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

[Quintessence]

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?

So in other words, you're asking SF to consider adopting blanket prejudice instead of assessing things on a case-by-case basis? I wish I could say I found such lines of thinking surprising.

 

[Pudding]

So in other words, you're asking SF to consider adopting blanket prejudice instead of assessing things on a case-by-case basis? I wish I could say I found such lines of thinking surprising.

Where have i asking SF to consider adopting blanket prejudice instead of assessing things on a case by case basis?

 

[Quintessence]

Don't know what strawman you're talking about.

How else is one supposed to interpret "consider it from a larger and species-wise level?" If one is making judgements about an entire species instead of on a case-by-case basis, explain to me how that is anything other than specism?

 

[George-ananda]

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.

What I'm saying is that we all know that little kids will be little kids and like to climb. The exhibit should be constructed in such a way that that there is no way a little kid could ever sneak into the exhibit even if he tries his hardest. The zoo is terribly irresponsible if that is not the case. I am confused by your post as to where we disagree.

 

[Pudding]

How else is one supposed to interpret "consider it from a larger and species-wise level?" If one is making judgements about an entire species instead of on a case-by-case basis, explain to me how that is anything other than specism?

SF use the example of child and non-human animal then next sentence he later explain to me is to be mean on a larger and species-wise level.

I ask him does he think whether the situation "judge a child as having more importance or worth than a non-human animal" an individual situations or not, or that situation can also consider it from a larger and species-wise level.

That is a question for him, not a demand to ask him to consider adopting blanket prejudice instead of assessing things on a case-by-case basis.

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.

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.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

I am sure everyone agrees with this. I certainly do. This was an absolute tragedy.

Yeah, they should've tranqed the gorilla.

The problem is that for a gorilla of this size the tranquilizer takes time to work. In the meantime you now have a gorilla who has been shot with a dart. It hurts. The gorilla would be angry and threatened. And there is a small boy in his grip. You need to understand the power of these creatures. He could crush that boys skull like you crush an egg. He could rip that child in two. Tranquilizing was not an option. I'm sorry. I really am sorry.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's surprising to find parent accountability severely lacking in this discussion so far. Did they even not know where their child was and what he was doing?

 

[C-Faith]

It's surprising to find parent accountability severely lacking in this discussion so far. Did they even not know where their child was and what he was doing?

Yes the parents could have been more accountable, but ultimately the human life is more valuable than the animal life.

End of story.........

 

[gnomon]

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?

I have to say I'm very unimpressed and hope for something more in depth.

The population argument is the most unconvincing. If I had a child of mine accidentally find themselves facing the last gorilla on this planet and I had to tear that gorillas throat out with my own teeth to save my child I would do it. And not give a good gad damn about. Just as any other animal on this planet would.

So I find your population paragraph in order to justify the life of this particular gorilla, with mixed reports about it protecting the child and some saying it slammed the child against a wall and dragged it through water, particularly unnecessary and rather worthless. No matter the population of either species the parents of the child will do whatever it takes to preserve their offspring which is an evolutionary undertaking. Morals of overall habitat protection do not matter and never have for the billions of years of this planets existence.

So what was this captured gorillas life actually worth? Probably worth more than mine but that is beside the point. What was it actually worth? Who are you to declare it was worth more than the boy? And who am I to argue otherwise?

That's tonight's dilemma. I'm drinking so figure it out yourselves. But the statement that humans are a dime a dozen! Take that up with the numerous females across all cultures sold into sexual slavery and the fact that human slavery is greater now than it was during the trans-atlantic slave trade. You might want to rephrase that remark. But otherwise...I think you might be on to something. Just consider your phrasing.

 

[idav]

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.

I got some of your insight which was pretty helpful in another thread on this subject. Before I start I gotta say the story of the gorilla almost brought me to tears. On that note I would like to address this argument.

I probably have a bias because of having a kid but I gotta say that I would not condone the killing of the animal unless it was absolutely necessary, like Harambe actually attacking someone.

If it between killing a gorilla vs my boy just guess who I would pick. That isn't really fair but the truth.

You bring up a good point worth consideration but I couldn't honestly adhere to that cause of emotional reasons. I feel like killing Harambe was not necessary in the first place though and it wouldn't have to come to that.

The kid was in there relatively unharmed for 10 minutes, seems to me there should have been an alternative.

So to this particular argument let me ask something. If it were between you and an endangered species should a person take a life or sacrifice for a greater good? That is a tough one but I will say I would be more willing to put my life on the line and jump down into the pit myself than to put one of my young ones in danger.

 

[illykitty]

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.

Well even if you don't agree with the ethical arguments, there's the environmental ones. There are many ways that meat eating does favour humans above other species, especially when today's practice involves bulldozing rainforests for cattle ranching (and growing soy, the majority goes to animal feed), causing countless species to die.

I could give more arguments but this isn't the thread for it.

As for your OP, perhaps they should have tried other things first. I'm no expert so maybe the way they reacted was truly the best thing they could have done. I saw your reply to Pudding, you would save a child that was dear to you, so how is this different? All parties were irresponsible, but do you doubt the mother loved her child? This is an individual case, saving one child over a gorilla isn't going to cause that much damage on the great scheme of things, unlike the widespread damage we're causing...

Cutting down forests, oil spills, farming animals for fur, killing animals to "cull" them (when there's alternatives), using pesticides that is mass killing bees, etc. To me that is the real display of favouring humans above animals. Especially when alternatives are available (I do not take into account situations with no alternatives, such as with remote tribes, to which we're destroying their home as well, all for the sake of a cheeseburger).

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Of course. To argue that the life of a Gorilla is worth more than the life of a human child is beyond madness, it is sick and twisted. AN illness of privileged modern society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's sad and depressing that this debate (thinking in terms of IRL) hardly revolve around the facts, which is that a tranquilizer dart would have been a terrible idea (as that would have spooked Harambe), but if he was going to be aggressive and a threat towards the child, he probably would have ripped him apart when he first touched him, not carried him to a shallower part of the moat.

Of course. To argue that the life of a Gorilla is worth more than the life of a human child is beyond madness, it is sick and twisted. AN illness of privileged modern society.

Of course, it can be said that to argue a human's life is worth more is "beyond madness, it is sick and twisted."

Cutting down forests, oil spills, farming animals for fur, killing animals to "cull" them (when there's alternatives), using pesticides that is mass killing bees, etc. To me that is the real display of favouring humans above animals. Especially when alternatives are available (I do not take into account situations with no alternatives, such as with remote tribes, to which we're destroying their home as well, all for the sake of a cheeseburger).

I would add killing an intelligent social animal who was not acting aggressively to that list.

 

[Acim]

What I'm saying is that we all know that little kids will be little kids and like to climb. The exhibit should be constructed in such a way that that there is no way a little kid could ever sneak into the exhibit even if he tries his hardest. The zoo is terribly irresponsible if that is not the case. I am confused by your post as to where we disagree.

We disagree on assigning responsibility of the boy's actions.

 

[George-ananda]

We disagree on assigning responsibility of the boy's actions.

So you are saying it is OK for a zoo to design a gorilla exhibit where a little kid could climb in?? I don't understand.

 

[icehorse]

I'm doing my best to channel Mr. Spock here when I say "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few". I'm purposely ignoring the specifics of this particular situation. I'm sure that - if nothing else - the zoo was legally bound to kill the gorilla. But that aside:

Even if we view humans as more important than animals, our long term survival depends on biodiversity. From a strict biodiversity perspective, that gorilla was infinitely more important than the 7 billionth instance of living human. One specific scenario could be that we discover that the silverback gorilla's genome includes a cure for cancer, or some other human life extension possibility.

Of course it's a gut-wrenching situation, but we're constantly faced with gut-wrenching situations.

 

[suncowiam]

If this was in a wild, I think the answer would have been obvious...

Because it was in a zoo, which is a man-made artificial environment, I believe the answer should be directed at the zoo and its management. This management has to ensure the safety of all including humans and animals. They already knew that if a first-hand interaction were to happen between a human and an aggressive animal, the animal's life would have to be sacrificed.

Why are we arguing on the aftermath? Argue on how we got here... Abolish zoos, make them secure and/or hold the management responsible...

 

[Acim]

So you are saying it is OK for a zoo to design a gorilla exhibit where a little kid could climb in?? I don't understand.

I am saying it has been okay (and relatively safe) for the many years (I understand that to be 40) the zoo was open for visitation.

What you are seemingly suggesting with this type of inquiry is that hacking is always legitimate to do because of poor design by people who didn't shield hackers out. Could bring up lots of other examples making similar, if not the same, point.

I would assign some responsibility to the zoo, but feel the actions of the boy are the boy's responsibility.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I regret making this thread.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

It's sad and depressing that this debate (thinking in terms of IRL) hardly revolve around the facts, which is that a tranquilizer dart would have been a terrible idea (as that would have spooked Harambe), but if he was going to be aggressive and a threat towards the child, he probably would have ripped him apart when he first touched him, not carried him to a shallower part of the moat.

Of course, it can be said that to argue a human's life is worth more is "beyond madness, it is sick and twisted."

I would add killing an intelligent social animal who was not acting aggressively to that list.

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.