I was referring to my son’s life, and my nephew’s and niece’s, and all of our children’s.
That dog has saved human lives, of many families and nationalities, in a climate to which he is completely unsuited, with no probable reward if he suffers an injury than death.
I wasn’t being ironic; I’d hesitate before I sacrificed him.
In the grand scheme of things, I don’t consider my life any more important than an ant’s.
Yes, animals’ lives only have value in relation to their benefit (psychologically and physically) to humans. So, assuming the people involved are innocent, I would certainly support eradicating any harmful animal species to benefit humanity, as long as that eradication not is more harmful in the long run than letting them live.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Sir, I believe he was talking about the President (I hope, because reptile for dog makes no sense, unless he’s focusing solely on the smell and primitive brain aspects). Either way, one of us will now be whooshed when we get an answer.
Let’s hope it’s you and not me.
It really should be - how throwing a puppy from a mountain is not a “bad” as throwing a baby off a mountain.
In general yes. As others have mentioned, it doesn’t apply to some really awful people. I’d save a puppy over a child molester, even if it was a bad puppy that bit and piddled on the rug.
As a grandparent, I will fight to the death for Angelboy, or any of my other grandkids. Screw the tiger.
Love, Phil
I agree when people say that human beings are of more value than say…a fish, just because there are so many fish even when compared to humans.
But apart from fish, there are not a whole lot of other animals that out-number people.
If we are talking about life as a value, it´s hard to, from a logial perspective, defened the notion that a random human is more worthy of life than a random elephant.
This is my position exactly, down to the letter. Thank you for your clarity.
Forgive the hijack, but this caught my attention.
Could you please explain the bloodsports thing to me? I remember wondering about this when they were trying to outlaw cockfighting somewhere, and Wilford Brimley came out as a staunch supporter of the practice.
Why is cockfighting such a precious right that we should preserve?
And what’s the draw? They’re animals being made to gore each other. I think that’s barbaric. Bullfighting… well, I can kind of see the tiniest bit of… artistry? skill? … on the part of the matador. But why does anyone want to watch birds slice each other up? Is it the gambling?
Nope, human life and animal life are the same to me - I think thay are both very important (perhaps it’s because I don’t have kids or that bias that comes from parenthood).
If a criminal murdered someone close to me sure I’d want justice but I would want it just the same if I saw animals being killed.
This blows me away too much to come up with something witty; I’m sure someone else will be along soon to help out.
Nice edit.
There are 6 and a half billion humans on the planet - I value the animals on the planet far more than the humans. It is the ultimate expression of our human hubris that we consider ourselves the most important organisms on the planet, to the point of extincting so many other species. We should be ashamed of ourselves, not putting ourselves on pedestals.
So, let’s make this concrete: Police respond to a domestic violence call, where they find that Shirtless Man is holding up a cocker spaniel puppy, with his hands around its neck. He shouts, “That b---- thinks she’s going to leave me, well I’ll break her f------ dog’s neck!”
One policeman has a clear shot to the man’s head. Should he take it?
Yes, even though I generally value human life more. Clearly, in this case, the human is behaving in a dangerous way. If he is willing to do that, what else might he do? It would be reasonable to shoot him, though I would prefer not a head shot.
I do value human life over the life of any animal, unless the human forfeits their life by being cruel, evil, or incredibly foolish.
It’s not something I’ve thought about a lot, but I think that sums up my view.
In general, I agree that a person’s more valuable than an animal. However, there are specific people I’d rather not pee on if they were on fire, so if it came to saving them or saving a puppy…ooooh, decisions, decisions.
Comparing, say, an innocent puppy to a terrorist, or someone whom the general population would want dead anyways, is not a fair comparison. Nobody would think twice about shooting a rabid dog who was trying to bite people. It’s human nature to wish death upon our enemies.
And yes, a human life is far more valuable than that of an animal, IMHO.
I don’t think so. It may very well be that it’s the best dog in the world and the worst human in the world, but our society operates under the assumption that a criminal can reform and repay their debt to society. The dog on the other hand will never be anything but a dog. You have to allow the person to live and pay for their mistakes.
I would say the life of the average human is worth more, less directly because of the intellectual development and so forth of the human, but because the human is more likely to comprehend and thus feel terror and the death, and are more likely to have their absence be missed.