Compared to animals, how valuable is a human life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Windmill said:
Man has no duties towards animals since they have no independent personality.
Click to expand...
I would also say that, as an empirical matter, the claim that animals have “no independent personality” is false. Animals have rich personalities!
 
spencelo said:
Agreed. Thanks for the catch.
Click to expand...
And that’s where your beliefs are fundamentally and absolutely different from every catholic on this forum.

And since we know that why should we continue with your silly question in the OP?
 
spencelo said:
I would also say that, as an empirical matter, the claim that animals have “no independent personality” is false. Animals have rich personalities!
Click to expand...
If they aren’t a person how can they have a personality?
 
triumphguy said:
And since we know that why should we continue with your silly question in the OP?
Click to expand...
Because you find the topic interesting. If you don’t and find it “silly,” then you’re free not to participate - no one is forcing you to.
 
spencelo said:
If humans have infinite value, then their interests infinitely outweighs the interests of animals. So in my example, the cancer patient’s interest in continued life should be infinitely greater than the interests of the experimented animals, including their interests in continued life and freedom from extreme pain. Hence it would seem to follow that cancer patient’s interests trumps the animals’ interests, which would justify the research program.
Click to expand...
Jewish Law allows for a minimum of suffering on the part of animals in medical experiments designed for the purpose of benefiting and saving human lives (this would not include testing animals for cosmetics), but not disproportionate or unnecessary suffering even for benefiting humans. Admittedly, judging what is within the bounds of reasonable suffering may be a fine line. However, even the distress of animals is forbidden in other cases, such as stated in Deuteronomy 22, in which the eggs of a bird must not be taken for human need without first making sure the mother is sent away. Further, animals must be killed using the sharpest knife available, with no nicks, to inflict the least pain, or they are not deemed kosher for human consumption. Our pets must be fed before ourselves since they have less ability than we to delay their hunger drive. There are numerous other examples in both Torah and Talmud concerning the avoidance of undue physical suffering and psychological distress of animals.
 
spencelo said:
I’m still thinking about the issue of insects and my inclination is that they are more like plants than mammals. But if they were self-aware and conscious, killing them for comfort purposes may very well be wrong.
Click to expand...
So, by your logic, mutilating a severely retarded human being with no pain response isn’t unethical?

Another question: as a nontheist, what makes any of the above “wrong”, other than the fact that it makes you feel bad? I’m not just asking to be a smart aleck. In what do you ground your ethics, especially in the case of lower animals, if life (human and animal alike) is without purpose, meaning or ultimate value? Can there be any other reason than, “I don’t like it?” I think that’s a very important question you need to answer before climbing on a moral high horse.
 
triumphguy said:
If they aren’t a person how can they have a personality?
Click to expand...
Ah, I see my topic has interested you! 🙂

Just ask yourself: do dogs have personalities? I don’t think anyone who’s had a dog could say ‘no.’
 
spencelo said:
I honestly don’t know. I’m still thinking things through about insects.
Click to expand...
If you need to deliberate about the moral value of a human being vs. a cockroach, I think I can safely dismiss your ethical opinions.

Sorry.
 
We have dominion over the animals of the earth (I do not classify humans as an animal…I have a rather higher opinion of us than some others, it seems), but our stewardship calls for treating them with respect as well. I have no problems eating animals, for instance, but I detest some of the ways in which they are effectively tortured for human consumption.

One person’s cure does not make right the horrible torture of ten billion animals.

Now, having said that:

The OP’s question also hinges around death, implying that the OP thinks that a human being does not have any value past death itself. In most situations, especially those where a choice must be made RIGHT NOW or else a human life will perish, a human must live and the animal or animals must die, because animals cannot merit the tortures of Hell, whereas a human might wind up there if not given the proper time to repent or change their ways.
 
meltzerboy said:
Jewish Law allows for a minimum of suffering on the part of animals in medical experiments designed for the purpose of benefiting and saving human lives (this would not include testing animals for cosmetics), but not disproportionate or unnecessary suffering even for benefiting humans. Admittedly, judging what is within the bounds of reasonable suffering may be a fine line. However, even the distress of animals is forbidden in other cases, such as stated in Deuteronomy 22, in which the eggs of a bird must not be taken for human need without first making sure the mother is sent away. Further, animals must be killed using the sharpest knife available, with no nicks, to inflict the least pain, or they are not deemed kosher for human consumption. Our pets must be fed before ourselves since they have less ability than we to delay their hunger drive. There are numerous other examples in both Torah and Talmud concerning the avoidance of undue physical suffering and psychological distress of animals.
Click to expand...
Assume that the ***extreme ***pain inflicted in my hypothetical is scientifically necessary to finding a cure. Is the experiment permissible?
 
spencelo said:
Because you find the topic interesting. If you don’t and find it “silly,” then you’re free not to participate - no one is forcing you to.
Click to expand...
You are “forcing” me to in the sense that I don’t want such silliness to go un-refuted, and you keep on churning out thread after thread.
 
spencelo said:
Ah, I see my topic has interested you! 🙂

Just ask yourself: do dogs have personalities? I don’t think anyone who’s had a dog could say ‘no.’
Click to expand...
Animals don’t have personality, they have character. Personality involves levels of psychology, cognition and will that animals don’t possess. The actual meaning of personality is a bit more involved than its common usage.
 
spencelo said:
Ah, I see my topic has interested you! 🙂

Just ask yourself: do dogs have personalities? I don’t think anyone who’s had a dog could say ‘no.’
Click to expand...
You are using “personality” in a way that the original source does not intend. You use it more in a way of “personification”, but in a philosophical sense, the word “personality” means “personhood.” American English is replete with examples of words being artificially narrowed in their meaning.

Let’s be clear here: animals are not persons. That is the root of the original basis for the moral theological principle laid out above. Let’s not muddy the waters with American’s narrow uses of words. They lead to wrong conclusions.
 
spencelo said:
Assume that the ***extreme ***pain inflicted in my hypothetical is scientifically necessary to finding a cure. Is the experiment permissible?
Click to expand...
I think rabbis both within and between various movements of Judaism would argue that question. My own opinion, based on my interpretation of Jewish Law, is no.
 
triumphguy said:
You are “forcing” me to in the sense that I don’t want such silliness to go un-refuted, and you keep on churning out thread after thread.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the back-handed compliment: apparently my op wasn’t ***so silly ***that it needs no refutation! 😃

I eagerly await your attempt at demolishing my op.
 
In point of fact, one person’s cure does justify the suffering and death of animals if it is medically necessary to reach the cure.

Here is the real problem in America: there are those out there who are Hell-bent on blurring the distinction between animals and men for the final end of justifying hedonistic behavior. If men are no different from animals, and if animals are governed solely by instinct, then men should not be held to any moral standard because they are no different than animals. Therefore, they would say, men should make decisions strictly on instinct: if it feels good, do it.

These diabolical philosophies are subtle and they play on every man’s tendency towards selfishness and pleasure-seeking to exclusion of virtue, self-denial, and sacrificial love. This is nothing new, it is only repackaged in modern terms. It appeals to men’s sense of justice by tapping into our natural fear of suffering, but you have to be very careful and think critically here.

God created man to govern the world and the animals. To start placing animals and men on the same level is to warp God plan for creation and deny us our role as higher beings governed by intellect and will. Once we start down that path, true Christian charity is completely nonsensical.
 
spencelo said:
I appreciate the back-handed compliment: apparently my op wasn’t ***so silly ***that it needs no refutation! 😃

I eagerly await your attempt at demolishing my op.
Click to expand...
Since all my previous attempts have been successful, I don’t see why this one won’t:thumbsup:

I think I would start by saying you think animals = humans and humans = animals.

And we think humans = animal i

Simples.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
So, by your logic, mutilating a severely retarded human being with no pain response isn’t unethical?
Click to expand...
This doesn’t follow from anything I’ve said. But to answer your question, it would depend on the circumstances - perhaps if enough lives were at stake.
prodigalson2011 said:
Another question: as a nontheist, what makes any of the above “wrong”, other than the fact that it makes you feel bad? I’m not just asking to be a smart aleck. In what do you ground your ethics, especially in the case of lower animals, if life (human and animal alike) is without purpose, meaning or ultimate value? Can there be any other reason than, “I don’t like it?” I think that’s a very important question you need to answer before climbing on a moral high horse.
Click to expand...
Fundamental moral propositions simply have an objective truth value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top