This is based on a tangent going on in another thread, but thought it would be better to ask here:
One of the implicit assumptions that it seems most people have is that a human life is worth more than that of, say, a fish. There’s this implicit, assumed hierarchy where humans are at the top, and the more overtly humanoid a creature is (either by intelligence, demeanor, appearance, physiology, habitat, or apparent emotional capacity) the more valuable that creature’s life is. This, I believe, is caused by our ability to empathize most with creatures most like us. But of course, extending this, if you could ask a fish, cockroach, or bird what animal it believes is most valuable, it’s likewise going to say fish, cockroach, or bird. The hierarchy seems to have less to do with any particular features of a creature, but more to do with which one one identifies with, and what is personally convenient for one to believe. Also, it seems to me like there is an implicit argument that because humans have some level of dominion over other creatures by our use of weapons and habitat-destroying/transforming tools, we are also higher on the cosmic totem pole. But this too seems arbitrary; birds are better than us at flying. Jaguars can run faster than us. So what? Are our lives more valuable because we can kill animals more easily than they can kill us?
So I ask this: is a human life is more valuable than that of any other animals? If so, on what basis can this assertion be made? Is there a rationale that does not rely on a self-serving (to humans) argument, on conditioned feelings of homophily and empathy (e.g. growing up with other humans and thus having a familiarity with them and the way they think), or one that does not make use of arbitrary, human-centric qualities (e.g. highly developed nervous system)?
And please, before it gets to this point I want to pre-empt any accusations of me advocating killing babies and being a hypocrite, sociopath, etc. I’m trying to better to gain a philosophical grasp of this idea, and I’d like to get a perspective on how others are able to rationally justify the “pro-human” argument.
Only in the sense that a dollar bill is more valuable than a random piece of green paper.
“Value” is a human construct. It exists because we’ve decided that it’s a useful organizing principle, not because it reflects some fundamental aspect of reality. So, since “value” has been constructed to serve human needs, it’s not surprising that human beings are more valuable than spider monkeys. If sentient spider monkeys had a value system they probably would put themselves on top instead of us.
One could argue that this notion of “value” is merely a gossamer illusion. Humans aren’t REALLY more valuable than spider monkeys. We just all go around pretending that we are. That would be true, but immaterial. Most aspects of human culture are similarly illusory. Art, law, finance, morality, ethics … all these things exist only because we pretend that they do. And because we all share in this game of make-believe, the game, for all intents and purposes, becomes real.
Self awareness. If we could develop technology that allowed us to speak conversationally with animals, I’m willing to bet that most of them would not have anything to respond with.
Situational awareness and interaction. We are aware of both ourselves, and how our interactions affect other members of our species, and other species as well.
IMO, this is the crux of the issue. You can argue what it might say, but the fact is that we can’t ask these animals what they think is most valuable. They are incapable of communicating these kinds of thoughts, and of revising them based on the moral arguments of another. In short, we make the calls because we have the most advanced moral sense. They don’t because they don’t.
Value, in the sense of moral value, is evolved. Saying that it is a human construct is like saying that “flight” or “metabolism” are human constructs. We come up with words and theories for describing them, but evolution was there first. And the fact that evolution got to moral value (and that it’s widespread in the evolutionary tree) strongly suggests that it “reflects some fundamental aspect of reality.”
There are two ways to assess whether humans are ‘better’ than other animals: subjectively, or objectively. Subjectively humans are obviously better than animals because we define “better” as “more like us”. Pretty simple - and that’s probably how most people reach the conclusion of human superiority. (And, uh, racism - where people reach the conclusion of racism. People don’t like the ‘other’.)
Objectively, we’re robbed of the “more like us” criteria and have to come up with some other one. In this case people are only better if you define “better” as something that humans are better at. Writing symphonies as opposed to finging truffles, for example. Why do we choose criteria that favor humans? Well, because we have this conclusion that we subjectively wanna reach, see…
Somewhat interestingly, there is one exception to the human supremacy line that can commonly be found in otherwise humanocetnric people - they sometimes like to imagine a God that’s even better than they are. And what properties does this God have? Not a stylish pelt and the ability to rapidly split into exact duplicates of itself. What it has are properties that humans are ‘better’ at, which are then maxed out. Humans are (presumably) the smartest animals around - and God’s even smarter! Humans are better at influencing their environment at will - and God’s omnipotent! Sure there are a few things we tack onto him that humans don’t really have like omnipresence, but those aren’t stressed as much as the more humanocentric properties. When we want to make a God, we take our idea of the best human and crank it up to 11.
I agree that humans instinctively value other humans, so that our reasoning about value is grounded in our nature. But the value of an object is something we assign to it, not an intrinsic property like mass or electrical charge.
Humans are better than other animals because humans have the capacity to make themselves better than mere biological evolution has made them, and have done so. Over the history of the human race we have vastly increased both our power over the universe and our understanding of it, and indeed our understanding of ourselves and even of such things as value itself, and the process is still ongoing. No other animal has even begun to do anything like this.
As evidence that humans are better, I offer the fact that only humans* have the ability to ask, or, indeed, to conceive of, questions such as this. In a way the question answers itself.
*Of course it is conceivable that whales or wombats have developed a sophisticated understanding of the natural world, and an complex and nuanced ethical philosophy that leads them to refrain from using that knowledge to interfere with the course of nature in the way that humans are inclined to do. In that case, there might be some scope for debate over whether they were “better” than us. Note, however, that if they were just innately endowed with this sort of scientific and ethical understanding, that would not not be enough. That would still not amount to the capacity to make oneself and one’s species into something better (more knowledgeable, wiser, more powerful, more ethical) that humanity has.
I don’t know. Personally, I really don’t have a clue about animals, how they feel, what they think, etc, except in a vaguely anthropomorphic sense. Perhaps this is enough to suggest we shouldn’t act in abject cruelty towards them, but I wouldn’t base an animal rights case on it. (In fact I don’t care for animal rights causes at all.) I’m pretty pro-mammal, but not enough to be a vegetarian. I’m pretty pro-environment, but not enough to to be a breatharian.
True enough, but this is completely missing the point. “Moral value” is a result of evolution, while “mass” and “electric charge” are not. If you take value out of it’s proper context, you get weird results.
The burden of proof is on you. We know that there are French-English translators out there, and I’ve read things that were originally in French. Find me something written by a member of another species that discusses morality, and then we’ll talk.
Now this is just silly. The analogy is simple: sperm whales can win a “hold your breath for a long time” context, cheetahs can win a “run really fast” contest, and we can win a “determine the moral value of species” contest. What’s so hard about that?
Sorry this is so short, but I’m short on time right now. I’ll come back with more in-depth replies, maybe tomorrow.
Um, no. You made the positive claim that it was a fact that only humans have the ability to ask, or, indeed, to conceive of, questions such as [wether humans are better], to support your conclusion that humans are better. Therefore, as you’re the one making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you, not me. (Nice try, though.)
Why does a capacity for abstract thought make a species more “valuable” than a capacity to run fast or hold your breath for long time?
Sure, you need abstract thought to construct the concept of “value” in the first place, but that doesn’t mean abstract thought is itself more valuable. I’m perfectly capable of using my abstract thought to construct alternate value systems that don’t place humans at the top.
(Not that I ascribe to them. I prefer to live within a framework where human life trumps the lives of other animals. But I recognize the arbitrary nature of my values.)
If you could ask a fish, cockroach, or bird and abstract question like ‘what animal it believes is most valuable’, and it could answer, its opinion would be worth listening to.
That’s why humans are uniquely valuable - they are the only animals that can ask or answer such a question, as far as can be known.
This is an objective and not a subjective difference, and it is the important one: conciousness. It is conciousness that is valuable. Other animals have it to a degree, only not to the same degree as humans. A fish has very little and so its life is worth, objectively, very little in comparison with a humans’.
If I agree for the sake of argument that one can objectively discern whether a creature is conscious or not, I still find my self wondering what objective means did you use to determine that conciousness is the single most valuable critiera? If the entire planet suddenly flooded with a hundred miles of water, or was attacked by aliens that slaughtered everything larger than a breadbox, then the value of consciousness wouldn’t be that great at that point.
The philosophical concept that you need to grasp is the Great Chain of Being. This is a ranking of things from those with the least capability to the most. At the bottom are inanimate objects, then plants, then animals, then humans, and then in most versions the various divine beings in ascending order. To understand the significance, it is important to note that the Great Chain of Being is not a ranking from “worst” to “best”, but rather a ranking from no ability up to maximum ability. Hence it doesn’t declare that humans are better than animals. Rather, it declares that humans are a category of beings with greater capacity for both good and evil than animals. Comparing the goodness of, say, Adolf Hitler to the chicken I ate last night is simply inane and has no answer. What is logical and unavoidable, however, is that one treats different levels on the Chain differently. Hence one criminally prosecutes a person who steals something, but not the dog that steals a pot roast while no one is looking. For a much better explanation, try E. F. Schumacher’s A Guide for the Perplexed, or else just read this truncated explanation.
As a side note, I personally see no significant different in level among animals. I know that some cultures in Africa and Asia eat apes and monkeys; I have no problem with that. Personally, fried gorilla just isn’t my cup of tea, but I don’t look down on people if they prefer it.
The value of conciousness isn’t measured by its ability to survive unlikely hypotheticals, but rather by the fact that only concious beings can appreciate their own - and others’ - existence.
The foundation of all morality is reciprocity. To the extent that morality has any value, it is only applicable to beings that are capable of reciprocity. One cannot wrong a rock.