Compared to animals, how valuable is a human life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
prodigalson2011 said:
Moral propositions are not moral facts.
Click to expand...
No, but they are statements about moral facts, and like some propositions, some facts are necessary.
prodigalson2011 said:
Yes, it is. Otherwise, you’re just saying, “I believe X is true because X is true.”
Click to expand...
You simply understand my answer if you think this.
prodigalson2011 said:
Yes, and as I just said, your premise can be broken down into a group of statements that make up an argument for its own truth. It fails that test.
Click to expand...
Huh? What test?
 
spencelo said:
They do not. What purpose is implied?
Click to expand...
“Right” and “wrong” (in moral terms) imply that there is a proper order to things. If there is not a proper order (purpose) to things, then on what basis do you say that something is right or wrong?

“Should” and “shouldn’t” imply purpose even more strongly. The very definition of should (again, in the moral sense) is “must; ought”. This implies that one has a duty to some invisible order.

P.S.

I can’t help but note that through this whole conversation, you have contributed nothing to the discussion but evasion, questions and unsubstantiated assertions. This whole one-sided conversation deal gets old quick, so unless you want to start backing up some of your claims, I’m about done with this debate.
 
spencelo said:
No, but they are statements about moral facts, and like some propositions, some facts are necessary.
Click to expand...
Again, you have not shown that moral facts are necessary. Moreover, moral propositions are statements about moral ideas, not necessarily moral facts.
You simply understand my answer if you think this.
Click to expand...
I understand that it’s an answer that deserves to be taken as seriously as the statement, “I believe there are elephants on Neptune because there are elephants on Neptune.”
Huh? What test?
Click to expand...
The test of the syllogism, which I illustrated several posts back. You’ll recall you disagreed with premise B?
 
prodigalson2011 said:
P.S.

I can’t help but note that through this whole conversation, you have contributed nothing to the discussion but evasion, questions and unsubstantiated assertions. This whole one-sided conversation deal gets old quick, so unless you want to start backing up some of your claims, I’m about done with this debate.
Click to expand...
Despite my efforts, you have not gained a proper understanding of my position, and since it doesn’t look like we’ll come to any sort of agreement soon, I think I’ll let the convo end here.
 
spencelo said:
Despite my efforts, you have not gained a proper understanding of my position, and since it doesn’t look like we’ll come to any sort of agreement soon, I think I’ll let the convo end here.
Click to expand...
Your efforts have included making an unsubstantiated statement and then repeating it ad nauseam. It’s impossible to dialogue like that.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Your efforts have included making an unsubstantiated statement and then repeating it ad nauseam. It’s impossible to dialogue like that.
Click to expand...
Not what I’ve been doing, and again, you believe this due to an improper understanding of my position and the dialectical context.
 
spencelo said:
Not what I’ve been doing, and again, you believe this due to an improper understanding of my position and the dialectical context.
Click to expand...
All you have said is “X because X.” There is no “dialectical context” to be considered. You have continually repeated the same proposition and failed to address any of the objections I have raised other than saying “You just don’t understand,” which is not a valid argument.

This is what’s known as “Proof by assertion”: a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.

I have repeatedly refuted your proposition, and you have failed to address any of my objections. You have failed, in fact, to develop your argument at all. It has never extended beyond the premise.
 
spencelo said:
Many on here believe that a human being is infinitely more valuable than any animal. In that case, I would ask people to consider the following hypothetical.

Suppose a multi-billionaire developed an extremely rare form of cancer that will end her life in 2 years – so rare, in fact, that this particular disease will never affect anyone else. Luckily for her, she has enough money to fund a research program to find a cure, but the program would involve performing extremely painful and fatal experiments on over 10 billion mammals (cats, dogs, squirrels, whales, monkeys, you name it). If an animal rights group were able to block this research program, thereby dooming the multi-billionaire to her fate, would that be wrong? I believe it would be morally abhorrent to sacrifice over 10 billion mammals to the save the life of one human, but that seems to be a necessary (absurd!) consequence of the view that human life has infinite value. What say you?
Click to expand...
You need to take your animal rights campaign to an animal rights board. This a board about Catholicism, or at least it used to be.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
All you have said is “X because X.” There is no “dialectical context” to be considered. You have continually repeated the same proposition and failed to address any of the objections I have raised other than saying “You just don’t understand,” which is not a valid argument.

This is what’s known as “Proof by assertion”: a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.

I have repeatedly refuted your proposition, and you have failed to address any of my objections. You have failed, in fact, to develop your argument at all. It has never extended beyond the premise.
Click to expand...
Exactly. In fact beyond vague assertions that ‘animal lives are worth so much that no animal should be factory farmed in order to provide human food’ and ‘animal lives are worth so much that the elimination of human suffering does not justify painful experiments on animals’, you have engaged in no constructive way with the views of those opposing you.

In fact you seem to have wilfully misinterpreted at least some of them. I don’t think I have seen anyone here say in so many words that a human life is worth INFINITELY more than an animal life, simply that they are worth sufficiently more that reasonably humane killing of animals for food is not an issue.

Humans are made to digest meat, along with vegetable matter. We are omnivores, not herbivores. So it is simple biological fact that most of us should at least occasionally do so. There is no doubt that modern diets are too high in animal protein, and that we would benefit from decreasing the quantity and increasing the quality of our animal proteins. Which includes decreasing or eliminating the consumption of factory farmed animals. This is not to say that we are designed to all be vegans - that idea is as ridiculous as if I were to claim that the fact that many in our society are over-sexed means none of us should procreate and we should all be celibate! Society will function fine if some individuals are celibate,likewise if some are vegan. But if we all were celibate the human species would die out. Perhaps also if all were vegan - I for one have studied a lot of history, and do not know of any communities that were entirely vegan in their eating habits that lasted any length of time, perhaps you could kindly point some out to me?

You also fail to engage with the questions I for one have asked you. Sure, animal lives may be worth a great deal, but what is your hierarchy? We all have one and to say you don’t would be a lie. Your vague assertions are meaningless without knowing with more precision what value you place on human vis a vis animal life.

I want to know where you draw the line. It would help me to know where. Would you accept the killing of a human being who threatened to kill you, or at least not condemn those who would kill someone intent on killing them?

If you do, does the same hold true of animals? Would you condemn someone who shot a lion which was threatening their life Would you kill a lion or other animal which was threatening yours? Does it matter in such a case that the animal is merely acting according to its instinct and not with malicious intent?

You assert that bacteria and viruses are not sentient. How do you know this? And whence comes the idea that only sentient life has value? What is it about the fact that (allegedly - we can never be sure) bacteria or carrots cannot experience pain or suffering that makes it fitting for us to blithely snuff out their existences?

If you are truly interested in dialectic, give a bit of background and context for some of the assertions you make and maybe we can have a serious discussion.
 
LilyM said:
Exactly. In fact beyond vague assertions that ‘animal lives are worth so much that no animal should be factory farmed in order to provide human food’ and ‘animal lives are worth so much that the elimination of human suffering does not justify painful experiments on animals’, you have engaged in no constructive way with the views of those opposing you.

In fact you seem to have wilfully misinterpreted at least some of them. I don’t think I have seen anyone here say in so many words that a human life is worth INFINITELY more than an animal life, simply that they are worth sufficiently more that reasonably humane killing of animals for food is not an issue.

Humans are made to digest meat, along with vegetable matter. We are omnivores, not herbivores. So it is simple biological fact that most of us should at least occasionally do so. There is no doubt that modern diets are too high in animal protein, and that we would benefit from decreasing the quantity and increasing the quality of our animal proteins. Which includes decreasing or eliminating the consumption of factory farmed animals. This is not to say that we are designed to all be vegans - that idea is as ridiculous as if I were to claim that the fact that many in our society are over-sexed means none of us should procreate and we should all be celibate! Society will function fine if some individuals are celibate,likewise if some are vegan. But if we all were celibate the human species would die out. Perhaps also if all were vegan - I for one have studied a lot of history, and do not know of any communities that were entirely vegan in their eating habits that lasted any length of time, perhaps you could kindly point some out to me?

You also fail to engage with the questions I for one have asked you. Sure, animal lives may be worth a great deal, but what is your hierarchy? We all have one and to say you don’t would be a lie. Your vague assertions are meaningless without knowing with more precision what value you place on human vis a vis animal life.

I want to know where you draw the line. It would help me to know where. Would you accept the killing of a human being who threatened to kill you, or at least not condemn those who would kill someone intent on killing them?

If you do, does the same hold true of animals? Would you condemn someone who shot a lion which was threatening their life Would you kill a lion or other animal which was threatening yours? Does it matter in such a case that the animal is merely acting according to its instinct and not with malicious intent?

You assert that bacteria and viruses are not sentient. How do you know this? And whence comes the idea that only sentient life has value? What is it about the fact that (allegedly - we can never be sure) bacteria or carrots cannot experience pain or suffering that makes it fitting for us to blithely snuff out their existences?

If you are truly interested in dialectic, give a bit of background and context for some of the assertions you make and maybe we can have a serious discussion.
Click to expand...
Lily, I agree with most of your points. However, I think we must admit that non-vegan societies haven’t done too well either, not only in terms of their longevity but also quality-of-life issues, including war, poverty, disease, discrimination, and so on.
 
meltzerboy said:
Lily, I agree with most of your points. However, I think we must admit that non-vegan societies haven’t done too well either, not only in terms of their longevity but also quality-of-life issues, including war, poverty, disease, discrimination, and so on.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t bringing quality-of-life issues into it at all. Simply longevity of a society, and by analogy longevity of the human species. The Chinese civilisation has lasted thousands of years, likewise the Indian and Egyptian. The Roman lasted the best part of 1000 years. The British monarchy dominated a quarter of the globe at its height and was established the best part of a milennium ago.

None of these did so on the basis of widespread veganism. I am aware that Hinduism holds vegetarianism as an ideal, however it is not predominant in practice among Hindus.

I am merely noting this and looking for vegetarian/vegan counterparts of long-lasting societies that have been based on the practice of veganism, or even vegetarianism.
 
In terms of value, do I as a human have value? In which respect do I have any value? I mean nothing. The only value I have is the value that I recieved from God. I don’t know God, I don’t know his way of “thinking” so I don’t know how much value an animal has to him. He alone gives value and takes it. Since I tryna serve God, and since I don’t know how much value an animal has to him compared to us, I think I better place the highest value on animals that I’m able to give them.
 
Spence, by my count, you’ve started eighteen threads on subjects along the same lines and the response’s have all been consistently opposed to your thinking. Even in your blog, the vast majority of responses have been consistent with what people are saying here. If your trying to convert people to veganism, you should have gotten the message by now that your not gonna do it. Your not gonna make people feel guilty about eating meat either. Trying to convince a wolf that he should only eat veggies would be easier. If your trying to hone your debating skills, try a different topic because your going around in a circle on this one. :banghead:
 
I had SPAM for lunch today. That’s probably the closest I’ll get to not eating real meat.

C’mon, you gotta laugh at that one. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top