Compared to animals, how valuable is a human life?

[triumphguy]

Or 10 million viruses or bacteria? They are living beings too.

How to reconcile the idea that all life is equally worthwhile with the notion that we are currently pushing for the utter eradication of what littl remains of the polio virus? Or the smallpox virus?

To muddy the waters a bit further - what if you were told that the suffering of those 10 million animals would end up saving the lives of 10 BILLION human sufferers of whatever disease the man has? And that each of those sufferers would otherwise go through far more pain from the disease than the animals in the course of finding the cure?

Maybe spencelo thinks that 1 human life exactly equals 1 sentient animal life and that we cannot cause suffering in others to stop our own

I don’t have a real handle on what he means by sentient.

Question for Sponeclo.

In a macabre experiment a powerful alien race of logical positivists kills all humans except you (but keeps a thousand embryos frozen) and all humpback whales except for one pregnant female (and a 1000 viable embryos).

If you kill yourself the alien will use other whale to carry the humpback embryos and so restart the species, but will kill all remaining human embryos.

But you could chose for the whale to be killed, in which case the alien will let you live, and will through technology bring these 1000 human embryos to birth and use them to repopulate the planet with humans.

What would you do, kill yourself and save the whales, or have the whale killed and save humans?

 

[prodigalson2011]

I don’t see the incoherency. If Catholicism taught that adults are infinitely more valuable than children, I don’t see why that couldn’t be consistent.

Because adulthood and childhood are simply developmental stages of the same type of being. In simple terms, an adult is still the same person he was when he was a child. Dignity is not based upon biological development, it is based upon the nature of the thing that possesses it.

In even simpler terms, if you don’t protect the child, there will be no adult to value.

And again, while explaining it would get completely off of the topic of the thread, to teach such a thing as you suggest would require Catholicism to become completely separated from the idea of God, who can be logically shown to be necessarily good. So your whole proposition is a straw-man.

 

[LilyM]

Nonsentient beings, so they don’t count morally.

Who says they are not sentient? How does one prove that they cannot think or feel? or act? Or are not conscious? Or that they cannot think or feel or act and are not at least as well self-aware or aware of others as a newborn baby or calf? Or a person in a coma? Are we saying that because they give no evidence of sentience that they are nonsentient?

I’d probably be against it, for the same reason I’d be against sacrificing 10 million humans to save 10 billion humans.

So you are against the causing pain to a limited number of human beings to prevent greater pain, either to the same number or more humans? So much for surgery, the effects of some of which are extremely painful. So much for vaccination, which certainly causes some pain to those being vaccinated, and is done purely to prevent the greater pain of the disease.

So much for testing medications on humans - some have bad reactions that lead to the drug not being released for general use. Would you rather use drugs that had NOT been tested?

So much for radiotherapy and chemotherapy, the effects of which can be extremely painful.

 

[spencelo]

It’s simply because of the fact that your arguments here had been wrecked by other CAFers to the point of sheer recklessness.

I’m a huge fan of fiction, and of course you’re entitled to believe the ones of your own making. But even if it were true, I don’t see why it follows that I would not be into debate. Perhaps I’m a sucker for punishment?

 

[Cryptic1]

God gave Adam (the first man) authority to rule the earth (God’s creation). I think that sums it up pretty much. Man, who was created in the image and likeness of God, has dominion over the earth and all creation (nature, animals, etc.) which puts him way above animals on the creation hierarchy scale.

The bible also says man was created “a little lower than the angels”. Man has been given a highly exalted status by His creator–this is biblical truth. God sent His only son Jesus, to die for us–not for any animal (His creation as well). God thus set the bar and put a high price on each person’s head, elevating man to an unprecedented status in this world and in the world to come. While this argument will go back and forth, this is the bottom line. God Himself established our worth when He created us “in His image and likeness” and every argument that questions man’s intrinsic worth must be led back to this truth.

God Bless

 

[spencelo]

Maybe spencelo thinks that 1 human life exactly equals 1 sentient animal life and that we cannot cause suffering in others to stop our own

I don’t have a real handle on what he means by sentient.

Sentient = capacity for suffering

Question for Sponeclo.

In a macabre experiment a powerful alien race of logical positivists kills all humans except you (but keeps a thousand embryos frozen) and all humpback whales except for one pregnant female (and a 1000 viable embryos).

If you kill yourself the alien will use other whale to carry the humpback embryos and so restart the species, but will kill all remaining human embryos.

But you could chose for the whale to be killed, in which case the alien will let you live, and will through technology bring these 1000 human embryos to birth and use them to repopulate the planet with humans.

What would you do, kill yourself and save the whales, or have the whale killed and save humans?

Can I choose not to kill myself and let the whale live? I may be somewhat altruistic, but generally, if it’s me or some other being, I’d prefer my own life.

 

[prodigalson2011]

“What makes it the case that God exists?” According to you, that’s a logically incoherent question.

This is a logically incoherent question because God, by definition, is the source of all that exists, so He needs no explanation. This is a logically tenable position because the existence of such a being is logically demonstrable.

“What makes it the case that an action is objectively wrong?” According to me, that’s a logically incoherent question.

This is not logically incoherent because morals are a) not necessary beings, b) not logically demonstrable by means of their own definition.

Morals are contingent upon the existence of other things (i.e. moral agents); God is not. All contingent things have an explanation outside of themselves.

 

[spencelo]

This is not logically incoherent because morals are a) not necessary beings,

In my view, they are.

b) not logically demonstrable by means of their own definition.

I don’t know what this means.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

It would depend if the multi-billionaire could afford to pay off the animals. The cats, dogs, squirrels, and monkeys would probably go for it. I am not sure about the whales.

 

[Crescentinus]

I’m a huge fan of fiction, and of course you’re entitled to believe the ones of your own making. But even if it were true, I don’t see why it follows that I would not be into debate. Perhaps I’m a sucker for punishment?

And yet those aren’t fiction.

The way you go with some of your arguments is suggesting to me and the others that you’re not into debate that much at least.

 

[prodigalson2011]

In my view, they are.

In other words, in your opinion. However, they are, in fact, not. A necessary being is something which must exist regardless of whether anything else exists. This is clearly not the case with morals, as morals don’t exist unless there is a world in which creatures have the ability to act freely. The only things that qualify as necessary beings are God and abstract objects, such as numbers. To argue that morals must exist in the absence of anything else is, prima facie, absurd.

I don’t know what this means.

This means that you can’t argue for the existence of objective moral values without basing them in some transcendent purpose. You can’t argue for the existence of a transcendent purpose without basing it in a transcendent, conscious law giver.

Morality is contingent upon the idea of transcendent order. “Right” and “wrong” refer to the notion that there is a way that things “ought” to be, rather than how they are. Without a transcendent mind, you are left with the various opinions of different minds with no objective yardstick by which to measure them. For example, take the case of Mr. A and Mr. B:

Mr. A:

a) thinks people should enjoy life
b) does not like inflicting pain
c) does not like having pain inflicted upon him
d) does not want to die
e) is concerned about other people

Therefore, he thinks murder is unacceptable.

Mr. B:

a) thinks people should suffer
b) enjoys inflicting pain on others
c) enjoys having pain inflicted upon himself
d) doesn’t care if he dies
e) doesn’t care if anyone else dies

Therefore, he thinks murder is acceptable.

Both perspectives are driven by the interior feelings of their subjects. Neither has any root in material fact, which is the only source of truth in the absence of God. If the universe was not created for a specific purpose, there is no reason why anyone’s assumed purposes are any truer than anyone else’s.

 

[spencelo]

In other words, in your opinion. However, they are, in fact, not. A necessary being is something which must exist regardless of whether anything else exists. This is clearly not the case with morals, as morals don’t exist unless there is a world in which creatures have the ability to act freely. The only things that qualify as necessary beings are God and abstract objects, such as numbers. To argue that morals must exist in the absence of anything else is, prima facie, absurd.

Fundamental moral facts are abstract objects, so it’s not absurd at all.

Morality is contingent upon the idea of transcendent order.

I have yet to see an argument against the view that it is not.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It’s not meaningless because we reason that way all the time. If Islam consistently permits honor killings, then that would be a reason to reject Islam. The extremely counter-intuitive consequences of Catholicism are no different. This is not to say that those consequences are decisive reasons against Catholicism, but from my epistemic viewpoint, they are still good reasons - so my rejection is rational.

What are the reasons though? Write them down so that I can better understand what you are saying. We believe Islam is wrong because it contradicts Catholic teaching on human dignity.

Your epistemology is based on “what I feel/believe”. That is not an acceptable epistemology for others. If you are a firm believer in this sort of epistemology, then we have nothing to discuss.

We Catholics, under your epistemology, believe that human beings are special. So you will simply have to accept it as our proof for our position and move on. Do you think that is acceptable way of reasoning?

If not, please start by answering my last post to you

 

[meltzerboy]

Fundamental moral facts are abstract objects, so it’s not absurd at all.

I have yet to see an argument against the view that it is not.

Since you are not basing your view about animal life on any religious teaching, such as Hinduism, or on humanism, which believes in the dignity and rights of all humans, then are you perhaps basing it on a kind of universal golden-rule morality that no sentient creature should be made to suffer pain or death for the benefit of any other creature? This I can appreciate.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Fundamental moral facts are abstract objects, so it’s not absurd at all.

No, they are value statements. They are contingent upon moral agents. Quantities are abstract in that they make sense whether they are applied to real objects or not.

I have yet to see an argument against the view that it is not.

I just outlined it. Explain, on the basis of atheism, why Mr. B is wrong and Mr. A is right.

 

[spencelo]

Well, let me make this less ambiguous. You say the following:-

Value of an Animal = Human Person

I am asking for proof of the above. Do you have any other than your own personal belief?

That’s not an assumption I made in my op.

 

[spencelo]

No, they are value statements.

That doesn’t mean they can’t be abstract objects.

I just outlined it. Explain, on the basis of atheism, why Mr. B is wrong and Mr. A is right.

Because B’s moral beliefs derive from fundamental moral facts that are necessarily true.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Since you are not basing your view about animal life on any religious teaching, such as Hinduism, or on humanism, which believes in the dignity and rights of all humans, then are you perhaps basing it on a kind of universal golden-rule morality that no sentient creature should be made to suffer pain or death for the benefit of any other creature? This I can appreciate.

I can appreciate the sentiment, but it remains a sentiment!

 

[spencelo]

What are the reasons though? Write them down so that I can better understand what you are saying. We believe Islam is wrong because it contradicts Catholic teaching on human dignity.

Your epistemology is based on “what I feel/believe”. That is not an acceptable epistemology for others. If you are a firm believer in this sort of epistemology, then we have nothing to discuss.

It’s actually an epistemology that everyone uses. Suppose A is considering whether Catholicism or Islam is more rationally defensible. If it turns out that Islam entails extremely counter-intuitive consequences relative to his background beliefs but Catholicism does not, and both are internally consistent, then A as more reason to reject Islam then he does Catholicism.

 

[meltzerboy]

I can appreciate the sentiment, but it remains a sentiment!

Nothing wrong with sentiments. As Pascal said: “Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.” (The heart has its reasons that reason does not know.)