Are human lives more valuable or of more worth than those of other species?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Since the killing of Harambe, the Western lowland gorilla who was shot dead at the Cincinnati Zoo on Saturday, I've been following the reaction and the debates over it, including reading the comments on the sites reporting it. I've also aired my opinion on Twitter. (My reaction is one of great sorrow and outrage.)

Anyway, many of the comments I've seen say things along the line of "sad that the gorilla was killed, but the boy's safety was paramount" and some comments have been deriding those who proclaim the human kid as the most important being in this equation. Regardless of your opinion on this specific situation, this does call attention to a way of thinking that is prevalent throughout the world and which is promoted by most world religions and popular philosophies - that is, anthropocentrism or speciesism, the idea that humans are inherently of greater worth than all other species. This tends to go hand in hand with the belief that humans are superior than other animals and even that humans are set apart from nature and that we are somehow "not animals".

Personally, I very much disagree with that. I don't think humans are special, superior or more valuable than any other lifeforms. I don't think we were specially made or somehow set apart from other species. I think we're merely the product of biological evolution and natural selection like all other lifeforms on this, and probably other, planets. We're just merely a very tiny strand in an immense web of life that encompasses galaxies. To me, there is no evidence for claims of human specialness or inherent superiority aside from what humans believe or assert about themselves. The universe and the planet existed long before our ape species did and will continue long after we're gone. I do not view myself or my species as more valuable than or superior to a dog, an elephant, a snake, a fish, a whale, a plant, a bacteria or a fungus. It's not low self-esteem or mere misanthropy, either (although I am a misanthrope, but that's mostly due to disappointment and disgust at the behavior, conceit and delusions of arrogance of my species). That's simply the result of myself attempting to hold to a more holistic and cosmic view of reality.

In fact, I think a good argument could be made that the gorilla's life was actually of far more worth than the human boy's life, simply going by numbers. There are almost 7.5 billion humans on the planet but less than 200,000 gorillas of all subspecies in the world. Humans are a dime a dozen and more are arriving on the planet each moment, but gorillas are not. They're going to disappear soon and that's due to human actions. I can understand why a person would be more likely to judge a child as having more importance or worth than a non-human animal. But that's just bias, ultimately, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I do think we've passed the time that we can get away with promoting such views since we're actively destroying the biosphere and leading many species to extinction. Our insane arrogance is literally going to kill us and perhaps a good chunk of the planet, as well, unless we get it in check right away.

Anyway, I'm tired and this is been on my mind a bit. I probably could've presented my opinion in a more in-depth manner, but hopefully this thread will spark some thoughtful discussion.

Your thoughts?

 

[Chakra]

What do you think of the argument that says that if you saved a human over another animal, the human could, later on in his/her life, contribute to the preservation of the said animal's species?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Misplaced or not, I would guess there is an empathetic element. It's far easier to imagine ourselves/our kids/etc in the child's position than in the gorillas.
Can I ask you a question in return? Do you eat meat? Do you step on ants?

I do both, though not deliberately in the case of the ant. So whilst rationalizing it might be more of a challenge, there seems little doubt that I do inherently value human life more. Having said that, I wouldn't always take the side of the human. There was a case more recently where a deliberately provoked zoo lion attacked a man, and was killed in trying to rescue the man. Shooting the man would seem more humane all around if someone had to die, but it's hard to understand why anyone needed to die in this case.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-in-chilean-zoo-is-recovering-say-authorities

The man was delusional, so all the more reason to protect him (the zoo should have had much better safety in place). But the policy is to kill lions who have attacked humans, presumably because they have crossed a line, and are therefore more likely to cross it in the future.

 

[Tumah]

Is your cousin's life more valuable than your pet dog?

 

[Madhuri]

Worthiness and value are completely subjective. Worthy to whom? Valuable to whom?
Most species give greater value to those in the same species. This probably comes down to survival. Similarly, humans tend to see greater value and worthiness in other humans... with exceptions, such as if the human in question is going to threaten our survival or is disliked for some other reason (example of how relative value is).

I personally don't see more value or worthiness in any one species over another. I tend to base how someone or any creature is treated on what their experience might be. For the most part, I would save a human life over that of an animal simply because I think that humans comprehend and experience suffering to a greater extent. How that compares to the experience of a gorilla, however, is probably not too different.

In this particular example of the zoo, keep in mind that the zoo has a greater responsibility to the public than it does to its animals. And also consider that the animals are treated property, which make them 'lower' than customers. So if the zoo is going to have to choose between saving the life of its property or customer (and also its reputation...), then it's obviously going to choose to save the human.

We live in a world that still very much objectifies animals. As a whole, humanity gives itself utmost importance. This is despite the fact that we are by far the most dangerous species on the planet, most likely to cause the destruction of ourselves and everything else. It's natural for our species to give itself more value but like I said before, value is subjective. There's no right answer.

 

[Madhuri]

What do you think of the argument that says that if you saved a human over another animal, the human could, later on in his/her life, contribute to the preservation of the said animal's species?

Yeh but in reality the human is more likely to contribute to the destruction of that animal's species.

 

[lovesong]

Are human lives more valuable or of more worth than those of other species?

In the grand scheme of things, not at all. To other humans, society says yes but it varies by person and situation.

 

[psychoslice]

No, all creatures are equal, if humans did not exist on this planet it would do very well indeed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There's no contest. Human life, especially young are paramount. Tragic as it is, if the gorilla was going after the boy and grevious harm is inevitable with no recourse, then shoot the animal.

 

[BSM1]

Absolutely. End of discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since the killing of Harambe, the Western lowland gorilla who was shot dead at the Cincinnati Zoo on Saturday, I've been following the reaction and the debates over it, including reading the comments on the sites reporting it. I've also aired my opinion on Twitter. (My reaction is one of great sorrow and outrage.)

Anyway, many of the comments I've seen say things along the line of "sad that the gorilla was killed, but the boy's safety was paramount" and some comments have been deriding those who proclaim the human kid as the most important being in this equation. Regardless of your opinion on this specific situation, this does call attention to a way of thinking that is prevalent throughout the world and which is promoted by most world religions and popular philosophies - that is, anthropocentrism or speciesism, the idea that humans are inherently of greater worth than all other species. This tends to go hand in hand with the belief that humans are superior than other animals and even that humans are set apart from nature and that we are somehow "not animals".

Personally, I very much disagree with that. I don't think humans are special, superior or more valuable than any other lifeforms. I don't think we were specially made or somehow set apart from other species. I think we're merely the product of biological evolution and natural selection like all other lifeforms on this, and probably other, planets. We're just merely a very tiny strand in an immense web of life that encompasses galaxies. To me, there is no evidence for claims of human specialness or inherent superiority aside from what humans believe or assert about themselves. The universe and the planet existed long before our ape species did and will continue long after we're gone. I do not view myself or my species as more valuable than or superior to a dog, an elephant, a snake, a fish, a whale, a plant, a bacteria or a fungus. It's not low self-esteem or mere misanthropy, either (although I am a misanthrope, but that's mostly due to disappointment and disgust at the behavior, conceit and delusions of arrogance of my species). That's simply the result of myself attempting to hold to a more holistic and cosmic view of reality.

In fact, I think a good argument could be made that the gorilla's life was actually of far more worth than the human boy's life, simply going by numbers. There are almost 7.5 billion humans on the planet but less than 200,000 gorillas of all subspecies in the world. Humans are a dime a dozen and more are arriving on the planet each moment, but gorillas are not. They're going to disappear soon and that's due to human actions. I can understand why a person would be more likely to judge a child as having more importance or worth than a non-human animal. But that's just bias, ultimately, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I do think we've passed the time that we can get away with promoting such views since we're actively destroying the biosphere and leading many species to extinction. Our insane arrogance is literally going to kill us and perhaps a good chunk of the planet, as well, unless we get it in check right away.

Anyway, I'm tired and this is been on my mind a bit. I probably could've presented my opinion in a more in-depth manner, but hopefully this thread will spark some thoughtful discussion.

Your thoughts?

Let me put it this way:

If my house is on fire and I only have time to save my wife or my two cats, I'm saving my wife.

 

[fantome profane]

I sense in the question that you are trying to suggest some kind of objective value. But value is always subjective.

I voted yes in the poll, but that means that human life is more valuable to me. This is because I am human (though there are some who think otherwise). I am not suggesting that there is a absolute objective value to the human life. That gorilla who died may not have agreed with me. If we could ask Harambe his answer would likely have been different. He might have said his life and the lives of his fellow gorillas were more valuable than that little human boy. I respect that view, but my value system is different.

This is not to say I don't place a high value on the lives of animals, I do. And I place a particularly high value on our close relatives such as chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. When I say this death was tragic, that is not just lip-service. It saddens me greatly that such a beautiful creature was killed. But if it were up to me I would have done exactly the same thing.

 

[Chakra]

Yeh but in reality the human is more likely to contribute to the destruction of that animal's species.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Objectively, humans and other animals are the same, imho. If we want to take it a step further (getting philosophical here!), then ants and bees are more valuable than humans as without the former, the entire ecosystem would collapse.

 

[George-ananda]

How can a gorilla exhibit be designed so that it is even possible for a child to fall in? Does anyone know in this case? Did something accidently get left open?

Yes, humans are more important. Just ask cows, chickens, pigs, etc..

Edit: I read that he 'crawled through a barrier'. If that is possible for a four-year old to do, then the zoo is clearly the main entity in the wrong.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What do you think of the argument that says that if you saved a human over another animal, the human could, later on in his/her life, contribute to the preservation of the said animal's species?

That's a tough question. I would try to save both, if I could. That's the best answer I can give, really.

Misplaced or not, I would guess there is an empathetic element. It's far easier to imagine ourselves/our kids/etc in the child's position than in the gorillas.
Can I ask you a question in return? Do you eat meat? Do you step on ants?

I don't see what eating meat has to do with this. Yes, I eat meat, but I don't see humans as morally superior or more evolved than a wolf or a tiger so there's no ethical issue with humans eating meat, as we're just another animal. Lifeforms survive by preying on other lifeforms. That's just how it goes. Sometimes humans get eaten by other animals and we are consumed and broken down by living creatures after we die, anyway.

As for stepping on ants, I try not to, as they're not bothering me and I quite like ants. I don't even kill them when they get into my house. I only kill insects that are destructive or hurting me (like the roaches and bedbugs I'm having a problem with now). Otherwise, if you're not bothering me, I won't bother you. (If a human bothered me enough, I might kill them, too. I try to be consistent. )

I do both, though not deliberately in the case of the ant. So whilst rationalizing it might be more of a challenge, there seems little doubt that I do inherently value human life more. Having said that, I wouldn't always take the side of the human. There was a case more recently where a deliberately provoked zoo lion attacked a man, and was killed in trying to rescue the man. Shooting the man would seem more humane all around if someone had to die, but it's hard to understand why anyone needed to die in this case.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-in-chilean-zoo-is-recovering-say-authorities

The man was delusional, so all the more reason to protect him (the zoo should have had much better safety in place). But the policy is to kill lions who have attacked humans, presumably because they have crossed a line, and are therefore more likely to cross it in the future.

I know about that story. I thought it was awful that they killed the lions. I'd rather that they kill the idiot. He apparently wanted to die, anyway.

Is your cousin's life more valuable than your pet dog?

Oh, that's an easy one to answer - my dog's life is far more valuable. I hate my cousins and am estranged from them, same with most of my blood relatives. They're trash. So if my dog and my cousins were in danger, I'd save my dog, no question.

There's no contest. Human life, especially young are paramount. Tragic as it is, if the gorilla was going after the boy and grevious harm is inevitable with no recourse, then shoot the animal.

Except that wasn't the case in that instance, but I'm not trying to debate about that case.

Why is the life of a human more important? I'm looking for philosophical reasoning.

Absolutely. End of discussion.

Nope. Provide your reasoning, please.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well philosophically, how is life exactly being valued here? What's type of yardstick is used to measure life?
Greater and lesser numbers of population? Intellegence?
Ferocity?
Helplessness?
Appearances?

Life seems to contain no quantifiable value when looking at living nature itself by which we remain indistinguised and coincides with the strong instinct embedded in all living organisms for the purposes of preservation from danger and adversary through flight or fight response.

I don't think philosophical discussion can override instinct as it seems to be a natural valve and control among predator and pray relationships where lines can be blurred towards taking advantage and being disadvantaged overall.

The gorilla was not shot over philosophical misgivings. It was shot because it presented an immediate unpredictable danger.

We like any species, value It's own preservation as a whole.

 

[Quintessence]

I think that specism needs to be teased apart from placing value due to relationships. There is a distinction between valuing human animals over all other animals due to specism (e.g., saying something is unimportant merely because it is not human) and valuing one creature over another creature due to the relationship one has with that creature.

 

[Pudding]

In fact, I think a good argument could be made that the gorilla's life was actually of far more worth than the human boy's life, simply going by numbers. There are almost 7.5 billion humans on the planet but less than 200,000 gorillas of all subspecies in the world. Humans are a dime a dozen and more are arriving on the planet each moment, but gorillas are not. They're going to disappear soon and that's due to human actions. I can understand why a person would be more likely to judge a child as having more importance or worth than a non-human animal. But that's just bias, ultimately, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I do think we've passed the time that we can get away with promoting such views since we're actively destroying the biosphere and leading many species to extinction. Our insane arrogance is literally going to kill us and perhaps a good chunk of the planet, as well, unless we get it in check right away.

If that child is your beloved child, do you think the child's life more important or the gorilla's life more important when the gorilla trying to attack the child?
If to save the child the only way is to kill the gorilla, will you save the child and let the gorilla be kill, or instead let the gorilla to take the child's life and prevent anyone to kill the gorilla to save the child?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If that child is your beloved child, do you think the child's life more important or the gorillas's life more important when the gorilla trying to attack the child?
If to save the child's life the only way is to kill the gorillas, will you save the child's life and let the gorilla be kill or instead let the gorilla to take the child's life and prevent anyone to kill the gorilla to save the child?

First of all, I wouldn't let my child get into an animal enclosure in the first place. I would not go to the zoo with a large number of kids that I can't keep track of on my own. I would keep either my eyes or my hands on the kid when they're close to a habitat. I would also teach my kids about animals and how to behave around them in the first place. So they would be instilled with respect for them in the first place. I'm an animist, so I would expect my child to treat an animal with respect just like they would treat another human. If they didn't, they'd be in trouble with me. They would also be taught basic ways of behaving with wild animals, if they're in such a situation, such as to stay calm, no fast movements, be still, etc.

So there is no conceivable situation in which a gorilla or other wild animal would be endangering any child in my care in the first place. That is, unless the kid decides to be an insolent little brat like the kid in the recent example and decides to go into the animal's habitat in violation of the rules and warnings from the adults around them.

But if my child was in danger somehow, I would want them to try tranqs first. My concern for a human child doesn't override my concern for the non-human being. They still matter. I would be angry if they just up and shot the animal dead.

 

[Penumbra]

I mostly view it in terms of capacity for conscious thought and the ability to suffer or be happy.

For example, oysters lack a brain. Their well-being does not particularly concern me. A gorilla's life surely does.