Are humans inherently "better" than other animals?

[DrCube]

I generally agree with Hamster King’s post #2 above, along with Dr. Love’s addendum that the capacity for humans to assign value to things is a result of natural selection.

I would just like to add that the distinction isn’t simply one of humans versus non-humans, it is a hierarchy of value that begins at the individual and extends outwards. Personally, I value my wife and son the most, probably myself next, then close friends and family, more distant friends and acquaintances next, and so on. Then we have, say, locals versus foreigners. By the time we get to poor starving Africans and other third world miserables, I hate to admit, their value becomes largely theoretical. In fact, I think a large division in the hierarchy is that between real, physical people we’ve seen and interacted with and those we only know of second-hand. As the value tree spreads, we assign value to animals, plants, inanimate objects, etc.

A lot of arguments are caused simply by two people having wildly different hierarchies of value; either their value trees have elements out of order, or one tree is ‘squished’ or ‘stretched’ relative to the other. So we have, for example, racists who believe blacks are subhuman beasts of burden on one extreme, and PETA and their ‘sea kittens’ on the other. I’m not sure there is any way to resolve the inevitable disputes, except for aiming at a reasonable middle path the majority can follow.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Malthus

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.

And yet, one can wrong someone who is in an irreversible coma. Why is that?

[The_Hamster_King]

@DrCube

I’m not sure there is any way to resolve the inevitable disputes, except for aiming at a reasonable middle path the majority can follow.

You can always kill anyone who doesn’t agree with your definition of “value”. It’s brutal, but it does have the virtue of forcing consensus.

[begbert2]

@Malthus

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.

Objectively speaking, why does the ability to appreciate the existence of one’s self and others have more value than the ability to survive unlikely hypotheticals? (And what does morality have to do with it?)

Hopefully you’re starting to see my point - there is no objective point of reference to make any such valuation, or indeed, any valuation, becuase a valuation is necessarily dictated by the needs of the moment. In some situations, a hammer is more valuable than a screwdriver. In others, a screwdriver is more valuable than a hammer. So it is with animals, and people too - unless you subjectivley or arbitrarily define a fixed standard of measure.

Most people, of course, start with the subjective opinion that “my species is bestest!”, mostly, I suspect, due to a combination of egoism and projection. (“Well, *I’m *clearly valuable, so things like me must be valuable too.”)

I’m of the opinion that if you don’t give yourself an arbitrary comparison metric like this, you really have no way to objectively determine one. As noted, objectively speaking what is valuable depends on what’s needed.

[AdmiralCrunch]

How about just base survivability? Life, the common component of animals, has a desire to survive and reproduce. Even bacteria don’t have an edge on us when the sun swallows the earth, except those hitching a ride with us or getting lucky with an asteroid impact. And this isn’t a random scenario, it’s inevitable. Only time will tell on this one, but if humanity makes it that far, we’ve got the best chances of all the animals.

Or cumulative rarity of talent? Sure, the cheetah’s the fastest land animal, but then what? Humans went to the moon, made Labyrinth, cooled something to 2K, and created a farting application for the iPhone. Back when humans were tossing around bones and fighting over dirty water holes, birds had flight on us. Now we can fly faster, higher, farther, and longer than any bird in existence only 100 years after we first made our first flight. And each individual human is closer, both genetically and capability-wise, to more talents than any other animal.

[begbert2]

@AdmiralCrunch

How about just base survivability? Even bacteria don’t have an edge on us when the sun swallows the earth, except those hitching a ride with us or getting lucky with an asteroid impact. And this isn’t a random scenario, it’s inevitable. Only time will tell on this one, but if humanity makes it that far, we’ve got the best chances of all the animals.

On the one hand I want to point out that when the sun swallows the earth, I (and any humans in the area)will be as dead as any bacteria, and on the other hand I want to point out that if we escape, then the bacteria will too (as you note). In either case, they seem to have developed a survival mechanism that is as good, if not better, than ours.

@AdmiralCrunch

Or cumulative rarity of talent? Sure, the cheetah’s the fastest land animal, but then what? Humans went to the moon, made Labyrinth, cooled something to 2K, and created a farting application for the iPhone. Back when humans were tossing around bones and fighting over dirty water holes, birds had flight on us. Now we can fly faster, higher, farther, and longer than any bird in existence only 100 years after we first made our first flight. And each individual human is closer, both genetically and capability-wise, to more talents than any other animal.

Um, the fact I can get in an airplane isn’t a talent. It’s a function of the environment I’m in. Now, if you want to say “has the best ability to manipulate their environment to their advantage” = “most valuable”, then that’s all well and good…though that raises another question: is this about the value of a human, or all of humanity?

The bit about escaping solar doom is sort of the same - as a race, with all the resources and equipment and technology we’ve accumulated and developed, we will be fine (maybe); but as individual humans, we’re not really that much better off than the average protozoa. I as an individual cannot fly (even if you gave me an airplane) - I am no more valuable in that department than the puppy in the dog carrier, or the luggage for that matter. The same goes for various other things; it may be one small step for mankind, but it would be a heck of a leap for me.

So - supposing we accept that you have shown that humanity is valuable. Have you shown that humans are? That each individual human is? That only some really bright ones are? Do we need to check our resumes to know?

[AdmiralCrunch]

@begbert2

On the one hand I want to point out that when the sun swallows the earth, I (and any humans in the area)will be as dead as any bacteria, and on the other hand I want to point out that if we escape, then the bacteria will too (as you note). In either case, they seem to have developed a survival mechanism that is as good, if not better, than ours.

a) bacteria aren’t animals, they’re bacteria
b)you missed my edit, but I inserted the bit about all life having the desire to survive and reproduce propagate genetic material what-have-you, but not live forever. Accepting survivability as a measure of value implies that you accept the next best thing, survival of something very similar to you.
c) So under this metric, humans and the bacteria that tag along with us are tied for most valuable, and everything in between is of lesser value?

@begert2

Um, the fact I can get in an airplane isn’t a talent. It’s a function of the environment I’m in. Now, if you want to say “has the best ability to manipulate their environment to their advantage” = “most valuable”, then that’s all well and good…though that raises another question: is this about the value of a human, or all of humanity?

Who built the airplane? A dude who’s much more like you than any other animal. If humanity has value it’s because individual humans possess talents like memory, writing, language, tool use, and abstract thought that can make airplanes. And you may not be able to fly the plane, but you can trade your goods and services for enough money to purchase a ticket that makes flying planes happen. Plus, if you were placed in the same environment as a pilot, you could fly. The dog couldn’t.

@begbert2

So - supposing we accept that you have shown that humanity is valuable. Have you shown that humans are? That each individual human is? That only some really bright ones are? Do we need to check our resumes to know?

I don’t think it’s really possible to say that every human is better than every animal, or that there exists a universal consistent morality. Statistically, though, the average human is better than the average representative of any animal species. So absent any further information, a human has more value than an animal. If we accept that humanity is valuable.

[YogSothoth]

Objectively: No
Subjectively: Yes

[Xema]

@The_Hamster_King

But a sperm whale can hold its breath for an hour. Can you do that?

An interesting aspect of humans is their penchant for creating tools/techniques/machines that enormously extend their natural capabilities. So while they can’t actually hold their breath for an hour, they can strap on scuba gear and stay underwater for an hour or more, or spend months submerged in a nuclear submarine.

[Malthus]

@The_Hamster_King

And yet, one can wrong someone who is in an irreversible coma. Why is that?

You can?

[Malthus]

@begbert2

Objectively speaking, why does the ability to appreciate the existence of one’s self and others have more value than the ability to survive unlikely hypotheticals? (And what does morality have to do with it?)

Hopefully you’re starting to see my point - there is no objective point of reference to make any such valuation, or indeed, any valuation, becuase a valuation is necessarily dictated by the needs of the moment. In some situations, a hammer is more valuable than a screwdriver. In others, a screwdriver is more valuable than a hammer. So it is with animals, and people too - unless you subjectivley or arbitrarily define a fixed standard of measure.

Most people, of course, start with the subjective opinion that “my species is bestest!”, mostly, I suspect, due to a combination of egoism and projection. (“Well, *I’m *clearly valuable, so things like me must be valuable too.”)

I’m of the opinion that if you don’t give yourself an arbitrary comparison metric like this, you really have no way to objectively determine one. As noted, objectively speaking what is valuable depends on what’s needed.

Nonsense. The issue is one of values, as in “why is it a human worth more than a fish”. It isn’t “who can swim better”.

When discussing why one life is worth more than another of course this is a question of morality. What one is really asking is whether killing a fish to save a human is morally preferable to killing a human to save a fish; that is in effect what claiming one life is more valuable than another means.

What, one may ask, does the ability to survive a deluge or alien invasion have to do with “value” in this sense? What is confusing you is that you are considering people (and fish) as objects, and then saying that some objects are better at some things than at others. That is missing the point. People, human life, has value because people are subjects as well as objects; a fish is merely an object only and can never have value in the same sense.

[njtt]

@begbert2

Actually I’m pretty sure we’re not the only tool-using species. Nor the only one that makes nests or digs burrows.

What has that got to do with anything?

I did not say that it was tool using, or making things that makes humans better. I am well aware that other species do such things. I said it was the ability that we have to make ourselves better (more knowledgeable, more powerful, and perhaps even more ethical) that counts. I am talking about cumulative, cultural evolution. Other species occasionally learn new tricks, or even pass them on to the group, but there is nothing remotely like human cultural progress. Even in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia, humans were enormously more advanced in their understanding (of both the physical and the social world) and in their technology than were the first homo sapiens. Heck, even hunter gather tribes in the Amazon are! And, of course, today we still more hugely advanced. No animal shows any capacity to do anything like that. They are all stuck basically how they were when their species first evolved.

We have already made ourselves into something way better, way more admirable, than what nature alone made us when we first evolved, and if we do not fall into some some sort of collective funk of self doubt about our worth, we may be able to make ourelves better still.

We do pollute a lot more, though…does that help?

No, it does not help at all. It is not a good thing about about humans, but it is also irrelevant to what I said. Anyway, humans are the only animals who can realize that polluting the Earth is a bad thing, and can be motivated to try (successfully or not) to do something about it. If the world was overpopulated with llamas instead of humans, and polluted with rotting llama dung everywhere, the llamas would not care (or even if the did not like the stink, it would not even occur to them to look for a way of dealing with it).

How do you know that other animals don’t ask such questions of themselves? If it’s the language barrier, then the French are equally opaque to me.

Yes, but you could learn French, and a even chimpanzee can’t.

Anyway, the point was not that such questions could not occur to an animal (I doubt that they ever do, but I am not relying on that) but they do not discuss them amongst themselves and hammer out deeper understanding of such ethical issues (or, indeed, of anything else) the way that humans can and do (and we are trying to do now). And no, I cannot prove no animals do that (like their tiny brains, and the studies of animal communication that find only a tiny handfull of different types of signal at the most). Anyway I can’t prove there is not an invisible flying unicorn in my bedroom, but I feel pretty safe in ordering my life upon the assumption that there isn’t.

I am quite prepared to believe that there might be other species somewhere that have the sort of ability for cultural evolution that humans have. They might be as good as us, or better. However, I am as sure as I am of anything that, if they exist, they are not natives of planet Earth.

[Dr.Love]

@begbert2

<ressurects>
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.)

In that case, then my proof is in my previous post. We’ve studies other animals extensively and have never found them to be capable of arguing a moral point. You’re never going to get a better proof than that.

@begbert2

Hopefully you’re starting to see my point - there is no objective point of reference to make any such valuation, or indeed, any valuation, becuase a valuation is necessarily dictated by the needs of the moment. In some situations, a hammer is more valuable than a screwdriver. In others, a screwdriver is more valuable than a hammer. So it is with animals, and people too - unless you subjectivley or arbitrarily define a fixed standard of measure.

Fair enough, but the OP gave us a definite metric on which we’re measuring value:

@Cagey_Drifter

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.

We’re not discussing whether humans can run the fastest or hold its breath the longest, we’re talking about moral value.

@The_Hamster_King

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.)

But your values aren’t arbitrary! They’ve been honed by millions of years of biological evolution and thousands of years of cultural evolution.

Roughly speaking, my view is one of philosophical pragmatism. Morality, the system that determines value in the sense of the OP, is also the system of rules that keeps society together. It’s the system of rules that allows individuals with disparate goals to function more efficiently than they would alone. The system of moral values that we have now evolved because it meets this goal effectively–because it is more effective than most of the other systems that we’ve tried. This process of evolution, of keeping things that work and discarding things that don’t, gives us reason to believe that our system of values reflects some fundamental principles of value, just as the design of a bird’s wing reflects some fundamental principles of aerodynamics.

[DrCube]

@Dr.Love

But your values aren’t arbitrary! They’ve been honed by millions of years of biological evolution and thousands of years of cultural evolution.

I’m not sure this is necessarily true. The capacity for constructing a value system is evolved, sure, the same as language. But there’s no gene for “English”, just as there is no gene for racism or PETA. I think the capacity is influenced by genes, and perhaps general heuristics like “things more similar to me have higher a value”.

But I think our values themselves are cultural and arbitrary.

[Dr.Love]

@DrCube

I’m not sure this is necessarily true. The capacity for constructing a value system is evolved, sure, the same as language. But there’s no gene for “English”, just as there is no gene for racism or PETA. I think the capacity is influenced by genes, and perhaps general heuristics like “things more similar to me have higher a value”.

But I think our values themselves are cultural and arbitrary.

Sure, no specific genes for PETA. That’s why it’s biological and cultural evolution.

I can’t imagine how you can see our values as arbitrary, unless you take some extremely restricted view. In this world, a set of values only exists in practice if a society practicing those values is fairly stable. For every set of values that exists today, there must be an extraordinary number of sets of values for which society would immediately collapse. For example, what if we believed that the ability to hop on one foot for 50 feet was so important that it exonerated you from any crime? What if the requirement was to eat 3 hotdogs in one sitting instead? In societies like these crime would be rampant, and it would be nearly impossible to profitably work with anyone else.

You may think that these examples are absurd, but that’s exactly the point. Most sets of values are absurd. Most sequences of DNA are absurd. The fact that our choices are so tightly constrained is shows us that our values, and our DNA, are not arbitrary.

Now, really, how many workable systems of values do you think there are that don’t give special consideration to beings whose understanding of social interaction is deep and subtle?

[pancakes3]

addressing “better”: i think the fact that i’m banging away on a computer, which will send information along a cable to a server, displaying it so other people can sit at their computer, bang away at their keyboards to retort makes us in some facet, better.

addressing “value”: as many have said, value is in the eye of the beholder. one man’s trash is another’s treasure. however, as the OP asked, is a human dying more tragic than another animal dying - it’s mixed. there are 6 billion of us, and only a handful of giant pandas. honestly, i think if a giant panda died, it’d be more tragic. however if humankind as a species died out, i think the planet would definitely be worse off - pollution and all.

our planet would be reduced to just a rock that happened to have life on it instead of a rock with life on it that can go into space. a minor distinction, but an important one on a cosmic scale. it’d be like a family with a son that became a successful doctor/lawyer, and a son that just sits in the basement fondling himself.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Cagey_Drifter

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.

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?

First, answer this: Why is human (or any other) life worth anything at all? On what rationale can you say human life is valuable in the first place? If you can answer that satisfactorily, you’ll be well on your way to answering your question.

[Thudlow_Boink]

One admittedly religious answer is that human beings are made in the image of God (and whatever that means, it means that humans resemble God in a way that other animals do not), that human beings are valuable to God, and that human beings are capable of being in relationship to God in ways that other animals are not.

Of course, not everyone is going to agree with that point of view—certainly it requires a belief in God. Without God, it’s entirely consistent to say that there is no such thing as inherent worth/value, and that any idea of one life being worth more than another is either subjective (simply a statement of what you, personally, value or prefer) or illusory.

[Dr.Love]

@Thudlow_Boink

First, answer this: Why is human (or any other) life worth anything at all?

Two possible reasons: (1) Because life behaves as if it believes in its own value, and whotf else is there to argue? (2) The evolution of life is the evolution and accumulation of meaning in the universe.

[devilsknew]

Well, the Christian God sees us in valuation, no better than other animals, as has been demonstrated in his documented and prophesied ritual killings and purgings of mankind and animalkind- The flood, for example, and as of yet, The Final Judgement (dunh dunh dunh duhhhh). As a matter of fact a large number of humanity under God’s direct auspices and commandments, see mankind as having the same worth as animals to be killed, imprisoned, or enslaved at will. When exactly are people going to start seeing people as inherently “better” than animals, is what I want to know? Because every indication that I have seen is that they are animals acting as animals in every instinct.