Do you think a human life is more valuable than any other animals?

The idea came from a previous thread I made. One poster made a comment about how throwing a puppy from a mountain is not as “bad” as throwing a person off a mountain.

In general, human beings tend to give our species a certain level of “special-nes” that makes our lives more valuable than other animals.

I know it very hard to argue that a chickens life is equal to that of a person.

Or that a Tiger deserves to life more than a baby.

I don’t have a solid opinion on this subject yet, but maybe some of you do:

Do you think human beings life to be “more important” or of “more value” than any other animal?

If so, why?

Yes. I value the lives of other animals, but definitely would not consider an animal life to be more important than a human’s.
Why? Because we humans are the only kind of animal capable of contemplating questions like the worth of other species’ lives. :slight_smile:

I can’t countenance an occasion where i would give an animal’s life priority over any human’s existence. having said that I realise my attitude towards hunting or bloodsports (cock fighting, bullfighting sport fishing) may be at variance to others. (pro pro pro)

I think there may be another question here?

notwithstanding that… throwing a puppy over the edge or indeed feeding zoo animals to a croc is a whole different proposition…

Osama bin Laden or a puppy?

Yes, in almost every circumstance. I might make an exception for endangered animals.

the puppy is smoke

You’re hard-core. I’d waste the O-man myself and feed him to the puppy.

I believe it is permissible to take an animal’s life in any circumstance as long as it is done humanely, and as long as you have the legal right to do so. I do believe in laws against animal cruelty. It isn’t because I believe in animal rights, but rather because I think one’s character is determined by the way they treat creatures that can feel and express pain. Someone who takes pleasure in animal cruelty should enter the criminal justice system as early as possible.

Whether a human life is always more valuable is a different question. I have known humans that aren’t worth some animals I’ve known.

Yes. But, I don’t believe that there is an inherent sacredness or importance to human life, and all life/death choices are contextual in nature.


One for one. Species for species? No.

I’ll support shooting an inconvenient wolf, but not eradicating the species.

Hmmm… I kinda do think that there is at least an inherent impotance to human life if only because its the life of our species and at the moment we are top dog ( so to speak)

life/death choices being contextual… i don’t fully understand this sentence.

if the dinosaurs were a failed evolutionary experiment ( on a very basic level … how could a velicoraptor have predicted that pesky meteor) it could also be extrapolated that we are also a concept work in progress… in which case some other yet unevolved species may yet gain precedence…

for the present we rock! therefore every thing else must be of lesser intrinsic value.

Depends on which human. Some people ain’t worth the cost of the bullet to shoot them.

I would compare the specific human to the specific animal. If the choice were, for instance, between our fluffy little dog and our current president, the dog will live; there is just no contest. If it were between my Darling Marcie and our fluffy little dog, the dogs done for. But I would miss him terribly.


If both are “innocent” then I’m going to default towards the human, but if I have information to the contrary, the puppy gets a bye and the human is mulch.

I believe a living human life is more valuable than a living animal’s life*. One on one.

It’s not fair, but I’m a species-ist, I suppose- I blame my gene’s for it. I’d attribute value to those things more genetically similar to my own genes than other things.
*Clarification made, because I’ve had to do this for an Ethical dilemma final exam a while back in college, and it made ALL the difference. I’m not going to hijack this thread though with that one. So yeah. 1 for 1. Species for species, not so sure, depends- as self-preservation is a big factor for me, but still, can’t make that call so easily as the 1 for one living factor.

Wow. THAT’s hardcore. Much as I can’t stand W, I’m not sure I’d feed him to a puppy. Tempting, though.

I’m with **Oakminster **on this one in general, though. Default is human life>animal life, but there are certainly exceptions.

I have to admit I would save the current president over a fluffy little dog, but then, I’d save a cat over a fluffy little dog.

My son’s explosive-sniffing dog, who has done two tours in Iraq? We would have a (mercifully brief) Cheney presidency.

I do value human life.

Just generic human against generic animal, I’d go human; humans are more intellectually and emotionally complex and unique, and therefore more valuable IMHO. But as others have said, I’d change my mind for specific humans; to use the example given of Bush, I’d choose any animal over him. Or none; under no circumstances would I help him in any way, or feel the slightest compassion towards him.

If I chose W over our dog, my life would be worthless. My Darling Marcie would terminate me with extreme prejudice. That dog means the world to her, for a lot of very valid reasons.

In the case you mention, I’m not sure you are actually dealing with a human life; more of a reptile, I’d say.