reasoning properly), but it should be enough to give you a basic idea of what I mean by the term - it is not the indifference of passing through life as if no one else existed (which is just ignorance), it is that of respecting everything that lives in a non-discriminating fashion for the simple beauty of it.
Again, thank you for the good discussion and patience in reading these. I only wanted to make the above point for some further clarification on my part, and I'll leave the conversation here as well.
TL;DR: Lessen the suffering of others.
Comment has been collapsed.
We're the most arrogant species that exist in this planet. And you should be proud of that, because you've probably used animals as tools and food for living at least once in your life, and if by a miracle you didn't, your ancestors did.
Humans are far greater than other animals. We gave them that pejorative term, mainly because we made it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Animals fight eachother all the time. Humans just do it better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Beavers fuck up ecosystems by building dams and so do insects by plaguing. Your point?
I'm fairly certain we haven't been nuked by cows yet because they don't know how to.
Comment has been collapsed.
Humans are worse than most of the other animals we know about mostly through sheer numbers. Seven billion members of a megafauna race tend to have a slight impact on the global environment.
But bear in mind, there was a mass extinction event billions of years ago that killed off 99% of all variations of life that existed at the time. The culprit? Algae. Oxygen was deadly toxic to all the life that existed at the time, and algae just sort of covered the planet and turned all the carbon dioxide into this toxic gas that choked out almost everything.
Not to mention that a single volcanic eruption (of which there are several per year) throws out more greenhouse gases than an entire year's worth of vehicle emissions.
Basically, Mother Nature laughs at humanity's pathetic attempts to screw up the ecosystem worse than she already has.
Comment has been collapsed.
The earth has seasons/cycles, things change. There is evidence of glacial and interglacial ages, did people drive gas guzzling suv's and have poluting factories over 10,000 years ago? Not saying humans are not adding to it, but that they are in fact adding to something that would be happening regardless.
Comment has been collapsed.
Damn, I was hoping to find out you named your goldfish Digdogger...
Comment has been collapsed.
This one is interesting though. It's puzzling to think how sane one has to be in order to pick one over the other in a hypothetical situation such as this one.
Comment has been collapsed.
You'll have killed both. I don't believe the "First do no harm" principle fits in this situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
He wouldn't have killed anyone, it's not like you're murdering either of them. It's not "killing them" it is not saving them from death, it'd be like a what if as far as like... What if you're in a corner store just buying some gas or a quick snack? Someone comes in waiving around a gun and points it at the clerk. You have a chance to save him but you put your own life in jeopardy and most likely wind up dead... would you save him or yourself? If you choose yourself you're not killing the store clerk you're just not saving his life.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a situation where the "First do no harm" principle comes in: By acting you'll either save somebody or get both killed, so it's smarter to just not do anything.
In this hypothetical case, you'll have the option to either save one or the other. If you save none, you'll have killed both, because you chose not to save any.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, well, it's obviously not a stranger... so, I'm guessing the stranger is gonna die...
Comment has been collapsed.
If you save the stranger from death, they'll just wind up dying in a more horrible way... ~Final Destination.
Comment has been collapsed.
the stranger ofc, i have many pets but i hate them all!!! except my fav cat - Carlo, that pretty motherfucker owns my heart..
Comment has been collapsed.
My cats (2) their brother and sister (twins) so they count as one also they keep me company and snooze on my lap while I play games and keep me warm when its cold at night... as you have probably guessed I am a sad human being.
Comment has been collapsed.
It depends on the looks of the stranger, his/her social status, religion, sexual orientation, marriage status, remaining bank savings, and a few other not-at-all discriminating criteria.
Comment has been collapsed.
You want a serious answer? The stranger, we all have to look out for each other.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand the assumption some people are making that either life has more value than the other.
To answer the question, I'd try to save both. Whoever was either closest or in the most immediate danger would be who I'd grab first, then I'd grab the other one on the way out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, then if you had to save a ant or a human, which one would you save?
Comment has been collapsed.
Why did you expect my answer to change if it were an ant?
Comment has been collapsed.
I just wanted to test your belief in what you said, that no life has more value than the other.
So, you wouldn't make any difference between an ant and a human? In which I mean, you would not choose the human right away?
Comment has been collapsed.
My question was intended as its own answer, but I'll be more direct for you this time.
It's incredibly unlikely that I'd even know there was an ant around in a dangerous situation, but if I was aware of one in trouble why not try to help it? It's much less likely to be able to get itself out of the dangerous situation than a human. There are limits to what I'd try to do in any situation, however. If there was an entire natural ant colony, meaning they'd be scattered & buried in tunnels as opposed to say an ant farm which I could quickly pick up & rescue all of them, I'm not going to try to take the time to save all of them as time surely wouldn't permit me to.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is not in trying to help the ant, is in choosing to help the ant instead of the human. I won't argue with you because everyone has their beliefs, but the point I was trying to make was that some lives ARE more valuable than others. Not in a "ultimate" way, but in a personal, biased way. Between my mom and a stranger (considering this stranger is not a child or something like that), I wouldn't think twice about helping my mom. Between an ant and a human? It's not even debatable to me. Like I said, it's just my opinion, but I respect yours.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be perfectly honest, there are more than enough people in the world, just as there are more than enough ants. Without reason to believe that the loss of either will be catastrophic, I'll help the one that's more helpless, which will be the ant in most cases. This is my personal bias because I'd rather help someone or something that couldn't help itself than one that could. If you want to ask me which I'd help in the event that neither could extricate itself from the dangerous situation, I'll remind you that my original answer was that I'd rather try to help both. It's not that I value the ant's life above the person's.
Comment has been collapsed.
47,279 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by kbronct
2,264 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by tiofw
441 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by xitau
215 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Atombomb2097
20 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by Mayanaise
24 Comments - Last post 11 hours ago by wormmayhem
1,031 Comments - Last post 12 hours ago by MrTommy
124 Comments - Last post 60 seconds ago by TinaG
0 Comments - Created 1 minute ago by zfazek
43 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by ObsidianSpire
284 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by pingu23
1,516 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by xurc
4,712 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by CommissarCiaphasCain
726 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by Deleted2137
One has to die and you can save the other. Who will it be?
I obviously hope this never happens to anyone.
Comment has been collapsed.