• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Are humans more valuable than other species?

  • Total voters
    27
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Pudding said:
You say no one is argue a human's lifes worth less than any an individual of any other species.
I provide the quotes of 2 posters who argue the human lifes worth less than that animal's life.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.
 
S

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
Godobeyer said:
I remember the hadith when whore found a dog thursty to death,so she drink him.
Click to expand...

Holy sh... shish kabob!

How did she drink him, made him juice?

Ah, yes, I see your point. I do sympathize with the gorilla, but I can never understand how that can be a justification to make such disturbing posts I read!
 
Godobeyer

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
BSM1

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Smart_Guy said:
In reply directly to the title:

Yes, humans' are! That however does not mean animals' lives have no value.

To be honest, I think some posts are really disturbing, at least the way they are put. I'm getting the impression if I'm dying by the walk side and a dog is dying right next to me and there is only a chance to help one, some people would help the dog instead (even if they didn't know I'm a Middle Eastern Muslim, haha... err... ehhm). You need to understand that there are always priorities in life. Also, I know subjective thinking affected those disturbing posts, and those "could" have their own rules. But to generalize that a human's life is not more valuable, like in the poll, I believe is really disturbing and inhumane in at least actual practice.

As for the gorilla talk:

I did not follow the whole thing, so I'm not just gonna give a judgement. But if there was a risk, even if so very slim, that the child's life was in danger, then it is good they took the shot. This is not a PG11 Disney movie or cartoon of some sort, this is real life. I don't really completely agree with the shot for now, but I don't blame them for it too. How would you feel at that moment if it was your child?
Click to expand...

I would definitely save you, SG. And then I would steal that neat vest you're wearing...just sayin'...
 
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
IMO this is an extremely complex question from many perspectives. Several posters have committed straw man rebuttals, and those arguments are counter productive. So it's a distraction to conflate dogs with gorillas, and it's a distraction to look at ethical dilemmas from a parent's perspective. For example, when ethicists consider situations like the trolley car dilemma, they do not typically introduce parents into the situation.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Tomorrows_Child said:
Ok, make that argument then. Tell me why human life, especially that of a defenseless child is worth less than the life of a wild animal.
Click to expand...
I already stated my case that we are equals.
Tumah said:
That could be. But as thinking beings, I'd think that we can look beyond our individual circumstances to answer the general question: is family more important that a pet?
Click to expand...
I'd save my dog over most of my family without even thinking about it.
BSM1 said:
Unfortunately there was no other viable choice, the animal had to be neutralized quickly because you cannot reason with a wild animal.
Click to expand...
Except Harambe wasn't acting aggressively. That boy would be dead if he was. Gorillas are intelligent social animals, and social animals often do perceive vulnerability in children and an urgency to protect and take care of them, even if it's of another species. Even dogs are more gentle with human children and will put themselves between a child and danger. If Harambe was going to be aggressive and a danger to the child, the child would not have survived.
Pudding said:
Okay anyone voluntarily to put their 4 years old child in that situation and calmly say their child's life is not under the threatening to be kill by the gorilla?
Click to expand...
If I had a four year old in that situation I would say that it is extremely likely they are in no immediate danger. Gorillas are not predators, they are vegetarian, and unless frightened or challenged they just don't pose a danger.
Godobeyer said:
Do you mean YES gorilla is dangerous animal ?
Click to expand...
They really aren't. They are one of the more peaceful primates, and certainly far less dangerous than humans and chimpanzees.
BSM1 said:
I have absolutely no problem with the extinction of any species on this planet. The disappearance of Silver Back Gorillas, Kangeroo Rats, Snail Darters, or any other species you care to name will not affect or change my life in any noticeable degree. Species appear and disappear every day and yet we humans still breath, eat, and tilt at windmills.
Click to expand...
Until we've gone about our new ways and have killed off so much wild life and vegetation that the quality of life for us is greatly diminished. Yes, species go extinct, but mass extinctions (and we are directly responsible for the ongoing mass extinction) have dire and devastating consequences for remaining life forms.
Smart_Guy said:
How would you feel at that moment if it was your child?
Click to expand...
I would be outraged that the zoo killed Harambe because he was not acting aggressive or posing a threat or danger to the child. He wouldn't have stood the child up (something that is even very basic for our own behavior in regards towards concern for another and helping them), but rather he would have shattered bones, ruptured organs, and it would have been very nasty, very ugly, and very gruesome.
icehorse said:
So it's a distraction to conflate dogs with gorillas,
Click to expand...
Not really. Gorillas are wrongly feared and severely misunderstood by many, as are many breeds of dogs. They both tend to suffer from wrong and unfair labels of "danger" and "aggression." Such as rottweilers. They are absolutely wonderful with children, they are big babies themselves, a great family pet (provided you have adequate space for a dog that size), yet just like the gorilla, the ignorant masses have decided they are dangerous and aggressive.
 
BSM1

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Shadow Wolf said:
I already stated my case that we are equals.

I'd save my dog over most of my family without even thinking about it.

Except Harambe wasn't acting aggressively. That boy would be dead if he was. Gorillas are intelligent social animals, and social animals often do perceive vulnerability in children and an urgency to protect and take care of them, even if it's of another species. Even dogs are more gentle with human children and will put themselves between a child and danger. If Harambe was going to be aggressive and a danger to the child, the child would not have survived.

If I had a four year old in that situation I would say that it is extremely likely they are in no immediate danger. Gorillas are not predators, they are vegetarian, and unless frightened or challenged they just don't pose a danger.

They really aren't. They are one of the more peaceful primates, and certainly far less dangerous than humans and chimpanzees.

Until we've gone about our new ways and have killed off so much wild life and vegetation that the quality of life for us is greatly diminished. Yes, species go extinct, but mass extinctions (and we are directly responsible for the ongoing mass extinction) have dire and devastating consequences for remaining life forms.

I would be outraged that the zoo killed Harambe because he was not acting aggressive or posing a threat or danger to the child. He wouldn't have stood the child up (something that is even very basic for our own behavior in regards towards concern for another and helping them), but rather he would have shattered bones, ruptured organs, and it would have been very nasty, very ugly, and very gruesome.

Not really. Gorillas are wrongly feared and severely misunderstood by many, as are many breeds of dogs. They both tend to suffer from wrong and unfair labels of "danger" and "aggression." Such as rottweilers. They are absolutely wonderful with children, they are big babies themselves, a great family pet (provided you have adequate space for a dog that size), yet just like the gorilla, the ignorant masses have decided they are dangerous and aggressive.
Click to expand...


I would try to answer your post but if you believe that child was in no danger then I feel I would be wasting my breath.
 
S

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
...but rather he would have shattered bones, ruptured organs, and it would have been very nasty, very ugly, and very gruesome.
Click to expand...

There is no telling that wouldn't have happened if no effective action was taken. No matter what, the risk is there. Anything wrong the child could have done to provoke the animal could have been their end. It could have gone perfectly safe, I agree, but that's just a chance and a wishful thinking that even I thought of, but in the end couldn't let my heart decide, but my mind.

Don't get me wrong, what happened to the beast is a tragedy no matter how we look at it, too, but as long as there is risk in that situation, that measure was the right thing to do. Unless perhaps you're seeing there was a perfect zero risk?
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
BSM1 said:
I have absolutely no problem with the extinction of any species on this planet. The disappearance of Silver Back Gorillas, Kangeroo Rats, Snail Darters, or any other species you care to name will not affect or change my life in any noticeable degree. Species appear and disappear every day and yet we humans still breath, eat, and tilt at windmills.
Click to expand...
That's just a disgusting, completely cold viewpoint to hold. It's also completely wrong and ridiculous:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/
http://science.opposingviews.com/extinctions-other-creatures-affect-humans-directly-23240.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-penguins-dinosaurs-asteroid-sydney-booktalk/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...isk-from-diseases-as-biodiversity-disappears/

We're all connected. All of life forms an immense tapestry. One strand being weakened or destroyed threatens the entire tapestry. If you're okay with mass extinctions, then you're okay with the destruction of the biosphere. Since you're okay with that, you might as well commit suicide now.
 
BSM1

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Saint Frankenstein said:
That's just a disgusting, completely cold viewpoint to hold. It's also completely wrong and ridiculous:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/
http://science.opposingviews.com/extinctions-other-creatures-affect-humans-directly-23240.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-penguins-dinosaurs-asteroid-sydney-booktalk/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...isk-from-diseases-as-biodiversity-disappears/

We're all connected. All of life forms an immense tapestry. One strand being weakened or destroyed threatens the entire tapestry. If you're okay with mass extinctions, then you're okay with the destruction of the biosphere. Since you're okay with that, you might as well commit suicide now.
Click to expand...

Rubbish...
 
Walter Russell

Walter Russell

Member
The question is relative . It depends what species you ask.
Humans certainly have greater potential but every species is equally important in relation to its purpose.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Smart_Guy said:
There is no telling that wouldn't have happened if no effective action was taken. No matter what, the risk is there. Anything wrong the child could have done to provoke the animal could have been their end. It could have gone perfectly safe, I agree, but that's just a chance and a wishful thinking that even I thought of, but in the end couldn't let my heart decide, but my mind.
Click to expand...
That's just very doubtful it would have turned out bad for the boy. Harambe carried him away from the noise and screams of the crowd and even stood him up. If a human does those things, we would easily see the non-aggressive and concerned nature over such actions, but because of our fear of certain animals many saw the actions of possibly endangering the child, even though there were no indications Harambe had any intentions of doing so.
BSM1 said:
What other species could give an answer to any question you ask?
Click to expand...
Some birds, elephants, dolphins, and some other species have been studied scientifically, and they do hear, they do listen, they do reason, and they do answer and respond. It's also been studied that humans and dogs are very capable of understanding each other, including questions and answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top