Poll: Who would you rather let die, your pet or me?

[Bourne Endeavor]

Under what rationality would I be selfish for choosing the life of my beloved animal to whom may have been apart of my life for years over a stranger?

The remarkable thing about this question is that it contains its own answer.

Indeed it does, I suppose I neglected to make the point. In regards to your other post, I will be twenty three in a few months and I suspect many in this topic are within a similar age bracket. If that forces you to weep because I value my pets' lives more than a strangers. So be it.

 

[Way]

You're assuming your pet is a "great loss to society".

I'm not. I'm just assuming you aren't. Given that neither of you is, I fall back to a more personal choice.

Being important to only a few people should be enough to suffice.

My pet is important to a few people. And my misery at it's death would affect still more people.

computers can be rebuilt. There is no need to worry about saving one over a life that cannot be replaced, such a supposition is silly. As diverse as that computer's outputs may be it is simply not as diverse in range of aptitude as a human, who in the end it needs to service it.

Humans can are insufficently diverse in their ourputs to be considered meaningfully unique. There is unlikely to be any task that you and I could accomplish that can't be performed better by someone else. We are entirely replacable. If we weren't then civilisation would've collapsed last Wednesday.

If we're comparing a computer to a room of vegetables, the vegetables contribute more to society, sadly through medical bills than they do through the mortuary.

You just reduced a human to a cash value. Again, it leaves the way open for objects to outrank people.

As for this situation, you've simply chosen based on an emotional attachment to your pet. That is in no way logical, which you purport to be.

I don't think I did. I deconstructed your argument in a logical manner, but that was because it was the easiest way to do so. I'm not Camus's Caligula, demanding all actions be based around logic. Indeed, I said in a previous post that emotional response would be unavoidable.

Society would be less affected at the loss of your pet, who simply drains your resources.

True, up to a point. The cat does make me happy though, and my being happy is a small benefit to society, since I'll be more productive. But I've already disregarded society's gain/loss as negligible anyway. So I'm now now only considering my personal loss. Since you aren't a loss to me, and the cat is, I can act accordingly and save the cat. I might then try to save you, but only assuming my personal loss (danger to myself, effect of loss on my dependents, etc) is outweighed by my personal gain (happiness, prestige, gratitude, etc).

If you view people as simple chemical chains devoid of value then what is to prevent you from becoming a serial killer? Or for that matter, what value is your own life?

Good questions. I view human bodies, devoid of any other context, as an excellent source of food but ultimately not worth risking my life for. People, I view as interesting, without assigning any particular virtue to them being human. Their thoughts and actions are what give them value. I value, for instance, a medical doctor over an armed robber. I might consider the latter unworthy of saving no matter how little danger was involved. I would likely consider those whose actions and thoughts are positive towards myself or my beliefs, more valuable still. But I have no evidence for you. You're just some guy or girl shouting from the top of a burning building. I can't assign you a value higher than my cat, because I know my cat has a postive effect. You're an unknown and I'm not a gambler.

What stops me killing people? The threat of retribution certainly plays a part. Not simply legal, but that of my peers. Then there is the lack of desire to see anyone specific dead. Of course, very few people are entirely against killing other people. If you pay taxes then you arm a military force that has the express intent of killing when they deem it necessary. We accept that some killing is useful.

I suspect pure unadulterated instinct would prevent my suicide. I enjoy living though, so I have no reason to test that theory.

If you think animals are as good as humans try and get a duck to make a building if and when you find this duck please contact me because you officialy won this argument until then I win

Wouldn't said duck massively undermine the economy? Why would you want to put society in such peril? This shows scant regard to your fellow man!

 

[Ghengis John]

snip!

Well I'm going to ask you then, what argument would you concoct to justify your survival/ what would persuade you to spare somebody's life over your cat's? Can you think of anything?

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

I am not just putting a value on intelligence here, I am also pointing to achievements, real accomplishments and potential to prove my point on the superiority of humans,

Yes, and your value on those things are nothing but your own opinion.

Ants and bees build nests of much greater complexity than any building a human has built, but you choose not to value their accomplishments and you choose to value human ones instead. Yes, you have "reasons" but the very fact you value those reasons are nothing more than your own biased human opinion.

Back to the question, choosing an animal's life over a human life is to be swayed by emotions (powerful impulses to be sure) but not to make the best choice or the most moral choice. A dog could be a great dog to its owner and some people that really like it, i.e. a really trusted companion. A human could give happiness to many people over the years (like family or lovers over the years) and help out multiple lives through personal achievement or application (the arts, or engineering as illustrated above or science or teaching to name a few areas). Humans don't always live up to their potential or cease to be selfish, but animals can also be rabid, lazy or a nuisance.

So you think I should save an able stranger over a disabled friend then? Because the friend has less potential to achieve and give happiness, so saving them would be selfish. Right?

Next time we take some medication, even a bit of cough syrup or drink some soothing tea, we should realise what goes into such helpful items (effort, expertise and application), and who makes them: humans.

Again, you're choosing to put value on those things. Those things have no intrinsic value, just the value we put upon them.

"But so what?" is also not an argument. It is a refutation without a counter-point.

That's a perfectly value argument. When an argument is hollow of substance the only thing you can do is just question it, because there's nothing to explicitly refute.

You believe you value these things for some objective underlying reason, but you always leave that reason implicit, because it doesn't actually exist. I show that by simply questioning your presumptions that the things to mention are "clearly" good with intrinsic value.

You value medicine, good for you, most other people do too. But not everyone does, there are people who believe that the whole human race should die, they undoubtedly think of medicine as a bad thing, equally people who believe that survival of the fittest and anarchy should rule.
You value our buildings, I would guess most hermits don't.

Nothing proves humans to be objectively better, you just believe it, because you're a humans and you're biased to believe humans are better.

I get you think to privilege humans is speciesist, but I've presented why I think the unknown potential of the human makes it a more moral and less biased choice to choose the stranger over the loved dog

Which again leads me back to the disabled person. If you know the human has very little potential compared to humans in general, then surely, by your own argument, saving the human with more unknown potential would be the moral thing, while leaving your disabled friend to die.

Ah the disabled person complication, I don't agree with you here on de-valuing the disabled. This actually brings us back to science and human discovery again. The disabled person still has great potential, their disability is merely a hindrance and hampering them. Depending on the disability, this can be overcome i.e. Steven Hawking via technology; and for those really almost entirely disabled of all faculties and actions, there is still hope for them in the future as new advancements steadily come out, or, via a sudden break-through. Disabled people enter the para-olympics, disabled old writers and poets still write, they still love and contribute.

Say you chose a nice loved pet over a really disabled person (because I certainly wouldn't, people have meaning and value even if they are disabled in some way, I certainly wouldn't choose my old cat over Steven Hawking and I only know bits about his work) and then a short time later, the disability can be greatly alleviated by a new trial drug or operation. Disability and the loss of potential cannot be judged in the long term, you must take a larger view of capacity. As an example, a favourite lecturer of mine had some spine troubles and was temporarily disabled. With care, medication and rest, he actually got better and could get back to writing his books, being all sagely and laughing. Discounting him because he was temporarily disabled would be ridiculous.

Yes I put a value on human life, I am awfully old-school that way. In fact, I would even choose you my forum opponent over a pet I personally liked. Who knows what you can do with your years, my pet is just a source of my own personal entertainment and happiness. I can get another one, but you won't come round again. We should not be so selfish as to privilege our own happiness (and pets do get boring often, as represented by discarded cats who are no longer kittens) over a human life.

Oh and on the value of medicine, if you weren't so quick to say, that is a just a human-placed value man it has no intrinsic value, you would realise medicine and related tech has utilitarian and pragmatic value as well. It actually does things, it is not just something people feel good about. All the human value in the world won't close the chest of a heart transplant or do a biopsy to analyse a sample. Science ain't just feelings good man.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

B. If you think animals are as good as humans try and get a duck to make a building if and when you find this duck please contact me because you officialy won this argument until then I win

Generally people who think that animals should be treated equal to humans are misanthropic, asocial, and get along better with pets than humans. Personally, animals' rights will never rise to same level as the inherent rights of every human being, but at the same time we should show compassion to lower species and not abuse them.

As far as I know he is still looking for that duck

 

[GeorgW]

I'd kill my pet. But I wouldn't do it for a stranger, I could however do it for a fellow escapist.

 

[CarlMin]

Yes more or less. His or her. In a life or death situation. However, you missed something important about that "functionality" that I'll expound upon.

I don?t quite understand your definition of functionality. Surely, you don?t mean to say that humans are worth more simply because we can write a play or solve an equation? These virtues are not universal. They are exclusive to humans and should be considered merely as tools.

And if it is acceptable to condone that one creature can have more value than another, than why not a human over a tiger?

Well, yeah see the point of the tiger comparison was to show you how the function of a creature can?t possibly be enough to judge whether it is important. I thought that your main argument was that humans are more important because they are capable of filling a more important role on our planet than an animal, and I wanted to show you how that is wrong. Therefore, I wanted to exemplify how animals can fill a more important role in the eco system, and then ask you whether you think that the life of the tiger should be more important. The obvious answer to that question would be no ? so now we have established that the function of a creature is not the only relevant aspect.

So, if you are to defend your original thesis, which is that humans are always, necessarily more worth than animals, you need to add another perspective.

For example, you could argue that humans are more worth than animals because we have feelings and emotions, but that assumption would imply that mammals do not have feelings and emotions, and we have already established that they do. (and If you don?t believe me, I think it would be rather easy for me to provide you with sources proving that mammals are capable of feeling both emotional pain and mental stress, fears for the future, etc. As mentioned, the fact that dogs can show signs of POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS should be sufficient.)

You could still argue that the human ability to think, reason and reflect over her own existence makes her more valuable than animals. But while our ability to reflect over memories and the future might surpass many mammals, there is no evidence to suggest that it should surpass the cognitive abilities of anthropomorphic apes and monkeys. Or dolphins for that matter. These intelligent animals seem to have practically the same, if not exactly the same, ability to ponder on questions regarding the future and the past, and reflect over memories.
Besides, even if it could be proven that these animals are inferior when it comes to said cognitive abilities, what about mentally handicapped human beings? Would you support, let?s say, cruel experimenting on human beings with personality disorders who are unable to ponder on questions regarding the future, the past and its own existence? Of course you wouldn?t. Therefore, we can establish that not even the complex of the human psyche is enough to establish that they life of a human being is always and necessarily more worth than an animals. It seems to be another indicator. A subjective indicator. But saying that humans are worth more simply because we are humans would be a logical fallacy.

And before you say ?Would you let your friend or family member die to save the life of a dog?, or something equally preposterous, do keep in mind that there is one last indicator that everyone always takes into account. The subjective ring, or whatever you wanna call it.
The life of my mum or human friend will always be more important than that of a dog. Likewise, I would value the life off my dog higher than the life of some human being that I do not know. Not because I make any difference between species but because I have a relation to my dog and my family. My argument is not that animals are worth more than humans.

No, I?m just indifferent to species when judging. I do, however, take the above perspectives into account (intelligence, feelings). So if I was to choose between the death of a rat and a gorilla, I would probably choose for the rat to die.

They won't ever contemplate if it's wrong to kill or take life to distant planets. How much you value these activities is entirely relative but I do feel genuinely sorry for you if you think less of human life than you do of an amoeba.

If the function of that amoeba is more important than that of a human being, the life of that amoeba should, from an utilitarian perspective, be more important than you.
However, I still wouldn?t value the life of that genus over you because it has no capacity to feel.

I have heard of them. And they are trained, by humans. Kept, by humans. Funded, by humans. And raised merely to serve, humans. To argue that a creature meant to help humans should live when a human should die seems like a betrayal of intent doesn't it?

They require little training. They are dogs, and they seem to have an inherent will to help. Hundreds of dogs worked with survivors after the 9/11 disaster, most of which were too busy saving and caring for humans to eat and drink. Their devotion touched many of the personnel, and their ambition surpassed even that of the most determined of human rescue workers. Throughout history, the canine?s unyielding unselfishness and loyalty has inspired humans, and allowed him to take part in our society. So I react very negatively to people who, in their ignorance, claim that humans have some kind of moral conscious or spiritual superiority to distinguish them from animals. If you look at the meat industry or animal experimenting, it rather seems to be the other way around.

I?m not saying you are one of them, but to say that these rescue dogs exist solely to serve human beings, as if this unselfish behavior was the result of training rather than sheer compassion and love, well ? I don?t think I have to finish that sentence.

Unless your pet is a gorilla or a dolphin I don't see how it relates to the conversation at hand. We were, again, talking about pets.

Yeah, see what I did was coming with a thesis; that the life of a human being is not necessarily worth more than that of an non-human animal. Being a human being doesn?t hold any merit. This is a speciesistic assumption with religious origins.

I have never seen a dolphin eat it's own poop, though I'd imagine it can't be easy.

You are rather missing the point. Unless you actually mean ?eat it is own poop?, but that would leave your sentence ultimately puzzling.

I am certain though that dolphins posses a concept of self. They have sex for fun, like humans, recognize themselves in mirrors and communicate with language. It is a little hard though to imagine a situation where it would be a human's life or a dolphin's. I mean you usually don't spot them outside of the water and even then they can take care of themselves there a lot better than we can.

Posses a concept of self? I?m not sure what you mean there, but all mammals are aware of their own existence.(Scientific consensus since the 80s) Most mammals have sex for fun. My dog recognizes herself in a mirror. And all mammals are communicating with language, whether it be body language or vocal language.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

Indeed it does, I suppose I neglected to make the point. In regards to your other post, I will be twenty three in a few months and I suspect many in this topic are within a similar age bracket. If that forces you to weep because I value my pets' lives more than a strangers. So be it.

My age guess is based partially off of the emotional immaturity of teenagers and partially off of the fact that I've seen age polls on here where teenagers seemed to be in the majority.

Now I suppose you might take issue with my implied statement about your emotional maturity, and you are welcome to do so. I wouldn't say that emotional immaturity can be *deduced* from a person's opinion on this topic, so this doesn't mean you're emotionally immature, but I would say that those with simplistic moral views or with a lack of emotional maturity are more likely to choose the clear immediate selfish response without thinking it through. The OP doesn't help matters by coming off as a bit of an entitled, holier-than-thou jerk.

Nevertheless, for everyone out there who chooses their pet because their pet is a friend, or because they don't know the stranger, there are a few questions I would ask them:

1) If we removed the pet from the equation and you were to blame for the death of an innocent stranger, how would you feel? Perhaps someone died due to negligence at your workplace, or you killed a pedestrian while driving drunk. For whatever reason, a human being would still be alive if not for you.

2) Same question, but for your pet. Perhaps you forgot to take your pet to the vet and it died of a preventable disease, or maybe you carelessly ran your pet over as you were angrily pulling out of your driveway following a heated argument. For whatever reason, you are responsible for the death of your pet.

Which weighs on your conscience more? Because, after you make the choice in the dilemma proposed by the OP, that is what you're going to have to live with for the rest of your life. Either you are responsible for the death of another human being, who was probably a father/mother/sister/brother/best friend to someone, or you are responsible for the death of your pet which most likely had unconditional trust in you. Consider carefully, and if you would genuinely feel it is easier to live with yourself if you let a human being die, then you and I are very different people, but at least you've given the question the respect that it deserves, which I think is more than most here have.

....

Ok, a bit more. I remember being horrified and outraged when my girlfriend told me about how this guy she knew in High School had been killed by a careless driver. He was riding his bike on the side of the road and she was downloading ringtones on her phone, went off the road, hit him, and killed him. The guy may have been a stranger to me, but it was an utter miscarriage of justice that she didn't see prison time for it. She ended a life and brought pain and suffering to his family that I cannot personally comprehend. Had she run over someone's beloved pet, I'd have felt a heartfelt personal apology would have been warranted and that's about it.

EDIT: Ok, one more:

I remember another story maybe a couple of years back about this emotionally unstable young girl who had been given a therapy dog. It was her one friend in the whole world, and some heartless jerk intentionally killed the dog just to be cruel to her. At the time, I remember thinking that was one of the worst things I'd ever heard in my life. My kneejerk reaction was that the world wouldn't be missing much if we pushed that guy off a bridge somewhere. But even then, the thing that horrified me most about it is that it utterly destroyed some vulnerable, innocent girl. I find it despicable that this guy would kill this trusting, devoted pet, but as bad as that is, it doesn't compare to how emotionally damaging it was to the human owner.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

So, if you are to defend your original thesis, which is that humans are always, necessarily more worth than animals, you need to add another perspective.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, a *thing* could have more value than an individual human. If you have a group of people stranded in the desert and you have to save either a person or the sole means of transport from falling off a cliff, you let the person die. But that doesn't make a car worth more than a person. It is only worth more in the sense that it enables more human life to survive. Potentially, humans might only care about the ecosystem as far as it is of benefit to them, and with that philosophy, it is not enough to be more important to the ecosystem than an individual human. The ecosystem itself must *also* be more important.

For example, you could argue that humans are more worth than animals because we have feelings and emotions, but that assumption would imply that mammals do not have feelings and emotions, and we have already established that they do.

Indeed, though I would take issue with the notion that they are as *sophisticated* as humans.

(and If you don?t believe me, I think it would be rather easy for me to provide you with sources proving that mammals are capable of feeling both emotional pain and mental stress, fears for the future,

To go off topic for a moment, which animals have been shown to have "fears for the future"? And how would you go about establishing that?

You could still argue that the human ability to think, reason and reflect over her own existence makes her more valuable than animals. But while our ability to reflect over memories and the future might surpass many mammals, there is no evidence to suggest that it should surpass the cognitive abilities of anthropomorphic apes and monkeys.

Are you certain of that? I don't have a link at the ready, but I'd be awfully surprised if this were true. Certainly some apes have shown an impressive capacity for this sort of thinking, but that's impressive compared to other animals. Still, they might equal or exceed mentally handicapped humans.

Or dolphins for that matter. These intelligent animals seem to have practically the same, if not exactly the same, ability to ponder on questions regarding the future and the past, and reflect over memories.

I'd like a source for that. I find that hard to believe.

Besides, even if it could be proven that these animals are inferior when it comes to said cognitive abilities, what about mentally handicapped human beings?

Indeed. Any estimation of human worth that hinges *entirely* on intellectual merit leads us to this dilemma. Furthermore, it potentially leads to elitism or meritocracy. Should the hyper-intelligent get multiple votes or have some sort of elite citizenship?

Therefore, we can establish that not even the complex of the human psyche is enough to establish that they life of a human being is always and necessarily more worth than an animals. It seems to be another indicator. A subjective indicator. But saying that humans are worth more simply because we are humans would be a logical fallacy.

Not exactly. I mean, "worth" is subjective. It was subjective to base worth on emotional depth, intelligence, or any of these other factors. It's equally subjective to place worth on being genetically human.

On the other hand, this conversation often comes up in AI and machine intelligence. You probably wouldn't think it was ethically wrong for someone to smash his laptop, but if instead of a laptop, he was smashing a true AI that could demonstrate human-quality thinking, reasoning, and emotion, you'd probably feel it was wrong to destroy it. Some wouldn't. So function and form are important. And to many people, simply being human counts for a lot.

No, I?m just indifferent to species when judging. I do, however, take the above perspectives into account (intelligence, feelings). So if I was to choose between the death of a rat and a gorilla, I would probably choose for the rat to die.

Over a mentally handicapped gorilla?

They require little training. They are dogs, and they seem to have an inherent will to help.

Which we genetically engineered in them through generations of selective breeding. Also, they require little training? Says you. I guess it's all relative, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't train a puppy to do that job.

Hundreds of dogs worked with survivors after the 9/11 disaster, most of which were too busy saving and caring for humans to eat and drink. Their devotion touched many of the personnel, and their ambition surpassed even that of the most determined of human rescue workers.

Hold on there. There's no question that dogs are loyal and devoted to their tasks, but let's not start unfairly comparing them to humans. Dogs are bred for these traits. They are self-sacrificing to a fault. A dog is simply behaving according to its nature when it does this, while a human is actually being moral when it selflessly helps others. There's a huge difference.

Throughout history, the canine?s unyielding unselfishness and loyalty has inspired humans, and allowed him to take part in our society.

Did they have this loyalty when they were wolves? Man *made* dogs. Perhaps people have been inspired by their loyalty, but they are as loyal as they are because we bred them to be.

So I react very negatively to people who, in their ignorance, claim that humans have some kind of moral conscious or spiritual superiority to distinguish them from animals.

If you think dogs behave the way they do out of moral consciousness, I think you are deluding yourself. Moral consciousness requires not only that you behave morally, but that you *understand* that you are behaving morally and that you understand what morality *is*. Can you show me that a dog understands those things?

If you look at the meat industry or animal experimenting, it rather seems to be the other way around.

It is not uncommon for animals to show no empathy to other species. A scientist would probably find it difficult to experiment on his own pet, but an anonymous test subject is another story. Similarly, a dog doesn't have a problem chasing down and killing a rabbit just for fun, but if it was raised with the rabbit, it generally won't do that. The reason they don't do scientific experimentation is that they don't have the intellectual capacity to do so. It isn't because they have some higher and more noble morality that impedes them.

I've talked to people before who credit animals for their apparently noble behavior, saying that it comes from a deep emotional commitment to their fellow living creatures, and then when you point out the fact that dogs and cats routinely kill innocent creatures, they'll absolve them of responsibility by saying they are only acting on instinct.

I?m not saying you are one of them, but to say that these rescue dogs exist solely to serve human beings, as if this unselfish behavior was the result of training rather than sheer compassion and love, well ? I don?t think I have to finish that sentence.

Well not *just* training. Also breeding

But no, I'm sure they are driven by emotions, but putting words like "compassion" or "love" is a matter of projection. In theories of mind, it is famously difficult to define what it is that constitutes a mind. We accept that humans have minds and experience emotions and feelings because we know that *we* experience them, and we are humans. But it is far harder to ascertain to what extent an animal experiences these things. I'll agree that a dog experiences *something*, but I'm not convinced that it can be appropriately likened to the closest human analogue.

Posses a concept of self? I?m not sure what you mean there, but all mammals are aware of their own existence.(Scientific consensus since the 80s)

Source please. My understanding is that most mammals are *not* self-aware. Most fail the mirror test, for example, which is, as I understand it, the usual way to determine this.

EDIT: not that I personally think the mirror test should be the final word on self-awareness. Nevertheless, awareness of self is only the tip of the iceberg. Human beings additionally possess concept of self. Are you lazy, smart, industrious, mellow, or funny? You probably have ideas about these things.

My dog recognizes herself in a mirror.

I doubt it. Did you conduct the mirror test scientifically? Because it is a well known fact that dogs, as a species, do not pass the mirror test. If yours does, then you have an exceptional and possibly noteworthy dog.

But some animals do pass the mirror test anyway. A bonobo is a very high order animal and passes most of the criteria people in this thread have used to give humans special value, only to perhaps a lesser extent. But a bonobo may exceed a mentally handicapped human in some of these areas, which raises the question of why a mentally handicapped human deserves greater rights than a bonobo. Certainly the mentally handicapped human may not afforded all the rights of a citizen (may be given to legal guardianship, isn't granted the right to vote, and so on), but the human still is accorded what we term "human" rights. And it is a good question why we grant such a thing.

My theory is that we see ourselves even in the mentally handicapped. This is the root of compassion in humans. Why do you have more compassion for a dog than a lizard? The dog reminds you more of a person. If there were a giant spider that possessed as much loyalty, invention, and industry as a dog, the typical human being would still recoil from the thing due to its alien and horrifying appearance.

Fundamentally, our morals are based on subjective feelings that we have. Any attempt to assign value to a living thing arises from feelings that have no objective basis in fact or in any sort of absolute morality.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

I think people are reading into this too much it's as simple as can a duck build a house? No? oh humans win

 

[Ghengis John]

Posses a concept of self? I?m not sure what you mean there, but all mammals are aware of their own existence.(Scientific consensus since the 80s) Most mammals have sex for fun. My dog recognizes herself in a mirror. And all mammals are communicating with language, whether it be body language or vocal language.

No not really. You're pretty delusional. Dogs for instance are not smart enough to recognize themselves in a mirror ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test ), some pigs possibly are, dogs no. If your dog can, by all means rush her to the nearest university. Most animals are not aware of their own existence, (that would require abstract thought) communicate with language (snarls and growls do not constitute language) or have sex for fun and not merely for reproduction. In fact many animals will try to escape during copulation and have to be tricked or trapped to commit the act. And if you need examples there's a million of those.

This is a speciesistic assumption with religious origins.

I think it's perfectly fair to say your potential is higher than that of an amoeba in relation to human society. Perhaps one of us isn't worth more than an entire species of amoeba, but on an individual basis sure. And I think I can say that without involving religion. I haven't invoked it yet have I? As for being specist, the very concept implies that an animal is our equal. That is preposterous. When a dog can relate how the concept of human superiority offends it I will accept the hypothesis. It is one thing to say you love your dog enough to choose it over a human, it is another to say you choose it because it is a human's equal. If you're going to argue that I'm going to have to call you absurd and make my way for the door.

For example, you could argue that humans are more worth than animals because we have feelings and emotions, but that assumption would imply that mammals do not have feelings and emotions, and we have already established that they do.

No one has argued they do not. Your dog however is not aware of it's mortality. It's feelings are not going to be as complex as a human's nor does it understand the situation it's in. If your dog and a human were hanging from a ledge the dog would not be thinking "I'm going to die" nor would it be able to feel betrayed if you saved the other human instead. The human expects your help, the dog does not. It can not. Sophistication makes all the difference.

the fact that dogs can show signs of POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS

Does not prove they have a level of mental activity even approaching a human's. Even fish can develop post traumatic stress. That doesn't mean they have senses of humor or appreciate irony. And there's nothing to imply perception of the future.

But while our ability to reflect over memories and the future might surpass many mammals, there is no evidence to suggest that it should surpass the cognitive abilities of anthropomorphic apes and monkeys.

We are talking about your dog. For god's sakes. YOUR DOG. For that matter, since you brought it up there's quite a bit. Apes for instance can not ask questions. Several studies have proven this. Feel free to look that up.

Besides, even if it could be proven that these animals are inferior when it comes to said cognitive abilities, what about mentally handicapped human beings? Would you support, let's say, cruel experimenting on human beings with personality disorders who are unable to ponder on questions regarding the future, the past and its own existence? Of course you wouldn't.

Where did the topic of the thread go? We're talking about a stranger who we can assume is not part of the X% of people who are a vegetable. And why are we comparing healthy animals to abnormal humans? For that matter, who said it was acceptable to carry out "cruel" experiments on anything? You seem to think I'm in favor of burning out rabbit retinas for cosmetic testing or something. I am not that bogeyman. I already said in a previous post you should always treat animals humanely because they can feel pain, (I even asked you directly where I said animals should be mistreated) and while it might seem controversial I'll take a chance and extend that stance to humans. That's just the kind of guy I am. You are making me an icon for something I am not.

Surely, you don't mean to say that humans are worth more simply because we can write a play or solve an equation? These virtues are not universal. They are exclusive to humans and should be considered merely as tools.

Like I said:

That said, why should an amoeba care about scientific theorems or human charities? It doesn't. If you want to believe that humans are worth less than dirt than nothing we do is worth dirt. Amoebas really only exist for the same reason that you or I do, to live and multiply. They won't ever contemplate if it's wrong to kill or take life to distant planets. How much you value these activities is entirely relative but I do feel genuinely sorry for you if you think less of human life than you do of an amoeba.

Of course I'm going to appraise these things relative to myself. The question you ask posits that I even consider the amoeba or the environment as being important. Everything is relative to your own estimation.

They require little training. They are dogs, and they seem to have an inherent will to help.

Each dog costs 20,000 dollars plus tax, trains for two years straight and continues to drill 4 times a week after that. That's not a little training and I think we humans can take some credit for their inherent will to help.
http://www.kovendogtraining.com/SAR.aspx

rather than sheer compassion and love, well ... I don't think I have to finish that sentence

Feel free. Dogs don't love or sacrifice of themselves the way we do, consciously. Those dogs were simply carrying out a trained function and if the volunteers were touched it was because they were anthropomorphizing the animals, affixing their own emotions to them. If you want to see a dog's saintly ethical code watch how they treat people when they're wild or starving. A dog has no concept of right or wrong, it only has instinct. That said, starving and desperate men are often no better. So take from that what you will about our moral superiority but when a person performs a good deed it is a decision and not a bred for response.

And before you say "Would you let your friend or family member die to save the life of a dog", or something equally preposterous,

Wouldn't dream of it. As it stands though amigo I don't think we're going to agree. I might be bad in your book but I just want you to know, I'm not in favor of animal cruelty nor do I think it's right to kill an animal needlessly or simply for fun. I am kind of curious since you seem able to put together a paragraph what you think about the notion of hunters as conservationists. I've never gone hunting myself, wouldn't want to. Just wondering what your thoughts are on that.

 

[Nuada_Redd]

Cowabungaa's avatar expresses my feelings towards you, sir.

Selfish? To save the life of being whom I am close to, who I am responsible for, over a stranger? Why... why the fuck do people place the life of a human over that of an animal? I dont understand. Well, in retrospect, I do, but that way of thinking sickens me and makes me feel depressed about the state of humanity. No, you are not selfish to save a companion animal. Some of the attitudes shown here, which are unfortunatly too prevailant generally, show a much, much greater depth of selfishness. You make me depressed, angry and sick.

This is not overt emotional attachments overriding logic, and I would appreciate it if that would be considered, and another veiwpoint given some respect, before the usual replies to such a statement are thrown at me.

 

[Ghengis John]

No, you are not selfish to save a companion animal. Some of the attitudes shown here, which are unfortunatly too prevailant generally, show a much, much greater depth of selfishness. You make me depressed, angry and sick.

I'd let my friend die to save you, who has nothing but disgust for me. How selfish of me.

Selflessness implies being willing to give something of one's self. Saving something simply because it matters to one's self is not selfless. Of all the charges that could be levied, from sociopathy to human superiority to a shortage of ethics, the one you have chosen to question is the one that can not be denied.

You think YOU'RE depressed about the state of humanity? Make room.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

Cowabungaa's avatar expresses my feelings towards you, sir.

Selfish? To save the life of being whom I am close to, who I am responsible for, over a stranger? Why... why the fuck do people place the life of a human over that of an animal? I dont understand. Well, in retrospect, I do, but that way of thinking sickens me and makes me feel depressed about the state of humanity. No, you are not selfish to save a companion animal. Some of the attitudes shown here, which are unfortunatly too prevailant generally, show a much, much greater depth of selfishness. You make me depressed, angry and sick.

This is not overt emotional attachments overriding logic, and I would appreciate it if that would be considered, and another veiwpoint given some respect, before the usual replies to such a statement are thrown at me.

Can a duck make a building if not it's not as important as humans if that makes me selfish then yes I am selfish, but I am a selfish person with regular protein levels and video games to play in my spare time not PETA rallies

 

[Walter Sobchak]

Cowabungaa's avatar expresses my feelings towards you, sir.

Selfish? To save the life of being whom I am close to, who I am responsible for, over a stranger? Why... why the fuck do people place the life of a human over that of an animal? I dont understand. Well, in retrospect, I do, but that way of thinking sickens me and makes me feel depressed about the state of humanity. No, you are not selfish to save a companion animal. Some of the attitudes shown here, which are unfortunatly too prevailant generally, show a much, much greater depth of selfishness. You make me depressed, angry and sick.

This is not overt emotional attachments overriding logic, and I would appreciate it if that would be considered, and another veiwpoint given some respect, before the usual replies to such a statement are thrown at me.

Yes we are selfish by saving a complete stranger and gaining nothing over animals that we know and love that's selfish and your not because you are willing to let a man die so you can save co-co the cat It's like Gandhi is on the forum talking to me i feel blessed

 

[CarlMin]

From a purely utilitarian perspective, a *thing* could have more value than an individual human. If you have a group of people stranded in the desert and you have to save either a person or the sole means of transport from falling off a cliff, you let the person die. But that doesn't make a car worth more than a person. It is only worth more in the sense that it enables more human life to survive.

Exactly. But nobody could possibly defend the idea of saving a vehicle over a human being. Therefore, the purpose of a creature is not enough and ?you need to add another perspective?.

Potentially, humans might only care about the ecosystem as far as it is of benefit to them, and with that philosophy, it is not enough to be more important to the ecosystem than an individual human. The ecosystem itself must *also* be more important.

I don?t really understand what you mean here. Humans care about the eco-system because it is essential to their survival, along with any other species on this planet.

Indeed, though I would take issue with the notion that they are as *sophisticated* as humans.

Animals are not as sophisticated as humans, no certainly not. But as I tried to prove in my previous posts, many animals are extremely close. Dolphins, gorillas, elephants etc. So I?m against the ancient philosophy that states that the human being holds some kind of sacred merit.

To go off topic for a moment, which animals have been shown to have "fears for the future"? And how would you go about establishing that

Off topic? I thought we were discussing whether the life of a human being is always more worth than that of an animal. I answered the question whether I would save the OP or my dog quite a few posts ago.

Anyway, that depends on how you define ?fears for the future?. I should definitely have used a better formulation. But practically all animals can feel stress and discomfort when exposed to a stimulus that remains them of a tragic event, and given those premises, conclude that they should fear being put through similar treatment in the future. (Hence, they fear the future) It could be called a complex form of classical conditioning and various tests have been done to prove that, for example dogs, do indeed develop this type of reaction, ever since the days of Pavlov.

But this type of reaction requires a stimulus so many scientists argue that this doesn?t actually prove that animals can ponder and reflect with fears for the future. However, obviously gorillas like ?Michael? and ?Koko? have been able to express emotions, ask questions and even retell memories from their childhood. The former, Michael, was able to tell his workers how his mother was killed by poachers when he was still an infant. If these intelligent apes are able to reflect over memories, is there any reason to believe that they cannot reflect over the future? This far, Koko has leant over 2000 words of spoken English and c:a 1000 signs of sign language, and she is still learning. Assuming that Koko will soon be dead, and began developing these abilities rather late life, I think we can assume that the next generations of Gorillas will be able to tell us even more. Dolphins also display fears of the future, often fears that surpass their fears of death which is uncommon amongst animals. There are various reports of dolphins committing suicide because they cannot stand the life in captivity. There was even made an academy award winning movie about it, The Cove, in which Richard O'Barry told the story of how his dolphin committed suicide in his arms by simply choosing not to breath anymore.

Also, both Michael and Koko enjoyed painting to express their emotions. Michael even kept a pet dog.

And you must also remember that the area of animal intelligence is a new, growing field and much of what we know today has been proven during the latest 10 years. This scientific community is also met with much cynicism and criticism from traditionalist and the mainstream community who opposes the idea of complex animal intelligence because of their own philosophy. For example, today we know that birds, a species that generations of scientists has written-off as dumb, are capable of using tools to an extent that scientists has began to ponder on their self-awareness. And it also dismantles the ancient misconception that intelligence is relative to the size of brains. And to the best of my knowledge, the fact that the brain of a dolphin is slightly smaller than that of a human being has been the only scientific reason to believe that they are less intelligent than we are.

( BBC have a pretty interesting article about birds btw, should you be interested http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8023295.stm )

Are you certain of that? I don't have a link at the ready, but I'd be awfully surprised if this were true. Certainly some apes have shown an impressive capacity for this sort of thinking, but that's impressive compared to other animals.

The only limit in our understanding of the cognitive abilities of gorillas is the language border. And as this border will gradually disappear (see the section about gorillas and sign language above) we will learn more about their intelligence, and we will with all probability conclude that our differences in intelligence are very small. We already know that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA is 98 percent identical.

Or dolphins for that matter. These intelligent animals seem to have practically the same, if not exactly the same, ability to ponder on questions regarding the future and the past, and reflect over memories.

I'd like a source for that. I find that hard to believe.

What exactly do you want a source of? That dolphins are capable of reflecting over their feature or reflect over memories? We have already established that apes can reflect over memories, do you want a source to prove that dolphins can do that too? As to the future, well as I wrote before: dolphins have committed suicide to escape from this world. Surely, this must mean that they have thought about the future and decided what it has to offer them. This is not some reaction to an extremely stressful situation. This is a conscious choice taken by a dolphin that realized it will never be happy living in captivity.

Indeed. Any estimation of human worth that hinges *entirely* on intellectual merit leads us to this dilemma. Furthermore, it potentially leads to elitism or meritocracy. Should the hyper-intelligent get multiple votes or have some sort of elite citizenship?

No. And I say no, not because I have any logical or scientifically founded reason to say no, but because that sounds like something a fascist or a race hygienist would say.

Not exactly. I mean, "worth" is subjective. It was subjective to base worth on emotional depth, intelligence, or any of these other factors. It's equally subjective to place worth on being genetically human.

Well, no I wouldn?t call it subjective to base worth on intelligence. This is about suffering. In my equation, the greater the intelligence ? the greater is the suffering. We are not discussing intelligence because it?s a virtue. I wouldn?t even call it a virtue.

On the other hand, this conversation often comes up in AI and machine intelligence. You probably wouldn't think it was ethically wrong for someone to smash his laptop, but if instead of a laptop, he was smashing a true AI that could demonstrate human-quality thinking, reasoning, and emotion, you'd probably feel it was wrong to destroy it.

I certainly would, and the day that machines can demonstrate ?human-quality thinking?, ill be amongst the first to demonstrate. But I don?t think this issue is something that I will have to worry about anytime soon.

No, I?m just indifferent to species when judging. I do, however, take the above perspectives into account (intelligence, feelings). So if I was to choose between the death of a rat and a gorilla, I would probably choose for the rat to die.

Over a mentally handicapped gorilla?

That would definitely make the situation more complicated. But after all, this entire conversation really borders to philosophy and ethics. We will never have to choice between saving a dog and a human being (probably). However, if you keep in mind that many animals have similar emotions and fears as human beings should probably raise other ethical questions regarding how we treat animals.

They require little training. They are dogs, and they seem to have an inherent will to help.

Which we genetically engineered in them through generations of selective breeding. Also, they require little training? Says you. I guess it's all relative, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't train a puppy to do that job.

Well that depends on what we are talking about. Rescue dogs require training, of course, and the training can be quite expensive too. However, therapy dogs basically just need to be dogs. They are there to be cuddled with. They sense depression and sadness in humans and are quite good at cheering them up.

Hold on there. There's no question that dogs are loyal and devoted to their tasks, but let's not start unfairly comparing them to humans. Dogs are bred for these traits. They are self-sacrificing to a fault. A dog is simply behaving according to its nature when it does this, while a human is actually being moral when it selflessly helps others. There's a huge difference.

Well this is just my respective, but no, I don?t think there is any such difference at all. Humans, just like animals, are controlled almost exclusively by impulses and instincts. But if you argue that humans have the ability to make moral decisions, than that is only a huge moral argument against our entire species because our western society is founded on the suffering of others. (The idea of humans being a ?successful? species is a huge misconception. A majority of us lives in poverty. )

I know that many like to think that humans have some kind of moral guidance, and when animals display these traits, it is suddenly just a question of instincts. What exactly is that founded on? If a mother rescues her child from a burning building, isn?t that just as much as result of instincts as when a dog rescues a human (any human) from a burning building?

A moral decision is seldom a result of a conscious valuation of the situation, it?s an impulse. And this impulse is the same both when it comes to dogs and humans. If humans were able to make moral decision out of given premises, facts and logics, there would be no meat industry, and there would be trafficking or tobacco industry.

If you ask me, and again this is just me, if a dog is less intelligent, less self-awareness, but more like to act in a way that, given human standards, could be considered moral, then the dog is a better species than humans.

Did they have this loyalty when they were wolves? Man *made* dogs. Perhaps people have been inspired by their loyalty, but they are as loyal as they are because we bred them to be.

No, they are loyal because they are pack animals. Wolves were pack animals, and the qualities they already had, as wolves, allowed them to approach humans and humans to welcome them, millions of years ago.

But if we are to discuss the result of dog breeding, we could also take a look at the bulldog or the dachshund, or any other breed of dog that has been breed too carelessly.

It is not uncommon for animals to show no empathy to other species.

Neither is it for humans.

A scientist would probably find it difficult to experiment on his own pet, but an anonymous test subject is another story. Similarly, a dog doesn't have a problem chasing down and killing a rabbit just for fun, but if it was raised with the rabbit, it generally won't do that. The reason they don't do scientific experimentation is that they don't have the intellectual capacity to do so. It isn't because they have some higher and more noble morality that impedes them.

I don?t think that dogs have some kind of higher morality than humans. But let?s imagine that the reasons behind a dog?s decision to be moral and unselfish were irrelevant, then wouldn?t they give every sign of having a more noble morality than humans?

I've talked to people before who credit animals for their apparently noble behavior, saying that it comes from a deep emotional commitment to their fellow living creatures, and then when you point out the fact that dogs and cats routinely kill innocent creatures, they'll absolve them of responsibility by saying they are only acting on instinct.

This is where each person has to form their own philosophical conviction. My belief is that both animals and humans act on instinct or impulses. So that argument really isn?t applicable to my philosophy.

We accept that humans have minds and experience emotions and feelings because we know that *we* experience them, and we are humans. But it is far harder to ascertain to what extent an animal experiences these things.

That?s why we shouldn?t be so fast when deciding that they don?t.

Source please. My understanding is that most mammals are *not* self-aware.

Do you actually want a source confirming that animals know that they exist? What I meant is that the scientific community finally abandoned the idea of all animals being exclusively driven by instincts during the 80s, and to some point, before that. This must mean that they are self-aware.

But by all means:

Also, self-awareness is a question of semantics. ? In the end it may be this simple principle of self-awareness that distinguishes the living from the nonliving.?

http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/selfawareness_animals

Secondly, the test for self-awareness might not be sensitive enough. What little scientific evidence we claim to have are often inherently flawed.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/09/the_test_for_self-awareness_in.html

Thirdly:
?Self awareness is proven by the many behavioral patterns which animals exhibit which suggest, without the shadow of a doubt, the possessions of certain mental stimuli; some of which are: status, pride, self esteem, territoriality, self punishment, self love, supremacy, and submission.?

?Sometimes when animals are passing through stressful situations in which there is no way out, they, in turn, start punishing themselves, for they bestow the anger of failure and frustration towards themselves. If it is a parrot, instead of grooming itself, it might start plucking its own feathers. If it is a dog, it might start chewing on its own fur or chasing after its own tail. These are usually signs of self punishments that can only be seen in beings with a well developed sense of self.?
1997 Samuel Vergio - http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm

And lastly, I think it?s preposterous that we assume that animals do not have self-awareness, and that the opposite must be proven. The logical would be to go the other way around, and require evidence to suggest that they are not self-aware. And there is no such evidence. To quote an article from Scientific American.

?One of the most common misconceptions about brain evolution is that it represents a linear process culminating in the amazing cognitive powers of humans, with the brains of other modern species representing previous stages. Such ideas have even influenced the thinking of neuroscientists and psychologists who compare the brains of different species used in biomedical research. Over the past 30 years, however, research in comparative neuroanatomy clearly has shown that complex brains?and sophisticated cognition?have evolved from simpler brains multiple times independently in separate lineages, or evolutionarily related groups?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=one-world-many-minds

And lastly, according to Mark Bekoff author of? Minding animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart?
?Some people don't want to acknowledge the possibility of self-awareness in animals because if they do, the borders between humans and other animals become blurred and their narrow, hierarchical, anthropocentric view of the world would be toppled.?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200907/do-animals-know-who-they-are

And lastly, http://www.squidoo.com/interestinganimalfacts

Here you can find an accumulation of supposed evidence and examples of animal self-awareness in the animal kingdom.

Most fail the mirror test, for example, which is, as I understand it, the usual way to determine this.

EDIT: not that I personally think the mirror test should be the final word on self-awareness. Nevertheless, awareness of self is only the tip of the iceberg. Human beings additionally possess concept of self. Are you lazy, smart, industrious, mellow, or funny? You probably have ideas about these things.

quote] My dog recognizes herself in a mirror.

I doubt it. Did you conduct the mirror test scientifically? Because it is a well known fact that dogs, as a species, do not pass the mirror test. If yours does, then you have an exceptional and possibly noteworthy dog.

[/quote]
I?m glad you added that ?edit?. The mirror test is a rather stupid, old experiment from the 70s. It was thought of in a time when humans knew less of animal senses and are based upon human awareness and understanding of mirrors, which is the result of our advances visual system. Humans recognize and define things based on vision, whereas dogs, smell things. I?ve heard that humans who have been blind their entire life, and then regain vision, may not recognize themselves in mirrors in the beginning. The reasons why dogs fail mirror tests is mainly because they don?t interpret the world with their eyes to the same extent that humans do. It should also be noted that many gorillas have failed this test, whereas other animals widely considered to be less intelligent has passed. Elephants, magpies, etc.

Because of the many flaws of this test, other more modern and elegant tests have been conducted to test, for example, canine intelligence. Such as Marc Bekoff?s urine test.

But it?s true that I didn?t conduct the mirror test scientifically. I just noticed that she reacted on herself in the mirror initially, but later learnt to ignore it, obviously knowing that the motion in the mirror is just her passing by. She also saw me through the mirror, and reacted on me, so I assumed that if she could also define things seen through the mirror. (And yes, my dog is intelligent. She is a border collie)

My theory is that we see ourselves even in the mentally handicapped. This is the root of compassion in humans. Why do you have more compassion for a dog than a lizard? The dog reminds you more of a person. If there were a giant
spider that possessed as much loyalty, invention, and industry as a dog, the typical human being would still recoil from the thing due to its alien and horrifying appearance.

Probably. I?m not sure what this is supposed to prove, though.

Fundamentally, our morals are based on subjective feelings that we have. Any attempt to assign value to a living thing arises from feelings that have no objective basis in fact or in any sort of absolute morality.

This is the subjective, social factor comes into play. To me, my dog will always be more important to me than you, not because my dog is technically more worthy as a species or anything of the like, but because I know her but not you.

And I think that this is a very good reason as well. This is the only valuation that is applicable to reality.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

Ok, first, this is a *monster* of a post. If we were having a conversation in person, I'd love to hit every point in it, but that's just too daunting, so I'm going to pick and choose a bit.

I don?t really understand what you mean here. Humans care about the eco-system because it is essential to their survival, along with any other species on this planet.

That's too much of a generalization. It is not universally true that every ecosystem on this planet is essential to human survival.

Animals are not as sophisticated as humans, no certainly not. But as I tried to prove in my previous posts, many animals are extremely close. Dolphins, gorillas, elephants etc. So I?m against the ancient philosophy that states that the human being holds some kind of sacred merit.

And those animals that are closer are usually valued more highly. For example, we have campaigns to save dolphins from tuna nets... but do we care about the tuna themselves?

To go off topic for a moment, which animals have been shown to have "fears for the future"? And how would you go about establishing that

Off topic? I thought we were discussing whether the life of a human being is always more worth than that of an animal. I answered the question whether I would save the OP or my dog quite a few posts ago.

No, *I'm* going off topic by asking that question. I don't think the answer is critical to the discussion, but I was curious. Jeez. Anyway, it sounds like you're talking about anxiety. Gotcha.

The only limit in our understanding of the cognitive abilities of gorillas is the language border. And as this border will gradually disappear (see the section about gorillas and sign language above) we will learn more about their intelligence, and we will with all probability conclude that our differences in intelligence are very small.

Either you and I have a different sense of the phrase "very small" or we disagree on this. Perhaps we can bet a pretend dollar.

We already know that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA is 98 percent identical.

Which proves that we diverged from them fairly recently, but we share a great deal of our DNA with all mammals. A quick look around the web yields that we share 90% with cats and even 75% with mice. I'm not saying that genetic distance is a worthless measure, but *what* is different is more important than how much is different. Had we diverged from a species a couple hundred million years ago and that species independently evolved to be as intelligent as us, we'd diverge from it far more than cats, but we'd be more alike in the ways that count.

What exactly do you want a source of? That dolphins are capable of reflecting over their feature or reflect over memories?

No, that they have "practically the same, if not exactly the same" ability as humans. I think you're overstating and letting your personal bias come in.

Indeed. Any estimation of human worth that hinges *entirely* on intellectual merit leads us to this dilemma. Furthermore, it potentially leads to elitism or meritocracy. Should the hyper-intelligent get multiple votes or have some sort of elite citizenship?

No. And I say no, not because I have any logical or scientifically founded reason to say no, but because that sounds like something a fascist or a race hygienist would say.

Well sure. No was the expected response. It sounds like a bad idea to judge one human as having greater human rights than another based purely on merit.

Well, no I wouldn?t call it subjective to base worth on intelligence.

Worth *is* subjective. Period. It *always* is. If I say intelligence is of little worth and you say it is of great worth, how can either of us prove the other wrong? The only reason an argument like this can appear to be based on reason is that we both, in reality, accept that intelligence has worth.

This is about suffering. In my equation, the greater the intelligence ? the greater is the suffering.

So? Give me one reason that does not come from emotion for why suffering should matter. Do not misunderstand me. I think it matters. But it is subjective.

I certainly would, and the day that machines can demonstrate ?human-quality thinking?, ill be amongst the first to demonstrate. But I don?t think this issue is something that I will have to worry about anytime soon.

Interesting, isn't it? You are assigning worth to entities based on their similarity to humans. Particularly when it comes to intelligence and emotion, sure, but based on their similarity to humans.

Where I think you and I differ is that you see animals as more similar to humans than I do. Not that I see them as wholly dissimilar, mind you, but that does appear to be what brings us to differing conclusions.

Over a mentally handicapped gorilla?

That would definitely make the situation more complicated.

Wouldn't it though? I notice you don't answer the question. It is the same one that is being asked of those in this thread who see humans as special for their intelligence and emotion.

The reality is that I don't see the loss of a mentally handicapped person as as bad as the loss of a mentally capable person. People of this thread, judge me however you like, but if you chose your pet over a mentally handicapped human being who possessed mental faculties comparable to your pet, I don't think I'd judge you poorly for it.

A dog is simply behaving according to its nature when it does this, while a human is actually being moral when it selflessly helps others. There's a huge difference.

Well this is just my respective, but no, I don?t think there is any such difference at all. Humans, just like animals, are controlled almost exclusively by impulses and instincts.

I am a human, and I am not controlled almost exclusively by impulses and instincts. I see that as disproof by counterexample.

I have a morality that arises from my emotional conscience. I feel compassion and empathy for others, and I feel that there are certain behaviors that are moral and certain behaviors that are not. If an instinct (such as self-preservation) drives me to violate this moral code, I can still make the decision to stay true to my morals rather than true to my instincts. That is the difference.

But if you argue that humans have the ability to make moral decisions, than that is only a huge moral argument against our entire species because our western society is founded on the suffering of others.

Dear lord, that is a cynical viewpoint. For the record, I wholeheartedly disagree that western society is founded on the suffering of others. Is there suffering? Yes. Is it the foundation of society? Absurd.

And while I agree that those of us who behave immorally reflect poorly on the species, those of us who behave morally are an inspiration and show just how much value there is in humanity.

(The idea of humans being a ?successful? species is a huge misconception. A majority of us lives in poverty. )

Poverty is a relative thing. Yes, there are parts of the world where poverty is extremely prevalent, but it is a gross (and, incidentally, arbitrary) oversimplification to base a determination of humanity's success as a species on this fact.

I know that many like to think that humans have some kind of moral guidance, and when animals display these traits, it is suddenly just a question of instincts. What exactly is that founded on? If a mother rescues her child from a burning building, isn?t that just as much as result of instincts as when a dog rescues a human (any human) from a burning building?

Perhaps, but what if I rescue *you* from a burning building? Why should I care about you enough to risk my own life? And yet I would. Or at least, I hope I would. I'm not saying that humans don't have instincts to drive their decisions. Hell, our nature is what determines our sense of what is moral to begin with, but our *actions* are determined by more than just instinct.

A moral decision is seldom a result of a conscious valuation of the situation, it?s an impulse.

Maybe in a life and death emergency with adrenaline flowing... But when I decide that it would be wrong to lie (even to a stranger) for my own personal gain, what impulse is that? What impulse is it that prevents me from shoplifting even if I'm certain I'll get away with it? Is it that I care about the shop owner? Even at a major chain like Best Buy where they not only wouldn't miss one item, but those in charge are so wealthy that it's hard to feel compassion for their monetary loss? No, I don't shoplift because I respect property rights of others. There's no particular instinct for respecting property rights. It arises from philosophical thinking and an attempt to create a consistent moral framework.

And this impulse is the same both when it comes to dogs and humans. If humans were able to make moral decision out of given premises, facts and logics, there would be no meat industry,

I do not see the two as contradictory. A conversation for another time, perhaps.

If you ask me, and again this is just me, if a dog is less intelligent, less self-awareness, but more like to act in a way that, given human standards, could be considered moral, then the dog is a better species than humans.

Another place where we differ. It is at least as important to me to understand *why* you are doing the right thing as it is to simply do the right thing. From humans, I do not want mere compliance, but rather true moral thinking. A human who behaves mostly morally (but not always), and does so out of a moral conscience is better, in my eyes, than a human who was trained and conditioned to behave perfectly morally and has no idea why he does any of what he does.

If I were running a society, compliance would be paramount. But I'm not. I'm a humanist, and I want humans to transcend instinct and conditioning.

No, they are loyal because they are pack animals. Wolves were pack animals, and the qualities they already had, as wolves, allowed them to approach humans and humans to welcome them, millions of years ago.

Sure, the potential was there, but a wolf will not go into a burning building to save a human being. Most breeds of dogs won't either. Wolves have loyalty to those of their pack, but they are more well-rounded animals than dogs, many of which are wholly dependent on their human masters, bred for loyalty far beyond their lupine ancestors.

But if we are to discuss the result of dog breeding, we could also take a look at the bulldog or the dachshund, or any other breed of dog that has been breed too carelessly.

Do not mistake my point (you seem to do this a lot). I'm not saying that what we've done to dogs speaks well of humans. I'm saying that it isn't fair to credit dogs for being loyal, when that was precisely what they were bred for, by humans. I'm not saying we *should* have bred dogs, but we did, and this selfless nobility that you so highly prize in them is largely our doing.

It is not uncommon for animals to show no empathy to other species.

Neither is it for humans.

Ugh. This is tiresome, you know. I never said it wasn't uncommon for humans. I'm not saying that animals are these despicable immoral creatures and humans are glowing angels of virtue. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in so many in the animal rights movement who talk about how animals are pure and moral and humans are evil and corrupt. When a human kills an animal or another human, it's evil, but when an animal does it, it's just a natural part of life. We are held to a higher standard for committing amoral acts (we should be), but then we aren't given greater credit for moral acts. It's inconsistent.

I don?t think that dogs have some kind of higher morality than humans. But let?s imagine that the reasons behind a dog?s decision to be moral and unselfish were irrelevant, then wouldn?t they give every sign of having a more noble morality than humans?

As I mentioned earlier, the reasons will never be irrelevant to me, but if we presuppose they are, maybe.... if we were sure that dogs actually behaved more "morally" than humans.

I've not always had great experiences with dogs, myself. Your average human, I can more or less expect will not growl at you and try to bite you. Not so with dogs. I've gotten scratches and minor bites on several occasions. My girlfriend used to be terrified of dogs. She was attacked by one that came out from under a porch when she was leaving a flyer in someone's mailbox. My grandfather was a postman and had a lot of bad experiences with dogs...

My cousin had a truly mean and vicious Great Pyrenese (very uncommon for the breed). A woman wandered off to the wrong part of their property and accidentally stumbled upon the dog, which promptly attacked her, viciously biting her arm (required over 40 stitches). The dog was not trained to be a guard dog, and she wasn't trespassing. It was just a mean dog.

I'm also reminded of that poor woman mauled to death by rottweilers in the foyer of her apartment building.

Another thing I've noticed is that we have a tendency to blame the owner in those cases. Perhaps the dogs were mistreated, or perhaps they learned to be violent from the owner. In either case, the dog is absolved of guilt for its behavior.

Would that be true of a human? If you had a poor childhood and violence was common where you grew up, and then you went into the foyer of an apartment building and shot a woman to death, would we absolve you of responsibility? Hell no.

My theory is that we see ourselves even in the mentally handicapped. This is the root of compassion in humans. Why do you have more compassion for a dog than a lizard? The dog reminds you more of a person. If there were a giant
spider that possessed as much loyalty, invention, and industry as a dog, the typical human being would still recoil from the thing due to its alien and horrifying appearance.

Probably. I?m not sure what this is supposed to prove, though.

Prove? So adversarial. I'm not trying to prove anything with that. I'm suggesting what I think it is that makes people feel such a connection to dogs. Choosing value for life is ultimately pretty arbitrary. I think most people choose it based off of the perceived human-ness of the animal.

This is the subjective, social factor comes into play. To me, my dog will always be more important to me than you, not because my dog is technically more worthy as a species or anything of the like, but because I know her but not you.

I suspect she'll probably die of old age some time in the next ten years. Once your dog is gone, I'd at least hope you'd reflect for a moment on the fact that a human being could still be alive if not for you. A human being whose mother/father/sister/brother/best friend, probably still misses.

And before you say that shouldn't matter, my grandfather is in his 80s and has lived a full life, and, consequently, I think I'd save you over him, despite the relation and familiarity. I'd want to meet you, your friends, and your family afterward so I could more fully appreciate the difference I made in all your lives, but, ultimately, there it is.

And I think that this is a very good reason as well. This is the only valuation that is applicable to reality.

Poppycock. Familiarity will drive our decision-making to an extent. I will choose my mother, father, girlfriend, brothers and sisters, or my friends over you if it comes down to it. But that is because all other factors are otherwise equal.

 

[spockface]

When I adopted my 'tiel, I made a commitment to her to keep her safe, healthy and happy. I have made no such commitment to the OP. My 'tiel wins.

Also, "there is a serious lack of empathy in the modern world"... because people will save their beloved pets over strangers? There are no words to describe the sheer amount of fecal material I think you are spouting. You do realize that making animals suffer (either directly or through inaction) is among the biggest red flags for future violent and destructive behavior, right?

 

[Nuada_Redd]

Joy. What do you know? The usual shit has been thrown -_- it would be nice if an opinion in this area was respected, and not just called stupid, or silly, or airheaded. Actually considered to schmaybe have come from a half way rational brain.

I'd let my friend die to save you, who has nothing but disgust for me. How selfish of me.

Selflessness implies being willing to give something of one's self. Saving something simply because it matters to one's self is not selfless. Of all the charges that could be levied, from sociopathy to human superiority to a shortage of ethics, the one you have chosen to question is the one that can not be denied.

You think YOU'RE depressed about the state of humanity? Make room.

My veiws relate to the idea of human superiority, and the idea that many individuals have that an animal is little more than an object or a machine, or at least much insuperior to a human. I disagree strongely. I nod to many of the points already made on this issue.

Can a duck make a building if not it's not as important as humans if that makes me selfish then yes I am selfish, but I am a selfish person with regular protein levels and video games to play in my spare time not PETA rallies

I did not mention PETA, nor any of the other issues you've attributed to my opinion. I like how people jump to conclussions. Actually, I do eat meat, personally, and wear leather products. I have my own veiw within this decision, but that is neather here nor there. And I like my video games, thankyou very much. State one thing, and everyone is like 'oooooh... THAT sort, eh?' Widen your perspective, guys. Dont group everyone together, and try to treat others with a little respect. Dont worry, it wont fucking hurt.

Sooo... you matter if you can build a brick and mortar house? Well, that was well thought out. Well done. Gold star. Many people cannot do this, without quite a bit of knowledge and training. Sometimes still cant. Think we might have quite a considerable drop in population.

CarlMinez, maybe one day I may gain your calm when discussing such a fustrating subject. Im aware that I'm possible not going about expressing my veiws and thoughts on the issue in the best of ways, but it is more than fustrating, and to be honest I've had it up to here with this sort of thing. You have a good discussion going there, and good points have been made. I apologise that my venting of fustration and the predictable shit-throwing has interupted the both of you.