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

[Pudding]

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.

If after your attempt to always protect and educate your child, one day the child unfortunately still end up in a situation to be attack by a non-human animal which the attack can take the child's life, do you think the child's life more important or the animal's life more important when the animal trying to attack the child?

If to save the child the only way is to kill the animal, will you save the child and let the animal be kill or instead let the animal to take the child's life and prevent anyone from killing the animal to save the child?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If after your attempt to always protect and educate your child, one day the child unfortunately still end up in a situation to be attack by a non-human animal which the attack can take the child's life, do you think the child's life more important or the animal's life more important when the animal trying to attack the child?

If to save the child's life the only way is to kill the animal, will you save the child's life and let the animal be kill or instead let the animal to take the child's life and prevent anyone from killing the animal to save the child?

If it's honestly a life or death situation? Put the animal down, but do what you can not to kill them. I would still view the death of the animal as very sad, personally.

 

[Pudding]

If it's honestly a life or death situation? Put the animal down, but do what you can not to kill them. I would still view the death of the animal as very sad, personally.

Does that means the child's life is more important than the animal's life?

 

[SkylarHunter]

I just don't understand why they had to kill the poor animal. Don't they have guns with darts to make animals fall asleep instead? And what kind of security do they have that allowed for the kid to fall in there in the first place?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Does that means the child's life is more important than the animal's life?

On which level? Objectively? No. Depending on the emotional bond I have with the child, they would be subjectively more important to my life.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I just don't understand why they had to kill the poor animal. Don't they have guns with darts to make animals fall asleep instead? And what kind of security do they have that allowed for the kid to fall in there in the first place?

Yeah, they should've tranqed the gorilla. As for how the kid got in, he actually sneaked into the enclosure. An adult tried to stop him, but he wouldn't listen.

 

[Pudding]

On which level? Objectively? No. Depending on the emotional bond I have with the child, they would be subjectively more important to my life.

Assume your emotional bond with the child is very deep and you love the child very much.

The child's life more important, if you must choose one life between the child or animal, you would rather choose to save the child.

The animal's life more important, if you must choose one life between the child or animal, you would rather choose to let the animal continue to live when his attack will take the child's life.

Child's life more important?
Animal's life more important?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Assume your emotional bond with the child is very deep and you love the child very much.

The child's life more important, if you must choose one life between the child or animal, you would rather choose to save the child.

The animal's life more important, if you must choose one life between the child or animal, you would rather choose to let the animal continue to live when his attack will take the child's life.

Child's life more important?
Animal's life more important?

I think I've already answered your question. What more do you want me to say?

 

[Pudding]

I think I've already answered your question. What more do you want me to say?

You mean your previous answer imply the child's life more important?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You mean your previous answer imply the child's life more important?

That, and here: "If it's honestly a life or death situation? Put the animal down, but do what you can not to kill them. I would still view the death of the animal as very sad, personally."

And just because one human may be subjectively more important to me than a non-human animal, that doesn't mean I think that humans in general are more valuable than non-humans.

 

[Pudding]

That, and here: "If it's honestly a life or death situation? Put the animal down, but do what you can not to kill them. I would still view the death of the animal as very sad, personally."

And just because one human may be subjectively more important to me than a non-human animal, that doesn't mean I think that humans in general are more valuable than non-humans.

Okay thanks for the answer, for you, the child's life is more important than the animal's life.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ultimately, I don't see either is more valuable or less valuable but equal. When nature is in harmony, everything from the largest of organisms down to the tiniest of microbes play their role in keeping this harmonious state.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay thanks for the answer, for you, the child's life is more important than the animal's life.

In that very hypothetical situation.

 

[Pudding]

In that very hypothetical situation.

In that very hypothetical situation, the child's life is more important than the animal's life.

But your op said that:

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.

Is your opinion that the child's life is more important than the non-human animal's life, a bias too?

Since you 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, doesn't that means you've also passed the time that you can get away with promoting such views that the child's life more important than the non-human animal's life?

 

[Sees]

Depends on the specific ones involved to determine how I would truly feel about it...I would definitely choose a human over a gorilla the vast majority of the time though.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In that very hypothetical situation, the child's life is more important than the animal's life.

But your op said that:


Is your opinion that the child's life is more important than the non-human animal's life, a bias too?

Since you 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, doesn't that means you shouldn't think the child's life more important than the non-human animal's life?

Um, no. You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. You asked me about my thoughts on a hypothetical individual situation. When it comes to individual situations, that's complicated and emotional bonds/biases definitely play a part. That's just an instinctual thing. But on a larger, species-wise level, I do not have a general bias in favor of humans above other species.

 

[Acim]

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.

Do you see connection between this thinking and the story of the child at the zoo?

_____________________

Separating the rest of my post from that question. I see what you are asking as philosophical / general. I think all physical life is equal / neutral in terms of value. But that's me being philosophical. A mosquito lands on me to eat, and I may allow that cause of my philosophical position. I feel bugs gotta eat to, and this won't kill me. But I'm inconsistent on that front, sometimes I'll swat it away, other times I'll try to get away and if it pursues, I'll end its physical life. Some days, I'll just end it right away when it lands on me.

I see it in practical terms as situational. I think the whole hindsight thing is interesting for discussion, but poor in terms of judging people based on what the decision was in the moment. With the zoo situation, I think they are far more emotional about the loss of the ape then pretty much all other onlookers, but are being treated like they don't care at all, and never did - only keeping the animal in captivity for human entertainment. I find that all disingenuous when I see that being presented. It possibly has degrees of truth, but seems to purposively neglect any positive traits about zoo keepers / management. Plainly speaking, I think it sucks.

I like to entertain, on hindsight, other ways of handling the ape situation that would've been less drastic, but I think it is easy to do that on hindsight. Put any person in the situation, and I'd love to be entertained by how that actually would react, especially if the option of shooting the ape is off the table. Lots of hypothetical outcomes, and I think all would be second guessed regardless of how it played out. But still would be entertaining to see it play out, especially if say PETA rep is on the scene and in charge with the ethical treatment of the ape and the child. I would find that most enjoyable. Perhaps less enjoyable when they have to deal with the fallout in any conceivable error they might make in the situation.

IMO, all this does go back to the idea that in order to maintain our physical life, we do ingest something that was once alive (be it plant or animal). And justify its killing on the act we need to eat. Also will justify if it is bothersome / attacking us, it is worthy of being harmed/killed. That to me is the talking points. The situational items are offshoots of that. The value stuff is subjective, but can be taught to us to be more uniform in our responses and collective understandings. Like, if driving a car and I run over a human (by accident), it would be best to stop and take responsibility. Probably the same is true for say a deer or dog. I say probably cause I am not 100% sure. With a squirrel, less sure. Running over ants in my car, I am almost 100% sure is not a problem for anyone, but the ant species. But given the topic of this thread, wouldn't it plausibly be equally devastating to run over ants as it is to run over a human?

 

[Pudding]

Um, no. You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. You asked me about my thoughts on a hypothetical individual situation. When it comes to individual situations, that's complicated and emotional bonds/biases definitely play a part. That's just an instinctual thing. But on a larger, species-wise level, I do not have a general bias in favor of humans above other species.

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.

Does the "judge a child as having more importance or worth than a non-human animal" an individual situations or also can consider it from a larger and species-wise level?

Does your statement of "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" can apply to the situation "judge a child as having more importance or worth than a non-human animal" (the animal's attack could have take the child's life)?

 

[Onyx]

If the gorilla killed the boy first, the irresponsible parents could possibly sue the zoo for millions of dollars. They might take advantage of the situation and file a lawsuit anyway, simply because the incident occurred.

They should have to pay the zoo back for the trouble, but that won't happen.

 

[Acim]

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.

Wasn't going to say this but given the whole legal stuff coming up in other posts, I would say that I found something we possibly disagree on (strongly).

IMO, it is clearly the child that is the main entity in the wrong. If the child didn't know any better, that would be the primary wrong. Doesn't deserve punishment, though observably that was already received. I don't see Zoo as deserving zero responsibility, but don't see the zoo as promoting children to climb through barriers. If they did, then they would be the main entity in the wrong.