Is human life worth more than the lives of other species? Watch

AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 6 months ago
#21
I mean it is not even an argument, yes 100%
0
reply
Unknown-99
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 6 months ago
#22
You could argue human life is worth less than other species. We're the ones destroying the Earth and each other.
2
reply
Kocytean
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 6 months ago
#23
I didn't bother reading the rest of your post because the first sentence was wrong. The survival and propagation of genes is not the "purpose" or "drive" of biological life, it is simply the outcome produced by a deterministic set of rules. Genes do not exist so they can spread, nor because they want to spread, rather they exist because they spread.

The entire system of value and worth is subjective, i.e., macro scale biologically, and cannot be constructed from a fundamentalist point of view or used in conjunction with a reductionist argument on the micro scale. A gene does not care about "purpose" because it has no brain and thus "purpose" cannot possibly apply to a gene.
5
reply
Thefreak99
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#24
Report 6 months ago
#24
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
I mean it is not even an argument, No 100%
Changed that far you.

A few hundred years ago being would be saying that white peoples lives are more important than black peoples 100% and its not even an argument. Just a load of bs like what you are sprouting right now.
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 6 months ago
#25
(Original post by Thefreak99)
Changed that far you.

A few hundred years ago being would be saying that white peoples lives are more important than black peoples 100% and its not even an argument. Just a load of bs like what you are sprouting right now.
No because blacks are not another species.
0
reply
Thefreak99
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#26
Report 6 months ago
#26
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
No because blacks are not another species.
Yes but they were another race and that was good enough for them back then.
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 6 months ago
#27
(Original post by Thefreak99)
Yes but they were another race and that was good enough for them back then.
Not even an argument.
0
reply
Thefreak99
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#28
Report 6 months ago
#28
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
Not even an argument.
Its just as much of an argument as the one you are using to try and justify saying humans lives are more worthy than other species.
0
reply
Plus7
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#29
Report 6 months ago
#29
(Original post by TheProctor)
Objectively speaking, if the purpose (innate drive) of biological life is to reproduce and spread genes, then humans must be the most crucial component of life to work towards such objective, no? Considering our technological advancements and future potential, intelligence and self-awareness, we have the environment at our fingertips which we can manipulate to create rockets and colonize other planets.

Even if some humans are evil and create chaos for biological life (a mass murdurer, say) they still carry with them the potential of self-actualization and contribution to his or her species, whereas 10, 100 or 1000 elephants do not. It just so happened that a particular set of events occurred to drive this person into such as delusional and flawed mindset (be it partially genetic, due to upbringing or bad life experience).

Though, of course, this does not mean eradication of species is okay, however the sacrifice of animal life for the betterment of the planet's apex species should not be argued with (in the case of animal testing for example). It is an investment into the progression of biological life as a whole. Consider what would happen if humans were to die out to a epidemic of some kind which could have been prevented through mass animal testing to find a cure. Even if life were to continue up until the expansion of the sun into a Red Giant, it would be unlikely that something as complex as humans would arise again.

Again I am not saying killing animals for any reason just because we're humans is okay, what I am saying is that the argument against animal testing is wrong in my opinion.

Yes we are animals just like elephants or turtles, intelligent apes even, but we are apes with rockets, cities and satellites who are striving to spread the biological seed into the universe.

Just wanted to know other people's opinion on this topic.
The answer is entirely relative. Because there are lots of ways of seeing it. Humans are more intelligent, are more capable of prolonging and conserving life. But we also have negative aspects to counter that. So I'l go ahead and throw that argument out of the window.

If, like me, you see no point to the world and it's on goings and we're simply surviving for the hell of it then you can only conclude animals have the same value as human beings.
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 6 months ago
#30
(Original post by TheProctor)
JUSTIFIED animal suffering (for the purposes of testing and increasing the rate of progress of biological life - i.e. humans) is beneficial for all life.
I don't think that human progress is beneficial to all animals. I do think that some animal testing is justified, but I do hope that we can develop computer models that can eliminate as much as possible.

(Original post by TheProctor)
I also agree that tribalism is one of humans survival instincts that allowed us to become what we are now, however humans have the capacity to treat all other people equally and understand that we can all cooperate, simply because many other humans are already able to do so, whereas animals (on a conscious and deliberate level) cannot.
Some animals do cooperate. It's hard to know how conscious it is, but I have no reason to believe that it couldn't be.

(Original post by TheProctor)
I strongly believe that we should not look into religion's flawed and outdated claims for solutions, as they were not faced with the things we are faced with now as a society (our connectivity, our technology etc.).
I have a different reason - they're just fairy tales.

(Original post by TheProctor)
I'm trying to say that humans are objectively more important in terms of ensuring Earth's biological life is able to thrive
It did fine without us, and will do after us. It may take time to recover from what we're doing to it.

(Original post by TheProctor)
and not be confined to this planet, taking in to account our technological capabilities to fulfill such objective.
We'll see. With Muppet Man in the White House, who knows how long we've got.
0
reply
TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#31
(Original post by RogerOxon)
We'll see. With Muppet Man in the White House, who knows how long we've got.
Haha, well I'm hoping good old Elon is going to help us spread our reach a bit before anyone ****s up the planet beyond repair (like nuclear war).
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#32
(Original post by Plus7)
The answer is entirely relative. Because there are lots of ways of seeing it. Humans are more intelligent, are more capable of prolonging and conserving life. But we also have negative aspects to counter that. So I'l go ahead and throw that argument out of the window.

If, like me, you see no point to the world and it's on goings and we're simply surviving for the hell of it then you can only conclude animals have the same value as human beings.
Purpose of life is subjective for humans, which means we can assign and define our own meaning. However within all biological life there is the drive to reproduce and create new copies of itself, including in humans. It's just that because we are conscious and sentient, we are able to override that drive or enhance it.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
ForgetMe
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#33
Report 6 months ago
#33
Don't forget whilst we are in the power of creation, we also hold the power of destruction of what's been built. It's also our duty to protect those who don't have a voice including animal species because we are the ones destroying their habitats for our own pleasure... Human's life might be more important but that doesn't mean it gives them an authority to treat other species with disrespect.
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#34
Report 6 months ago
#34
(Original post by TheProctor)
Objectively speaking, if the purpose (innate drive) of biological life is to reproduce and spread genes...
Objectively speaking there is no 'purpose' to biological life, it is not a goal-orientated process, this at least is the scientific position (neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory). Appearances can be deceiving!
0
reply
TheTroll73
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#35
Report 6 months ago
#35
the purpose of life for all living beings are much deeper than biological reproduction

have a thought about it
0
reply
Plus7
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#36
Report 6 months ago
#36
(Original post by TheProctor)
Purpose of life is subjective for humans, which means we can assign and define our own meaning. However within all biological life there is the drive to reproduce and create new copies of itself, including in humans. It's just that because we are conscious and sentient, we are able to override that drive or enhance it.
Literally what I just said... None of that makes us more valuable if we're aiming towards nothing.

The purpose of life is mostly man-made nonsense, none of it is proven.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report 6 months ago
#37
(Original post by TheProctor)
Objectively speaking, if the purpose (innate drive) of biological life is to reproduce and spread genes, then humans must be the most crucial component of life to work towards such objective, no?
In my view, bacteria are 'the most crucial component of life' and we are no more than vessels for it to feed from and go places. However, I get the idea.
0
reply
ofdro
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#38
Report 5 months ago
#38
Yes because God said so:

'Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."'
0
reply
Nihilisticb*tch
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#39
Report 5 months ago
#39
Worth is subjective and is pretty much just an opinion. Humans think that human life is more important but if there were another intelligent species they would likely say that their kind was more important. It's to do with empathy, people empathise more with their own kind. You can't objectively say something is "Worth" more because it is by nature a subjective concept.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Jingo7
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#40
Report 5 months ago
#40
Agree with OP more or less, but the question is wrong.

It's not that human life is 'worth' any more or less than anything else in this universe, because that would assume that there is an objective measure of worth which is not wrought by human beings ourselves (i.e. God's measure).

Yes our measure of worth is subjective. Of course it's subjective, but subjective as opposed to what? God's objective truth? Some kind of animal intelligence? Nonsense.

I know for you this is going to sound very strange, even brutal, but here it is: outside of the window of perspective that we human beings have on the universe, the perspective of our society, there is nothing. Nothing, no perspective, no position from which to observe anything, nothing. Nature is random, chaos, accident. Nature is the Real (in a Lacanian sense (look up Lacan)), it has no meaning unto-itself, it isn't really even a 'thing', it is simply the name we attribute to non-human processes. It (plants, animals etc.) cannot 'view' themselves or anything else, they have no consciousness and thus no perspective.

Outside of the human social order there is nothing, we give meaning to things in the universe and our own social order and that's the final and only word on the matter.

Difficulties arise because the meaning we give to our own society, to processes within it, are controversial. That is, questions of ideology, religion, science. We attribute society's reproduction to something 'outside' of human power, to nature, to God or whatever else, when the fact is that human society is reproduced solely by the ideas people have about that society and their position within it, ideas which are in turn produced by that society itself, in it's attempt to reproduce the conditions of it's existence.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (61)
14.95%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (41)
10.05%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (78)
19.12%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (59)
14.46%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (44)
10.78%
How can I be the best version of myself? (125)
30.64%

Watched Threads

View All