I think value is based in emotion, and therefore irrational by definition. Therefore it’s subjective, and how much value something, or someone, has is impossible to measure objectively. So justification, at least the rational kind, is not applicable.

More or less valuable according to who? You? Me? Us? The animals themselves?

As to your poodle example; it is general expected that mothers will love their children above all others. What if the choice as to who to treat was between her child and some other child who happened to be temporarily in her foster care? Would the reaction not be the much the same if she chose the foster child?

Anyway humans do generally, rightly or wrongly, accord more value to humans than they do to other animals.

This is the problem with trying to use logic as a base for morality as if it's a purely intellectual idea. There is no concrete logic to morality, there is no concrete logic to value - they are the result of the desires, feelings, emotions, interpretations of humans - or a human. Since it is closely tied to emotion and psychology, that's where to look for what makes something moral. If people don't feel anything when watching a bug die, killing one isn't evil, if seeing a baby die has you in tears then killing one is absolutely unforgivable. Likewise, if you see a whale as a tasty dinner then killing one isn't immoral, if whales are beautiful and majestic creatures and the thought of them being killed horrifies you then killing one is immoral. It's pretty much that simple, although, there are exceptions to the rule, not many.

If humans are more valuable, why? — hypericin

'More valuable' is already a loaded question. What value do you put on a human life? You're allowed to buy and sell pets, you're allowed to hunt animals and eat them. Sure, there are those who say that hunting ought to be illegal and the people ought to be vegans, but there are no such laws in reality in most cultures.

? Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable. — hypericin

Who maintains the 'equality of humans and animals' - well, apart from fanatical animal liberationists?

In any case, humans are persons, and are the subject of rights. Again, animal rights activists say that animals have rights, but whilst I can agree that animals should always be treated humanely, I think that rights are only meaningful to beings that are capable of exercising free choice.

Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable. — hypericin

There are not many who would claim that an animal has the same status as a human, partly on a basis of human exceptionalism, but also from the belief that humans, on account of greater neurological complexity, experience (emotional) suffering to a greater level than animals. Including a greater experience of loss and tragedy for the family and friends of the human who dies.

So might say an apologist for the worst tyrants of history.

Humans are presumed to be equal in value. That being so, the basis of this mother's choice must come from personal preference.
Mother or no (imagine your poodle vs the live of someone else's child), the choice of the animal seems monstrous.

So the Holocaust was ok so long as the Nazis felt nothing?

Are you asking if those who organised the Holocaust thought their actions were morally abhorrent? Isn't it self-explanatory by the fact they organised it that the people in charge didn't think that?

What value do you put on a human life? — Wayfarer

Various countries have different estimates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Estimates_of_the_value_of_life

Who maintains the 'equality of humans and animals' - well, apart from fanatical animal liberationists? — Wayfarer

Reasonable people argue against anthropocentrism. Moreover the point of my post is that both answers to the question seem untenable

I think that rights are only meaningful to beings that are capable of exercising free choice. — Wayfarer

So then human rights rests on the philosophically very shaky foundation of free will? Becuase otherwise animals seem to move about as freely as we do.

Becuase otherwise animals seem to move about as freely as we do. — hypericin

They move around fine, but they don't consider their options, post on philosophy forums, or wonder about the meaning of it all.

I'm always amused by the 'anthropocentrism' argument.

Mother or no (imagine your poodle vs the live of someone else's child), the choice of the animal seems monstrous. — hypericin

As I already said:

Anyway humans do generally, rightly or wrongly, accord more value to humans than they do to other animals. — Janus

All animals favour their own kind over other kinds. What more is there to say about the matter? Well, it's quite possible that a person could love, for example, a dog more than they love any other being, human or otherwise, and in that case the dog would have more value to them than any other being, human or otherwise. People often spend a lot more money paying for veterinary treatments for their pets than they would dream of spending to save any stranger. This is not generally considered abnormal as far as I am aware.

I don't buy into the argument that, because we are rational beings, we have more intrinsic value than other kinds of animals; I don't see how that follows. Value is in the eye of the valuer, nowhere else, and so of course it's going to be a general rule that people value people the most, and obviously some people will have, for any given individual, more value, even much more value, than others.

That said, all people have, and I think should have (in principle at least), equal value before the law, but that is a different matter.

I've said this before and it's getting rather tedious to repeat myself but, hey, if it matters, why not?

I'm going to take a Darwinian stance on this. Let's begin...

Our journey will start from our stomachs - what does it look like it's designed to process (digest)? The vermiform appendix, vestigial in the human, indicates that we probably began as herbivores and at some point our diet began to include meat, of other species and likely our own (cannibalism).

Food is, whatever else it might be, that which keeps us alive - its importance can't be overstated. Given this, animals as akin to second-class citizens, of the biosphere - to be exploited to the hilt - seems baked into the very biology of the human species. That, in modern language, means no rights for animals and that their moral status is precisely determined, in a digestive context, as none, nil, N/A.

Enter the brain...the brain, possessed of reasoning, realized quite early on that something about our attitude and behavior towards animals just didn't add up. For instance, we founded morality on suffering/happiness and that, we later discovered, was equally applicable to animals as well. If we were supposed to be good towards each other because we could be happy or we could suffer, we, for that very reason, should also be good towards animals. The logic is inescapbale. Our journey has now ended at our brains.

This is probably not the best picture of humanity but pictures are, by nature, static and fail to do justice to the fluid and dynamic quality that defines life - perhaps the future will judge humanity differently, not as a tyrannical hypocrite that we are today but as pioneers of the moral universe, losing one's way, taking chances, killing, raping, plundering, looting, came with the territory, were part of the job description of pioneers. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope what started off bad will end well for all of us.

. No ...

. Man is not more valuable than animals ...

. Why would man ... whose nature is animalistic ... whose nature is like a seed, a potencial, a Lotus flower ... ready to open it's thousand petals ... be more valuable than animals?

. In fact ... Let us go deeper and deeper ...

. Man ... as such ... is an animal. Man's nature is not yet human beings nature ... because ... to be a human being ... you must know how to be ... rather of thinking what you would like to be ... or what you were ... right? Rather of thinking in terms of your past and in terms of your future ... Rather of thinking How to do ... instead of thinking ... How to be ... and ... What to be. You don't even know How to be in this cosmic universe ... and even then ... you want to know How to do ... and ... What do you want to do ... if you don't even know ... How to be? ...

. All the animals know how to be ... just man ... as an animal ... is ignorant about his own nature ...

. Unless you're absolutely aware that this - the only place ... and now - the only time ... you will never be a human being ... despite having the potential for it ...

So might say an apologist for the worst tyrants of history. — hypericin

And your point?

Are you saying that there is an objective way to measure value? Or are you just searching for a subjective answer? If so, then I’ll oblige.

If humans are more valuable, why? — hypericin

Because humans mean more to me than animals. At least usually that’s the case.

How do you justify this assertion? — hypericin

I don’t. It’s simply a fact of my being.

If humans are more valuable, why? — hypericin

They aren't.

How do you justify this assertion? — hypericin

I don't.

Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable. — hypericin

I distinguish between domesticated animals and wild animals. Domesticated animals are, to me, extensions of us. So, if we re-word the analysis to say "wolf" instead of "poodle" we arrive at the real dilemma for me.

You use the term "valuable." Value can be subjective, or cultural, or evolutionary, or monetary, or god knows what else. Which one presents a more substantial, credible threat to me and mine? Which one presents a more substantial, credible threat to the essential workers I find convenient to rely upon? Clearly, the wolf is more innocuous on both counts. From a market standpoint of supply and demand, with 7.5 billion homo sap, I'd say we are a dime a dozen.

If you consider Scalia's concentric circles of care, then, contrary to what he probably thought, it becomes clear that that which is closer in may actually deserve less care than that which is, at least ostensibly, at first blush, further out. I'm pretty sure a snail darter in some stream some where is better for me and humanity at large than is, say, another bawling brat somewhere getting ready to stick a big, sloppy, rude, inconsiderate, disrespectful footprint into the middle of the Earth's back.

There is an orgy of reason, caring and might, which engenders a concept which justifies "progress" at the expense of all else. This concept is the supreme and overriding sanctity of human life. So sacred has this concept become that in some circles it even reigns over the quality of life itself, nothing withstanding.

The sanctity of human life is shown in many ways, not the least of which is our preoccupation with "safety". Safety for our children who will not know the true essence of adventure; safety for ourselves so we lose our ability to deal with adversity; and safety for others so our insurance rates stay low enough that we can afford to pay for our safety. This preoccupation is epitomized by the statement "Let’s all play safe together".

An objective look at our condition would reveal a constant, overwhelming, unsolicited celebration of humanity. Life has been an unbroken exaltation of the accomplishments of man. It has been nothing but us walking around patting ourselves on the back and raving about the qualities that we supposedly have by choice or character. We give ourselves credit for breathing and existence deserves a medal. The examples are endless. From the "courageous" infant, born with a handicap, a warrior against the odds in a cold cruel world, to the resilient community bouncing back from a flood, as if they had a choice. Local T.V. news stations are famous for fostering this crap. Next to the last fleeting seconds of Sunday Morning, and a trip to the wilderness now and then, when do we ever do anything that is not absorbed in "us"? Even adulation for the natural world is usually tainted by anthropomorphism or artistic impression.

In light of these circumstances, it is no wonder that man has had the "progress" that he has experienced. As long as people pay at least superficial heed to the golden rule, and avoid "unsociable conduct", they can do no wrong. If they can couch their actions in terms of their own or another's benefit then it will be acceptable.

Personally, this “Up Up With People” shit gets me nauseous. If we're so great we would not shit in our nest. So yeah, bring on the wolf and let him at the poodle.

Then, human value must also be gradated on the basis of intelligence, and from there we arrive at eugenics. — hypericin

Only if we've established that humans must be gradated by the same criteria or standards as animals. But it doesn't look like we've arrived there quite yet.

I'm going to take a Darwinian stance on this — TheMadFool

I have another thought. Suppose Darwinian survival advantages include all primates (which'n theory they do). And suppose that those advantages are intrinsically baked into emergent properties (genetically coded). Then suppose that there are mistakes (whatever that means, but just for thought experiment purposes) where some primates get to have something more in the way of self-awareness and intellect.

That being said, why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? Why should we care?

Though seemingly absurd on the surface, are those questions reasonable (treating like cases likely; different cases differently)? And if they are absurd, why?

why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? — 3017amen

We do.

For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? — 3017amen

We do.

Why should we care? — 3017amen

Because an abundance of food allows us to think we are different, and better.

are those questions reasonable — 3017amen

Yes.

And if they are absurd, why? — 3017amen

They are not absurd.

Whenever an invasive species enters a new territory, it has a honeymoon period where food is not an issue. Indigenous species suffer, of course, and often go extinct, but eventually there is, as Wall Street would call it, "an adjustment" or "correction" and sometimes there is a lot of bouncing until things settle. We, with our self-awareness and intellect, have been pushing the due date out and extending the honeymoon period. We are not on the ground yet so we think we are flying. But that is yet to be determined. We could wake up one day and find the decrease in biodiversity has cut our own throat. We weren't flying after all; we were falling and just hadn't hit the ground yet. That's why some have their eye on outer space.

Anyway, on the micro scale, it's been proven, time and again, that people will indeed kill each other for food. Take the food away and a whole host of modern problems (like depression, boredom, etc.) go away and things get real again.

Then suppose that there are mistakes (whatever that means, but just for thought experiment purposes) where some primates get to have something more in the way of self-awareness and intellect. — 3017amen

But maybe there were mistakes where some primates (us for example) got to have something less; where we are missing something, and that is why we don't fit in with all the other creatures, why we are never sated, why we never stop.

I always wondered, if those we perceive to be so wise were really wise (and somehow came upon the secrets of life), why don't they share? If you are sitting on a mountain top in Tibet, all alone, and have figured something out, why not come down and let us all in on the secret? Wouldn't we have world peace and kumbha ya and all that shit?

I then try to conjure up the logical arguments they may have for not sharing. And I get it. And that brings me back to animals. They are just like the wise guy on the hill top. If they know so much, if they are closer to god, if they are tuned in, if they know their place in the order of things, then why then don't they let us in on it? I get why they don't. I'm not as wise as they are, but I get why they don't feel it is incumbent upon them, necessary, or even helpful to try and explain to an idiot, an idiot whose missing the right evolutionary outcomes to comprehend, what the secret of life is.

Animals go about their lives, and if they give us a thought, that thought contains none of the anthropomorphic "feelings" that we would impute to them about us. If they gave us a thought it would be something akin to "Live!" And if and when we ever figure it out, like the guy on the hill top, their simple thought would be "Welcome!"

If they would, they might feel sorry for us, or wish we knew what they knew. But I think they are too busy living, and living in grace. And by living, and living in grace, they are leading by example; they are showing us, they are telling us what we want to know. It's just that we don't know how to listen.

why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? — 3017amen
We do. — James Riley

In what ways? For instance, are you suggesting thatall humans should kill each other to achieve social dominance? And of so, why aren't we all doing that during procreation activities?

And if only some of us are, then it begs the question why not all?

For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? — 3017amen
We do. — James Riley

Really? This seems to make me think of cannibalism. Now that we've gotten past any absurdity, why is cannibalism wrong? For instance, since you said 'yes' to that question ( in your reply), it seems we are stuck with using logic to justify that behavior... (?) .

Why should we care? — 3017amen
Because an abundance of food allows us to think we are different, and better.

are those questions reasonable — 3017amen
Yes. — James Riley

James, I'm not following you on that one. Can you provide a short example that would elucidate this need to be different? You have replied in the affirmative that these questions are reasonable, thank you. Please share your theory.

Whenever an invasive species enters a new territory, it has a honeymoon period where food is not an issue. Indigenous species suffer, of course, and often go extinct, but eventually there is, as Wall Street would call it, "an adjustment" or "correction" and sometimes there is a lot of bouncing until things settle. We, with our self-awareness and intellect, have been pushing the due date out and extending the honeymoon period. We are not on the ground yet so we think we are flying. But that is yet to be determined. We could wake up one day and find the decrease in biodiversity has cut our own throat. We weren't flying after all; we were falling and just hadn't hit the ground yet. That's why some have their eye on outer space. — James Riley

I'm sorry James, perhaps I'm missing the obvious. What are you trying to argue?

Anyway, on the micro scale, it's been proven, time and again, that people will indeed kill each other for food. Take the food away and a whole host of modern problems (like depression, boredom, etc.) go away and things get real again. — James Riley

Okay that's something to work with. Are you saying we have been remiss or negligent in not properly endorsing societal cannibalism of sorts (because we don't see that happening on a large scale)?

Too, why do you feel there are "problems" (what are these problems/what do they consist of)? For example, in your suppositions, if there is a minimal amount of food resources, we still have other people to kill in order to satisfy those needs, so no problem there. And if you are thinking that 'real problems' consist of sentient things like boredom, depression, etc., would that not square with your theories of not valuing human quality of life impulses? In other words, you would not be consistent in your theory that we should value the need to kill each other for food, because sentience and quality of life concerns should be irrelevant there.

Please correct me, but that's my takeaway from your suppositions.

are you suggesting thatall humans should kill each other to achieve social dominance — 3017amen

You dragged in the words "all" and "should" which distracted from your first question "in what ways?" To that, I say look around you: Most conflict is either over food, or the conflict is over secondary considerations permitted by an abundance of food.

Really? This seems to make me think of cannibalism. — 3017amen

Ah, I see: When you saw the words "kill each other for food" you thought "eat each other." Rethink that. We don't eat each other for food. But we kill each other for food.

Please share your theory. — 3017amen

I did.

What are you trying to argue? — 3017amen

Spend some more time with it. I went back and checked it and it's pretty clear. Perhaps it's like your cannibal mistake.

Really? This seems to make me think of cannibalism. — 3017amen
Ah, I see: When you saw the words "kill each other for food" you thought "eat each other." Rethink that. We don't eat each other for food. But we kill each other for food. — James Riley

But your theory states that we should, no?

I guess your specific theory then, using your sense of logic, would not support Darwinism. Thanks, I got my answer.

But your theory states that we should, no? — 3017amen

No. Take humans off the plate. Look at animals only. Eating members of their own species is either an aberration within species, or species specific. Most mammals don't go around eating each other for food. They do, however, fight each other for food all the time. Do you see the difference between fighting for food, over food, and eating each other?

I guess your specific theory then, using your sense of logic, would not support Darwinism. — 3017amen

Wrong. It falls four-square within Darwinism.

No. Take humans off the plate. Look at animals only. Eating members of their own species is either an aberration within species, or species specific. Most mammals don't go around eating each other for food. They do, however, fight each other for food all the time. Do you see the difference between fighting for food, over food, and eating each other? — James Riley

That's the glaring problem with your argument, right? I haven't eliminated humans from the equation, and you didn't either from your theory. That's one reason why I said:

I guess your specific theory then, using your sense of logic, would not support Darwinism. — 3017amen
Wrong. It falls four-square within Darwinism. — James Riley

And so, in reference to the OP, you haven't been able to make the correlation between human value systems and other primates. You must incorporate humans for your theory to wash or become clear, and otherwise for your logic to follow.

Are we not back to the justification for why the treatment of humans and animals should be different? You're saying that they/there shouldn't be.

If they would, they might feel sorry for us, or wish we knew what they knew. But I think they are too busy living, and living in grace. And by living, and living in grace, they are leading by example; they are showing us, they are telling us what we want to know. It's just that we don't know how to listen. — James Riley

Yes, animals live life much better than we do, with much greater inherent wisdom. If that ability to live well were the metric of value, then animals would be more valuable than we are. But animals just are what they are; they too will indiscriminately over-breed and use up all available resources if the situation enables it, and then their populations will be decimated when resources run out, just like what will inevitably happen to us.

We are different only insofar as we are self-conscious, have language which enables culture, history, the arts, science and all the rest that goes along with being discursively self-conscious. We are. most likely, the only beings who conceive of value at all, as opposed to simply living it, and we often end up up with little but dis-value and cold calculation.

That being said, why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? Why should we care? — 3017amen

We would if food was not abundant. It's not a matter of "should care". but " do care" or "don't care", which largely depend on what we can afford to care about, or at least pay lip;service to caring about.

That being said, why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? Why should we care?
— 3017amen

We would if food was not abundant. It's not a matter of "should care". but " do care" or "don't care", which largely depend on what we can afford to care about, or at least pay lip;service to caring about. — Janus

Hi Janus!

Long time no talk hope you are doing well!

Of course we have some unfortunate history to reflect on here. For instance we know in the 17th century during the founding of Jamestown there were horrid acts of cannibalism, as a substitute for a lack of food during that winter crises.

That being said, have you thought thru the supposition insofar as extending it to a value system that supports cannibalism?

I think there are at least two issues to parse there:

1. Is it normal for most people to feel guilty about engaging in cannibalistic acts.

2. Is it normal for most people to gravitate toward eating the meat of humans.

Those questions may seem rhetorical, but un covering simple human motivations for basic needs might shed light on why we are valued more that other primates.

In the spirit of the OP's example, so far what I'm hearing is it doesn't matter whether we kill the poodle or the human in order to survive. Primates are primates, otherwise lower life forms/animals (?).

We are. most likely, the only beings who conceive of value at all, — Janus

I am, unfortunately, forced to agree with your post. But as to the value part, I guess it all depends upon how value is defined or perceived. I know animals conceive of value as I do, at least in many respects.

That's the glaring problem with your argument, right? I haven't eliminated humans from the equation, and you didn't either from your theory. — 3017amen

No, it's not. My argument is sound. I only took humans off the plate which I was proving we were on, simply to try and help you with your mistaken assumption about cannibalism. Animals, like people, are not prone to it. So you see, when you said:

For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? — 3017amen

you obviously had it in your mind "why shouldn't we eat each other for food in order to survive?" But that is not what you said. You said "why shouldn't we kill each other for food . . ." And I said we do. I don't know if you are being purposely obtuse, of if you still don't get the distinction. I hope you do. Humans kill each other for food. Or do you deny this? Literally, wars have been fought over it. And it falls four-square within the Darwin's theory.

And so, in reference to the OP, you haven't been able to make the correlation between human value systems and other primates. — 3017amen

I did exactly that. You misattributed to me an argument about cannibalism that I did not make. I tried to show you that animals alone are no more prone to cannibalism that we are. Thus, we are back to being alike.

You must incorporate humans for your theory to wash or become clear, and otherwise for your logic to follow. — 3017amen

I know. And I did. I only parsed out animals to show you their disinclination toward cannibalism was like ours.

Are we not back to the justification for why the treatment of humans and animals should be different? You're saying that they/there shouldn't be. — 3017amen

We are back to that (and never should have left, but-for your introduction of cannibalism as some strange deflection). And yes, I am saying that they/there shouldn't be. So, if you go back and read my response to the OP, before your cannibalism BS, you will see my argument has been "no difference," and "Darwin applies," and "same value" (if not more value accorded to animals). I hope that's clear enough for you. In short, we are animals.

I posted a separate post regarding the idea that, rather than us having something, we might be missing something, but that post was unrelated to anything you have brought up and was only addressed by Janus.