The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

What do you value more, a human or some other animal?

I just finished playing The Talos Principle, what an amazing game if you like puzzle games and you've not played it I highly recommend it. Without spoiling anything I just want to talk about something that is mentioned in the game.

In the game you're trying to argue your reasoning for why we value human life above all else. In the game I argue that human life isn't more important than any other life, we just believe it to be to reinforce our own self worth.

I am sure that if a lion or a seagul or a frog had the ability to comprehend it's own existence, it too would think it is the most important living thing and put their kind above all others.

So then the game asks me what makes a person a person and I argue that conciousness, the ability to comprehend the world around us makes us a person, that is what separates us from all other life and subsequently makes us more important, or does it?

Then I am faced with another question. A baby is just as useless, just as ignorant, unconscious and unaware of their existence and the world as any other animal, even less so in fact.

If you had to chose between saving a frog or a baby you would save the baby but from everything we've just said that makes no sense. The decision should be 50/50, you should save who is closest or save the one that is most likely to live if saved.

When you think about it. A frog and a baby are equally ignorant, equally unaware and both do not have a conscience, they're not aware they exist, you could even suggest that the frog is more aware than the baby?

So then I argue that the reason we save the baby is because the baby has the potential to have conciousness, awareness and develop into a person.

So I wonder, does conciousness and awareness really make us the most important animal or do we just perceive it that way to reinforce our own self worth?

Are all other animals equal then? I'm guessing 100% of you would rather save a lion or an elephant or a kangaroo than a frog or a sparrow and I wonder why?

Perhaps the larger the animal the more valuable we deem their life? If that is the case then we should fall relatively low on the list... but again this is not the case.

Thoughts?
(edited 9 years ago)
I definitely value humans more than animals. I value my fellow humans more because they are the same species as me and I can understand or interact with them more so then I can with any other creature.

Other than valuing animals over insects, I wouldn't be any more inclined to save one animal than another. Be it a lion, a frog, an elephant or a sparrow, I could not care less about them.
Humans contribute more to developing society... And you would probably save the elephant or lion as there's less of them than frogs/insects etc
Original post by tengentoppa
I definitely value humans more than animals. I value my fellow humans more because they are the same species as me and I can understand or interact with them more so then I can with any other creature.

Other than valuing animals over insects, I wouldn't be any more inclined to save one animal than another. Be it a lion, a frog, an elephant or a sparrow, I could not care less about them.


So you're saying that importance is just an illusion. A cat can understand, interact and breed with other cats therefore in the world of a cat, they're the most important animal

So it would seem that our view of us being the most important is nothing more than because we think it is.
Original post by mizzsnazzter
Humans contribute more to developing society... And you would probably save the elephant or lion as there's less of them than frogs/insects etc


There's also less lions than people, but you'd save the person over the lion wouldn't you? Are you sure it's not some other factor?
Depends on the human. I don't care for the saving of scum. An animal isn't good or bad, it just does what it's taught to. I'd say that animals are worth more than bad humans but good humans are worth more than animals.
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
There's also less lions than people, but you'd save the person over the lion wouldn't you? Are you sure it's not some other factor?


Yes because humans contribute more to the society I live in. I'm sure if you asked a lion they would save the lion... Also as humans we have a greater connection to other humans as we are the same being.
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
So you're saying that importance is just an illusion. A cat can understand, interact and breed with other cats therefore in the world of a cat, they're the most important animal

So it would seem that our view of us being the most important is nothing more than because we think it is.

I would say so.
Original post by mizzsnazzter
Yes because humans contribute more to the society I live in. I'm sure if you asked a lion they would save the lion... Also as humans we have a greater connection to other humans as we are the same being.


Yeah so basically what you're saying is the same as Tengentoppa in that importance is because we deem it so. I guess if we didn't treat our own as the priority it would jeopardise our existence. I wonder if when my dog barks at people he is barking to protect himself or me :rolleyes:

Original post by Protégé
Depends on the human. I don't care for the saving of scum. I'd say that animals are worth more than bad humans but good humans are worth more than animals.


Yeah I would agree with this.
Reply 9
Avatar for viddy9
viddy9
16
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
...


You bring up some excellent points.

I value some human life more than the lives of nonhuman animals, because normal humans are more self-aware than animals; they have a greater preference or interest in continuing to live.

However, when it comes to a severely intellectually disabled human or a human infant, I wouldn't value their life more than that of some nonhuman animals. There are quite a few nonhuman animals who are self-aware, for example chimpanzees, other great apes, some birds and some aquatic animals as well.

So, I'd value their lives more than the lives of the aforementioned humans, because they have a greater interest in continuing to live.

As for the potentiality argument, I'm not convinced by it. We already have an overpopulation problem, first of all, and the more humans there are, the more damage is done to the environment. So, would more humans really contribute to a better society? I highly doubt it.

Furthermore, if this were true, then why isn't everyone on this thread who has used the potentiality argument aiming to have as many children as they possibly can?

Third, potential beings don't have the same rights as actual beings. Does Prince William have the rights and responsibilities of the Queen simply because he's a potential monarch? Of course not.

So, the answer is: I mostly value human life more than the lives of nonhuman animals, but for non-speciesist reasons. I sometimes value the lives of nonhuman animals more than the lives of humans. And, as for suffering, I think that we're equals when it comes to suffering, so I'd probably leave it to chance when it came to things such as torture.
(edited 9 years ago)
I value animals more than humans. Humans are destroying the earth and they kill other species for their own benefit. It shows selfishness.
Reply 11
Avatar for Bio 7
Bio 7
21
Original post by lindanoelle
I value animals more than humans. Humans are destroying the earth and they kill other species for their own benefit. It shows selfishness.


Agreed, I would rather save a bee than some people. The poor bees aren’t responsible for anything being damaged but humans ruin things.

Save the bees!
I value a human more than a thousand animals.
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
I just finished playing The Talos Principle, what an amazing game if you like puzzle games and you've not played it I highly recommend it. Without spoiling anything I just want to talk about something that is mentioned in the game.

In the game you're trying to argue your reasoning for why we value human life above all else. In the game I argue that human life isn't more important than any other life, we just believe it to be to reinforce our own self worth.

I am sure that if a lion or a seagul or a frog had the ability to comprehend it's own existence, it too would think it is the most important living thing and put their kind above all others.

So then the game asks me what makes a person a person and I argue that conciousness, the ability to comprehend the world around us makes us a person, that is what separates us from all other life and subsequently makes us more important, or does it?

Then I am faced with another question. A baby is just as useless, just as ignorant, unconscious and unaware of their existence and the world as any other animal, even less so in fact.

If you had to chose between saving a frog or a baby you would save the baby but from everything we've just said that makes no sense. The decision should be 50/50, you should save who is closest or save the one that is most likely to live if saved.

When you think about it. A frog and a baby are equally ignorant, equally unaware and both do not have a conscience, they're not aware they exist, you could even suggest that the frog is more aware than the baby?

So then I argue that the reason we save the baby is because the baby has the potential to have conciousness, awareness and develop into a person.

So I wonder, does conciousness and awareness really make us the most important animal or do we just perceive it that way to reinforce our own self worth?

Are all other animals equal then? I'm guessing 100% of you would rather save a lion or an elephant or a kangaroo than a frog or a sparrow and I wonder why?

Perhaps the larger the animal the more valuable we deem their life? If that is the case then we should fall relatively low on the list... but again this is not the case.

Thoughts?

I think you’re over-complicating it. Humans are the best creation. Show mercy to other animals but in a life death situation between a human and another creation- if you’re ever faced with one- the human takes priority. It’s quite clear that a human has more potential and responsibility than a frog. My belief, Islam, tells me this as only humans and jinn are taken into account on judgement day. When the earth dies, the other animal’s purposes are gone. That’s not to say they don’t have a soul- they do- but they serve a worldly purpose whereas a human or jinn is expected to strive on Earth for the Hereafter.
You say some people, denoting that they are specific people based on your opinion on them? but what about if you ever had to save a stranger?
Original post by Bio 7
Agreed, I would rather save a bee than some people. The poor bees aren’t responsible for anything being damaged but humans ruin things.

Save the bees!
Sometimes dogs bark when they see a devil which is made of infrared light. Humans don’t have the ability to see them but donkeys and dogs do.
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
Yeah so basically what you're saying is the same as Tengentoppa in that importance is because we deem it so. I guess if we didn't treat our own as the priority it would jeopardise our existence. I wonder if when my dog barks at people he is barking to protect himself or me :rolleyes:



Yeah I would agree with this.
So all humans are bad and you wouldn’t save one if you had the chance? Wouldn’t you be upset if someone had the chance to save someone close to you(ie your mum) and their excuse was “I don’t like humans”
Original post by lindanoelle
I value animals more than humans. Humans are destroying the earth and they kill other species for their own benefit. It shows selfishness.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you