Objection: some civilizations are known to treat some animals like cats and cows as gods, thus showing that the GCB hierarchy is not innate in all.
Counter-objection: This premise is true, but they did this because they believed these animals to be gods, inasmuch as christians treat Jesus as God because they believe him to be one, not just a human being. As such, these civilizations still had innate knowledge of the GCB hierarchy — Samuel Lacrampe

Can a thing both be and not be at the same time and at the same respect? Can a god be a human and can a human be a god? A god is infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, beautiful, etc., a human is not. So can you be both infinitely good and not infinitely good? Can you be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time? I hardly think so. I think religions that deify humans, animals, plants, rocks, and sub-atomic particles are way off the course as a worship direction.

Ok I'll play the game.

Baby Hitler and your cute little cat are in a burning house. You can only save one.

I'll make this sharper. The adult Hitler is inside and he's fully evil already.

Your system says you should save Hitler because he's human. I say, save your cat who loves you.

In this case an animal may be placed above a human in ontological value.

Some takeaways:

* Ontological value is subjective. Hiter's mom would save Hitler.

* There may be some overlap in your levels. A cute kitty outranks an evil human.

ps -- What are angels? Are you arguing from a purely Christian perspective? Metaphysically I know what a God is, but I'm not sure about angels. Like if we're a simulation, would God be the project manager and angels the grunt coders? How does all this work exactly?

What are angels? — fishfry

There are four main types of Angels. 1. Heralds. They bring tidings of great joy. 2. Guardians. 3. Harlots. 4. Satan. The first three types are pleasant; the last one, a type unto itself, is evil.

My uncle who is a Roman Catholic, tells me that all angels are male.

It does seem to be the case that angels are male. Fine by me, but doesn't it piss off feminists that there are no divine female beings?. However, are there not lots of female angels in art?

As for heralds, guardians, harlots (really?), and Satan, where did this come from?

What about Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels and Angels?

Ye watchers and ye holy ones,
Bright seraphs, cherubim, and thrones,
Raise the glad strain, Alleluia!
Cry out, dominions, princedoms, powers,
Virtues, archangels, angels' choirs,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
et cetera

I am sure some people would prioritize their dog over some humans, and nothing as bad as the adult Hitler. Like Donald Trump, for example. I might prioritize my couch. I like my couch. It's been good to me. The dog likes the couch too.

Wait, harlots are male? What are their characteristics? How did that usage evolve to the modern meaning of harlot being an obsolete name for a lady of ill repute?

Now, can we demonstrate this GCB hierarchy to be true? — Samuel Lacrampe

I think CS Lewis had a pretty good idea of it. When discussing man's dominance over, and therefore right to vivisect animals, he said (Please excuse the very long quote, but the entire paragraph seems to speak perfectly to the point you're addressing in the OP.),

"The only rational line for the Christian vivisectionist to take is to say that the superiority of man over beast is a real objective fact, guaranteed by Revelation, and that the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence. We are ‘worth more than many sparrows’, and in saying this we are not merely expressing a natural preference for our own species simply because it is our own but conforming to a hierarchical order created by God and really present in the universe whether any one acknowledges it or not. The position may not be satisfactory. We may fail to see how a benevolent Deity could wish us to draw such conclusions from the hierarchical order He has created. We may find it difficult to formulate a human right of tormenting beasts in terms which would not equally imply an angelic right of tormenting men. And we may feel that though objective superiority is rightly claimed for man, yet that very superiority ought partly to consist in not behaving like a vivisector: that we ought to prove ourselves better than the beasts precisely by the fact of acknowledging duties to them which they do not acknowledge to us. But on all these questions different opinions can be honestly held. If on grounds of our real, divinely ordained, superiority a Christian pathologist thinks it right to vivisect, and does so with scrupulous care to avoid the least dram or scruple of unnecessary pain, in a trembling awe at the responsibility which he assumes, and with a vivid sense of the high mode in which human life must be lived if it is to justify the sacrifices made for it, then (whether we agree with him or not) we can respect his point of view"

Usually I will try to present my responses in my own words, but I believe that in this instance Lewis hits the nail on the head so perfectly that trying to put it in my own words would only detract from the point.

As for the "you can only save one" fire hypothetical, I think most people, even dog lovers, would say that rescuing the human would be preferable in principle, unless you add extra criteria to the example like, the dog is a beloved family pet while the human is a murdering, raping bastard who has no remorse for his crimes and implies that he'll keep committing such crimes if he gets the chance. In that case you may find a very different answer. As Lewis suggests, humans are not born superior, but rather born only with the option to become superior through the choices we make.

The dog likes the couch too. — Bitter Crank

You make a compelling case. :)

but doesn't it piss off feminists that there are no divine female beings?. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure how it is in other religions which may have angelic beings, but at least in Christianity it seems gender will become irrelevant in terms of spiritual importance. When questioned on who would be married to whom in the next life, Jesus suggested they had a wrong understanding of spiritual relationship dynamics and that there would be no marriage (which presumably means no sex or babies in the sense that we understand it here on earth). There's an OT reference (from Genesis 6) which suggest that angelic beings impregnated women, leading to "giants" but the reference is obscure in a few different ways, so not particularly reliable as evidence that angelic beings are male.

The appearance of angels in the NT are often described as "men" but remember that these are the same people to whom Jesus said, "If you won't believe me about earthly things, how will you believe me about heavenly things). I think it is more likely that either the people misunderstood what these beings were and mistook them for being male in gender, or that the angels took on the appearance of normal human men, when communicating with me, because that's what the humans of that time would be best able to relate to.

The bible, both old and new testaments often use both genders to refer to all people. The children of Israel (including men) were often referred to has a harlot cheating on her husband. The new testament refers to the children of God as the "bride" of Christ and the Revelation references a special, elite army of "virgins" who "follow the lamb withersoever he goeth". They are described as being without guile and redeemed from among men. In spiritual terms, there's a lot of crossover between both male and female character traits.

While thought experiments that contain little evil hitlers and dogs are fun, they're superfluous. The fact that there people who care for pets or strays, while there are countless humans without access to food, meds or shelter, demonstrably shows that in practice the cases where we value non-humans over humans are extremely common. — Πετροκότσυφας

Fantastic observation.

One could argue that those who value their pets' well-being and very life before other humans', are in fact anthropomorphizing the little critters. However, this reasoning leads to nowhere, as it tautologizes the original claim; it leads to a circular reasoning, where the claim is proven by itself.

My point is that while we each may claim that we'd first save our cat, dog, or other pets, we actually wouldn't. We would save Hitler. We would save Nero and Caligula and Stalin, if we heard them cry out with fear, pain and desperation.

As for heralds, guardians, harlots (really?), and Satan, where did this come from? — Bitter Crank

Heralds: Some religious Jew described Angels to me as carriers of messages between God and humans.
"Guardian Angel".
Harlots: "You are my little angel".
Satan: He used to be a main angel, an Archangel if you like, like Gabriel or St. Peter or Peter Gabriel, but for one reason or another God tossed Satan from the heavens into the netherworld to be its ruler.

I haven't made any of this up, although I do admit my list was incomplete and the elements in it were taken from different, disparate cultural streams of belief.

@Samuel Lacrampe

As such, we ought to treat gods as gods and objects as objects, and ought not to treat gods as objects nor objects as gods. It also follows that, should there be a situation where the choice is to benefit a being and harm another or vice versa, we ought to pick the choice that benefits the being with the greatest value, so as to obtain a net gain. We also deduce the Golden Rule: Do unto others (humans) as you would have them do unto you (also human). Now, can we demonstrate this GCB hierarchy to be true? In an attempt to show that we all have an innate knowledge of it (much like the laws of logic and math) please do the following thought experiment with me, and let me know your answer.

A house is on fire. You are a rescuer whose goal is to save the beings stuck inside. There is one human, one animal (say a dog), one plant, and one object (with no monetary value but destroyable). All else is equal. You can only rescue one at a time. Who would/should you rescue first, second, third, and fourth? — Samuel Lacrampe

All of those can mean different things to different people. It may be a picture of someone that you love that you value over a human, animal, or plant. It could be a valuable plant that you think may be the cure to a terrible illness. Same thing with the human or animal. That thought experiment doesn't prove anything about the validity of that hierarchy. I think the lines between "living" and "non-living" are put there by humans, like many other divisions, to allow ourselves to justify our needs and meaning we place on those needs. When enough people agree on common definitions and common values we call those ideas morals. Different definitions/values lead to different morals. I feel like humanity should be more focused on the definitions and values and why we hold them. It's there where we find our commonalities. Asking about who I would rescue would be about the what and who, not about the more important question of why. :^)

Hitler and his dogs (he had many!) would not save you over his little kittens. Especially, if you're a jew. — Πετροκότσυφας

I believe this is true. Each part alone and the whole thing together. I chalk it up to a difference in the morality gene as a product of instantaneous mutation. It is a fallacy to think that we are all equal in our own personal and very compelling ethical responses. Much like we differ in height, weight, IQ, etc, we differ in moral fortitude and in moral vicissitude. It has to do with the microbiological physiology of the "morality gene".

In real terms: much like many of us anthropomorphizes our own pets, there are people who objectify or animalize other humans. This is not a disease; it is on one hand an aberration, and on the other hand, it can serve as a survival tool, when survival is aided or is only possible by murdering another person. It is not easy to murder someone. Not just physically speaking, of the mechanics of it, because that is hard, too, without firearms. It is not an easy decision, or an easily executed task. So if you somehow can convince yourself that your human enemy is worse than a dog, for instance, then it's easier to murder him.

Heck, it's not even easy to kill a mammal. I was lead through an abattoir in my high school years, by one of the vice presidents of the abattoir, during a field trip in my geography class. There was a guy whose job was to kill the cows. The vice president said in front of that guy, "it is the only job I would refuse to do in this establishment." The executioner, so to speak, grinned uncomfortably.

Our knowledge is innate, but different. That is the nature of human responses and qualuties that are innate. That is the no. 1. mistake by philosophical theorists, that they figure all humans are the same as every other human. This has dogged many philosophers. from Socrates to Hume, from Plato to Hobbes.

What you are saying is somewhat similar to a hypothetical claim, that since person X can solve Problem B, but Person Y can't solve Problem B, it follows that IQ is not an innate quality. It is; but it differs in its material instance between the IQ levels of X and Y.

Well, the argument was that we have an innate knowledge which shows when we pick the human over the non-human. — Πετροκότσυφας

How soon we forget our own words. :-)

Right on, Petrokotbifas

I think the christian doctrine says that Jesus condescended down to the human level to become human, thereby not being perfect in every way during that time. I think he kept his omniscience but not his omnipotence because he could suffer physical evil. As for deifying animals, I think their definition of gods is not the same as the christian definition of God. A god (lower case g) may be better than a human but is not perfect in every way.

The adult Hitler is inside and he's fully evil already.
Your system says you should save Hitler because he's human. I say, save your cat who loves you.
In this case an animal may be placed above a human in ontological value. — fishfry

Actually I agree with you that, in this case, I too would not save Hitler. But that is because we know Hitler to be evil because he killed many humans, and is likely to kill more humans if saved; and this choice would not result in the largest net gain. So the GCB hierarchy is still followed.

What are angels? — fishfry

Here is my understanding. In essence, angels are rational immaterial beings with free will, in contrast to humans who are rational material beings with free will. Good angels are just called angels, and evil angels are called demons. If the definition of gender is related to sex, then angels have no gender because of no sexual organs. If the definition is about emission and reception of things, then they may be male if they emit, and female if they receive. God is represented as male because he always emits (love, info, existence) to all other beings, who are all female in relation because they receive all of this. That is the reason why Jesus is referred to as the 'husband' and Israel as the 'bride'.

I might prioritize my couch. I like my couch. It's been good to me. The dog likes the couch too. — Bitter Crank

Do I detect irony? I am fairly sure that in some countries, as a rescuer you would get sued for failing of duty.

I like CS Lewis. Where does this quote come from?
I agree with you regarding the murderer case. It may not be unethical to let Hitler burn. This in fact supports the GCB hierarchy where we ought to find the largest net gain. That gain is not found if we have reasons to believe the murderer will murder again.

The fact that there are people who care for pets or strays, while there are countless humans without access to food, meds or shelter, demonstrably shows that in practice the cases where we value non-humans over humans are extremely common. — Πετροκότσυφας

There are indeed. But ethics is about 'what ought to be', not 'what is'. Would you not say that such people are either crazy, uninformed, or else unethical? And I don't mean just subjective opinion, but objective fact, much like it is an objective fact that Hitler is unethical.

Hitler and his dogs (he had many!) would not save you over his little kittens. Especially, if you're a jew. — Πετροκότσυφας

This is true. But it is also true that Hitler is seen as unethical by a large majority, thereby confirming the ethics based on the GCB.

My point is that while some may claim that people would in every case save humans over non-humans, that's factually wrong. — Πετροκότσυφας

Not in every case indeed. But ethics is about 'what ought to be', not about 'what is'; and the thought experiment is about you, not about other cases in history. You and I are on the same page that some people would indeed not abide to the GCB ethics, but then this entails an unethical behaviour, not an error in the ethics itself.

It may be a picture of someone that you love that you value over a human, animal, or plant. — yatagarasu

Would you choose a pic over a human? Would you not call this rescuer insane?

It could be a valuable plant that you think may be the cure to a terrible illness. Same thing with the human or animal. — yatagarasu

The thought experiment states that the object has no monetary value. Even then, the cure would be to benefit humans, either directly or indirectly. It it does not, then it has no worth. If it does, then this act would abide to the GCB ethics.

When enough people agree on common definitions and common values we call those ideas morals. — yatagarasu

It would follow that slavery was morally good at the time it existed, and that Nazism would be morally good if Hitler had won. But this is absurd.

In real terms: much like many of us anthropomorphizes our own pets, there are people who objectify or animalize other humans. This is not a disease; it is on one hand an aberration, and on the other hand, it can serve as a survival tool, when survival is aided or is only possible by murdering another person. — szardosszemagad

Part of the GCB ethics is to pick the choice that results in the greatest net gain. It may not be unethical to kill someone for the sake of survival, say as self-defence, because it is one human life vs another. Nobody considers an abortion to be unethical it is the only way to save the mother's life.

Which means that, based on how we would behave in this specific situation, he wants to show that we all have an innate knowledge of the GCB. — Πετροκότσυφας

Not so much how 'we would' but how 'we should, or feel we should'; and also how you would. Innate knowledge can only be tested as a personal thing. Sure the fact may be that some other people may behave differently, but it is hard for me to interpret their thought based on the act because I am not them.

I haven't made any of this up — szardosszemagad

I didn't think you had made it up, I just wondered where the information came from. I don't recollect there being that much about it in the Bible.

Being immaterial beings, angels wouldn't need -- and wouldn't have -- any organs at all. They would be no-brainers. No liver, no spleen, no teeth, no anus, no mouth, no skin, no bone. No DNA, no chromosomes, xx or xy, or anything else.

Me? Ironic?