Poll: The Value of a Human Life

[kortin]

I would save the dog. Why? Because a life is a life, no matter what it is. The only bias for me is how well I know them. I don't know a stranger, so I'll save my dog.

I'm not delusional to the point where I actually believe a human life is more important than any other life. All life is equal in value.

I don't want to go to extremes here... but I vehemently disagree. Would a worm's life have as much value as a dog's? I'd say not. Same with a fish, lizard, or plant. Their lives are practically worthless compared to a human's or a dog's.

Now you could argue that your dog's life is worth more than a human's. I personally disagree, but hey, that's just me.


OT: I'd save the human, I'd always save the human.

Primal instincts are clouding your judgement. All lives are equal, nothing on this planet has a life worth more than another.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

unless the person is the biggest douchebag in the world (and when i say douchebag, i mean greedy ignorant fuck who always puts himself above others and uses people like they are nothing, also equated to possibly being a murderer/pedophile/etc...) then i'll save the human over the animal every time.

not to say i don't love animals, because i do, but i'm going to save the higher brain functioned organic being more than likely, especially of my own kind.

 

[Scipio1770]

Spoiler: snip

I would save the dog. Why? Because a life is a life, no matter what it is. The only bias for me is how well I know them. I don't know a stranger, so I'll save my dog.

I'm not delusional to the point where I actually believe a human life is more important than any other life. All life is equal in value.

I don't want to go to extremes here... but I vehemently disagree. Would a worm's life have as much value as a dog's? I'd say not. Same with a fish, lizard, or plant. Their lives are practically worthless compared to a human's or a dog's.

Now you could argue that your dog's life is worth more than a human's. I personally disagree, but hey, that's just me.


OT: I'd save the human, I'd always save the human.

Primal instincts are clouding your judgement. All lives are equal, nothing on this planet has a life worth more than another.

One of the more childish things I've read here.

The fantasy of equality is attractive but it simply isn't true. Consider the extent of what life encompasses: animals and plants are obvious, but what about bacteria, archaea, viruses? Then there is also the dilemma of quantifying conciousness, human conciousness is only simplistically understood, let alone that of other mamals or artificial intelligences (would a self replicating, self actualizing program be considered alive?). And that brings up the problem of artificial life, artificial bacteria, artificial embryos.

Ignoring all of these factors and instead prefering the blanket claim that all life is equal is not only ignornant but I would say even deliberately dense.

 

[kortin]

One of the more childish things I've read here.

The fantasy of equality is attractive but it simply isn't true. Consider the extent of what life encompasses: animals and plants are obvious, but what about bacteria, archaea, viruses? Then there is also the dilemma of quantifying conciousness, human conciousness is only simplistically understood, let alone that of other mamals or artificial intelligences (would a self replicating, self actualizing program be considered alive?). And that brings up the problem of artificial life, artificial bacteria, artificial embryos.

Ignoring all of these factors and instead prefering the blanket claim that all life is equal is not only ignornant but I would say even deliberately dense.

It's a life, there's no difference in value there. You can sit there and pretend that there is, but there isn't. It's a naturally primal instinct to believe that your species is most important, because that instinct is the instinct to survive. You'll place importance on your species above others because you want to survive. It's downright ignorant to believe that, though, and it's absolutely foolish to apply it now, considering how "advanced" humans consider themselves to be.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Nope murderers sacrafice the value of their lives by commiting a attoricous moral act. They are a danger to better humans and have displayed that they are incapable of functioning in human society so the dog (whose life still has value) gets saved. Of course if the dude isn't a murderer then he gets saved because his life is of more value.

 

[liquidsolid]

I think that human life is more valuable than animal life. You can always get another dog, but that person most likely has a family and friends and people who will miss them. Outside of the movies, the impact that a persons death is far greater than that of an animal. If you do save the animal, I'm sure that the loved ones of that person will not be happy with you.

Your Spanish teacher is kind of ridiculous because if she came across a stranger, the first thing she would assume is that the person was inherently bad. She most likely likes Hobbes and the idea that humans are inherently bad vs. Locke who believes that humans are inherently good. I think humans are neutral and their actions define their moral actions.

If I were to witness a person letting a human fall off a cliff and saving an animal I would be appalled.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Animals can be replaced. People cannot!

People and animals are replaced in the exact same way.

Not true. You can't easily find another person that looks, acts and sounds just like the person that died (I'd even go so far as to say that it's impossible!), however you can easily get another animal that looks, acts and sounds just like the animal that died!

Three things: one each animals has a unique personality and appearance just as humans do, we are just better at recognizing it within out own species.
two: even if they do look the same act the same ect they are still a entirely diffrent being, with diffrent memories and such.
three: your more concerned with how this will effect you, and if that person/animal is replacable within your own life. I find this deplorable, you should (in my philosiphy of course) awnser questions from a objective stand-point based solely on logic.

 

[Animyr]

Save the human, unless it was a particularly heinous criminal. Or not a particularly nasty dog.

 

[A.A.K]

Humans aren't worth much. They're a necessity to the continuation of your life, that's about it. Save the animal.

 

[Latenz1134]

Hm. So would you save someone who comitted, say, genocide who happens to have very high intelligence over some not very intelligent but perfectly nice man/woman?

Chances are anyone who has committed genocide would be fairly well known, and as a result he would most likely be less inclined to save this genocidal fellow and more so towards the fairly average one.

 

[Tinygiant]

I am, in fact, a jaded and cynical misanthrope. 8 times out of ten, I'd save the animal. I've never had an animal betray me, lead me on, or screw me over.

 

[RJ 17]

The teacher moved on with the class after that to talk about nachos or some shit

I lol'd.

But honestly I think you gave a good response. An equally valid response would be to counter the teacher's argument with a hypothetical of the same design:

"What if the animal was a vicious creature who mauled and killed other people's pets?"

 

[Scipio1770]

Spoiler: snip

One of the more childish things I've read here.

The fantasy of equality is attractive but it simply isn't true. Consider the extent of what life encompasses: animals and plants are obvious, but what about bacteria, archaea, viruses? Then there is also the dilemma of quantifying conciousness, human conciousness is only simplistically understood, let alone that of other mamals or artificial intelligences (would a self replicating, self actualizing program be considered alive?). And that brings up the problem of artificial life, artificial bacteria, artificial embryos.

Ignoring all of these factors and instead prefering the blanket claim that all life is equal is not only ignornant but I would say even deliberately dense.

It's a life, there's no difference in value there. You can sit there and pretend that there is, but there isn't. It's a naturally primal instinct to believe that your species is most important, because that instinct is the instinct to survive. You'll place importance on your species above others because you want to survive. It's downright ignorant to believe that, though, and it's absolutely foolish to apply it now, considering how "advanced" humans consider themselves to be.

Interesting, I never said human life was the most valuable, in fact if I was asked on the spot, I would consider the Turritopsis dohrnii jellyfish or perhaps a strain of Hydras based on their ability to maintain biological immortality.

But back to my question that you didn't answer, if you consider all life equal, how do you discern between organism and enviromnent (things like viruses, protein machines, organelles like the mitochondria)? More imortantly though, since you claim that all organism's self assesment of worth is unreliable due to inherent bias, how exactly do you justify your own conclusions. You are human, therefore have only a limited and simplistic understanding of the natural forces, how could you even begin to understand the true dynamics of life?

 

[Olas]

Hm. So would you save someone who comitted, say, genocide who happens to have very high intelligence over some not very intelligent but perfectly nice man/woman?

This feels like a loaded question.

Well not if I thought they might commit more genocide because that in itself would lead to more loss of life. A million people of average intelligence > one evil genius.

 

[Heronblade]

Your Spanish teacher is kind of ridiculous because if she came across a stranger, the first thing she would assume is that the person was inherently bad. She most likely likes Hobbes and the idea that humans are inherently bad vs. Locke who believes that humans are inherently good. I think humans are neutral and their actions define their moral actions.

I'm fairly certain the teacher meant it in terms of "you" knowing beforehand the person had done something abhorrent, not necessarily assuming the worst possible scenario about someone you know nothing about.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

Truthfully? I say there is no right answer. At least not without narrowing it down to one specific circumstance.

Morally, there are few constants if any. Law serves not the will of what is "Good" but the will of order. And thus formallising such a situation tells more about how you view Law vs Chaos, than it does about how Good or Evil one is.

Naturally, in a situation such as this, saving either would be fine. Saving both in either situation may be preferable if possible (At least for some). And whatever situation you come to, it will probably err on the side of good, so long as you're still attempting to save one.

Of course, walking away and leaving both of them to die is downright cruel. So the least you can do is call a rescue team. So yeah, Evil still factors in, but only when you're doing something you think is wrong on a moral level for your own purpose.

As for whether having the Murderers die, Then there's the simple question: Will their death prevent more death? Will the man walk away and never kill another man, or will they slaughter everything? And is it possible to stop them from killing without killing them?

If your answers are that killing him is literally the only way to stop him from killing. Then there's your answer for that situation.

 

[Shock and Awe]

The person. The person is almost always higher then the animal. The only exception is if the person has done something warranting death anyway.

 

[The Lunatic]

Flip a coin, fair is fair.

 

[GTwander]

I'd save the dog, if it was MY dog.
If it was just a random dog, I'd save the person.

 

[In Search of Username]

One of the more childish things I've read here.

The fantasy of equality is attractive but it simply isn't true. Consider the extent of what life encompasses: animals and plants are obvious, but what about bacteria, archaea, viruses? Then there is also the dilemma of quantifying conciousness, human conciousness is only simplistically understood, let alone that of other mamals or artificial intelligences (would a self replicating, self actualizing program be considered alive?). And that brings up the problem of artificial life, artificial bacteria, artificial embryos.

Ignoring all of these factors and instead prefering the blanket claim that all life is equal is not only ignornant but I would say even deliberately dense.

It's a life, there's no difference in value there. You can sit there and pretend that there is, but there isn't. It's a naturally primal instinct to believe that your species is most important, because that instinct is the instinct to survive. You'll place importance on your species above others because you want to survive. It's downright ignorant to believe that, though, and it's absolutely foolish to apply it now, considering how "advanced" humans consider themselves to be.

There is no objective 'value' to any life, it's a matter of opinion. If you feel no greater attachment to humans than you do to any other animal, fine, but we're driven by our instincts and furthermore by the fact that society wouldn't function anything like the way it does now if we considered all animals equal. Point is, there's no actual objectively right answer to the question because value is itself subjective.