Reductio argument: humans not infinitely valuable

[spencelo]

Yes - and sometimes we have to experiment on the hundred sparrows in order to save the humans. It’s a difference without a distinction.

There is a difference. Suppose a firefighter goes into a burning building and is forced to choose between saving either a child or a very elderly person. If their lives were *truly *equal, then the firefighter should flip or coin and decide randomly. However, I think it’s perfectly rational for the firefighter to save the child rather than the elderly person, given that death would be a greater harm to the former than the latter – hence in this sense the child’s life is more valuable, But this doesn’t imply that one would be permitted to subject the elderly person to a nonconsenting painful and fatal experiment in order to save the child.

As for imagining that the passage is only confined to sparrows, your obtuseness knows no bounds, clearly. After all, the passages about mothers and babies and husbands and wives don’t mention animals specifically, simply give the analogies as examples of God’s love in general - but you don’t care when it supports your view typical.

Not analogous - the passages about mothers and babies were analogies, whereas the passage about the sparrows is a direct comparison. It’s not clear to me whether that passage generalizes at all, let whether it generalizes to all animals. Maybe chimps are equal to humans. The passage certainly doesn’t rule this out.

 

[spencelo]

Yes, a human life is always more valuable than an animal’s life.

That’s absurd. If a human has no prospect of living any kind of life–except for merely breathing–then it’s clear to me that her life isn’t more valuable than a dog’s life.

 

[LilyM]

There is a difference. Suppose a firefighter goes into a burning building and is forced to choose between saving either a child or a very elderly person. If their lives were *truly *equal, then the firefighter should flip or coin and decide randomly. However, I think it’s perfectly rational for the firefighter to save the child rather than the elderly person, given that death would be a greater harm to the former than the latter – hence in this sense the child’s life is more valuable, But this doesn’t imply that one would be permitted to subject the elderly person to a nonconsenting painful and fatal experiment in order to save the child.

Only because the inherent value of the child’s life and the adults are equal. And you’re talking about one adult for one child. The fact that the harm to the child might be greater doesn’t create a sufficient difference as to permit of the nonconsenting fatal and painful experiment.

On the other hand you have sparrows, which are so unequal that one human is worth many sparrows. There is already a huge disparity of equality right there assuming all other things are equal (including capacity for pain and suffering - do we know that animals are equally capable of suffering as humans? Probably not, by all indications, which lesser capacity tips the balances against the sparrows).

Then you add on top of that the fact that experiments rarely save only small amounts of pain or suffering, and even more rarely for one human only, but usually save lots of pain and suffering, and even lives, of often very large numbers of humans. The balance is not nearly as evenly weighted as you seem to think, the majority of the time.

Not analogous - the passages about mothers and babies were analogies, whereas the passage about the sparrows is a direct comparison. It’s not clear to me whether that passage generalizes at all, let whether it generalizes to all animals. Maybe chimps are equal to humans. The passage certainly doesn’t rule this out.

So do we have any reason - any at all - to even suspect that God has something in particular against sparrows as distinct to, say, slugs, tadpoles or whatnot at least, such that sparrows would be so much more worthless than all other animals? C’mon, be serious.

 

[spencelo]

Only because the inherent value of the child’s life and the adults are equal.

So should the firefighter flip a coin?

do we know that animals are equally capable of suffering as humans?

Yes, we do! They are equal in their capacity to suffer in many relevant ways. I could provide at least a dozen links on that, but will you bother to look at them seriously? You dismissed the other links I showed you on factory farming and animal experimentation

The balance is not nearly as evenly weighted as you seem to think, the majority of the time.

Again, I suggest taking a serious look at those links I provided.

So do we have any reason - any at all - to even suspect that God has something in particular against sparrows as distinct to, say, slugs, tadpoles or whatnot at least, such that sparrows would be so much more worthless than all other animals? C’mon, be serious.

God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and he works in mysterious ways, no? Moreover, even if the passage is intended to generalize, why think the generalization is universal to cover all animals? Maybe the passage was referring only to creatures at the same mental level as sparrows.

 

[LilyM]

That’s absurd. If a human has no prospect of living any kind of life–except for merely breathing–then it’s clear to me that her life isn’t more valuable than a dog’s life.

I’m sorry - I don’t care how unconscious you are, you are NOT ever, under any circumstances, worth less than an animal whose idea of a fun afternoon (from my own observation, no exaggeration) consists of

a) licking its own genitalia for half an hour or so (ok, some humans have expressed a wish to be able to do the same, so Fido gets a tick on that one maybe)

b) chasing its own tail for about a quarter of an hour

c) rolling around in some particularly stinky excrement and whining during the bath which it knows will inevitably follow

d) sniffing the butt of another dog as if there is no other possible more intelligent way by which dogs can communicate or recognise each other, and then the grand finale

d) humping the leg of a human for way too long for it to even be funny - clearly not a worthwhile activitity given that that the human neither looks like nor is a female dog.

 

[spencelo]

I’m sorry - I don’t care how unconscious you are, you are NOT ever, under any circumstances, worth less than an animal

Why not? Can you provide any kind of a rational defense as to why a permanently unconscious human, who cannot *experience *life at all, is worth more than a fully conscious animal such as an active young puppy?

 

[LilyM]

So should the firefighter flip a coin?

He should, and doubtless would, save whoever is most likely to survive. And firefighters, I am sure, are sufficiently well enough trained to make an educated guess as to who is more likely to survive, which is worlds away from flipping a coin. Or assuming that there is inherently any greater value to the life of the person he or she chooses to save.

There’s no situation where two people are exactly equally likely to survive either, so don’t even try to hypothesize your way out of that one. The firefighter has to, and does, make a rational choice. Not based on some half-baked concept of animals being the equal of humans in any way. Certainly a firefighter has a better understanding of the true value of human v animal life than ever try to save a dog or cat in preference to any human who could even have a chance of survival!

Yes, we do! They are equal in their capacity to suffer in many relevant ways. I could provide at least a dozen links on that, but will you bother to look at them seriously? You dismissed the other links I showed you on factory farming and animal experimentation

No - I’m quite willing to concede that animals may well suffer equally as humans. Doesn’t change the overall gross inequality, of course.

God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and he works in mysterious ways, no? Moreover, even if the passage is intended to generalize, why think the generalization is universal to cover all animals? Maybe the passage was referring only to creatures at the same mental level as sparrows.

There are some things of God which are beyond our ken, but the fact that animals are inferior to humans in the grand scheme of things is certainly not one of them. It is a fact which is discernible by human reason alone - even the vast majority of atheists would happily agree that they are indeed inferior and provide you with many good and valid reasons why this is the case. More often than not over a hearty steak or chicken dinner followed by a dose of animal-tested medicine against one or another of the many fomerly painful if not fatal ailments which modern science has happily enabled us to prevent or treat.

 

[LilyM]

Why not? Can you provide any kind of a rational defense as to why a permanently unconscious human, who cannot *experience *life at all, is worth more than a fully conscious animal such as an active young puppy?

Because the permanently unconscious human is still human. Even the vast majority of non-theists hold that humans are endowed with certain rights, including rights to life, by the mere fact of being human.

This is rationally defensible, if in no other way, by means of the ‘do as you would be done by’ principle, which is as good a piece of logic as you’ll find anywhere. As it happens, the vast majority of people would rather NOT be done away with merely because they were not conscious, although still very much alive. And the vast majority would NOT hold their lives, under any circumstances, to be cheaper than that of a dog or other animal.

Consciousness or otherwise does not lessen their humanity, they find, and so does not take away these rights nor lead to any increase in the rights of animals.

Otherwise it would be an incredibly short and easy step to euthanase the severely and irreversibly demented or extremely mentally disabled or ill whose consciousness is so severely impaired that it is really not even worthy of the name.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I’m sorry - I don’t care how unconscious you are, you are NOT ever, under any circumstances, worth less than an animal whose idea of a fun afternoon (from my own observation, no exaggeration) consists of

a) licking its own genitalia for half an hour or so (ok, some humans have expressed a wish to be able to do the same, so Fido gets a tick on that one maybe)

b) chasing its own tail for about a quarter of an hour

c) rolling around in some particularly stinky excrement and whining during the bath which it knows will inevitably follow

d) sniffing the butt of another dog as if there is no other possible more intelligent way by which dogs can communicate or recognise each other, and then the grand finale

d) humping the leg of a human for way too long for it to even be funny - clearly not a worthwhile activitity given that that the human neither looks like nor is a female dog.

In principle, I agree with the contention that humans are worth more than any animal. But I’m not at all sure that the above assertions provide objective, inarguable “proof” of such a contention. Dogs, being devoid of the kind of sentience which humans possess, act according to the God-given capacity of their kind. That in itself, I think, implies a kind of wholeness and a kind of perfection that stands independently of any mere human aesthetic predilection.

 

[LilyM]

In principle, I agree with the contention that humans are worth more than any animal. But I’m not at all sure that the above assertions provide objective, inarguable “proof” of such a contention. Dogs, being devoid of the kind of sentience which humans possess, act according to the God-given capacity of their kind. That in itself, I think, implies a kind of wholeness and a kind of perfection that stands independently of any mere human aesthetic predilection.

The whole post was more than half tongue-in-cheek - should’ve ended with a or a to make that more clear

 

[Dale_M]

That’s absurd. If a human has no prospect of living any kind of life–except for merely breathing–then it’s clear to me that her life isn’t more valuable than a dog’s life.

Valuable in what sense? In the pleasure the person or the dog can give to another? How do you measure the value of a person’s life? How can you say that a dog has more value than a human?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

The whole post was more than half tongue-in-cheek - should’ve ended with a or a to make that more clear

Sorry. I’m quite often apt to take things up wrong.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You define “malice” as “hatred.” I can willfully and deliberately kick a ball without feeling “hatred” toward the ball. In my example, the torturer willfully and deliberately kicks his dog without feeling “hatred” towards his dog.

I pointed out that this isn’t necessarily the case – torture can be done, at least in my scenario, without malice.

Not so. Malice is a specific intentional state, but kicking a dog around like a dog doesn’t necessarily require that. The act can be done with perfect equanimity.

No, no and no.

For starters, there is no contradiction between malice and equanimity. One can be perfectly calm and malicious at the same time. Just ask Dr. Joseph Mengele.

These acts cannot be performed without total disregard for the victim. If one is aware that they are inflicting severe pain on something and continue to do so, it is an act of willful harm. The willful infliction of harm, for no reason, is hateful by definition.

Let’s break it down even further… malice can be defined as hateful action. Hate can be defined as a hostile attitude. Hostility can be defined as being unfriendly or unhospitable. Inflicting pain on something (without doing so for the benefit of it, as in the case of surgery, etc.) is inherently unhospitable and unfriendly. It is a hostile action, because it inflicts suffering and works against the welfare of the creature. The very nature of the act is hateful. It is impossible to act in such a manner without being malicious. Again, unless the person is too stupid to realize what they’re doing.

This is especially the case on the basis of theism, because we understand such action is contrary to the will of God. So it as an act of malice towards God, in the very least. You can’t ask for a Catholic response and then judge the response outside of that framework, which you consistently do. (“Well, by my definition…”) We’re not talking about “your definition.” We’re talking about the logical consistency of the Catholic worldview. If you want to keep inserting your little idiosyncratic ideas into it, it’s no longer a Catholic perspective.

So your objection is wrongheaded on more than one count:

1. You deny the inherent nature of an action
2. You attempt to change the definition of the concepts being discussed to fit your argument
3. You attempt to invalidate an argument by inserting irrelevant perspectives into the framework of the argument (you ask for a consistent perspective based on the Catholic worldview and then critique it on the terms of your own worldview. This is like judging a Spanish essay on the basis of English grammar. The rules of one do not necessarily apply to the other. And, on the flip side, one may contain rules that the other does not.)

So your objection is hereby refuted and my original argument stands:

Um, yes… I did… at length… Here it is again, and then I’ll break it down for you, since you seem to be having so much trouble with it:

So, to simplify:

a) on Catholicism, a man’s interests are NOT defined by the gratification of his personal desires
b) on Catholicism, a man’s interests are defined by that which corresponds to his God given purpose.
c) on Catholicism, a man’s God given purpose is to love God.
d) the consequence of loving God is eternal joy.
e) the consequence of failing to love God is eternal suffering.
d) in order to love God, man must respect God’s creation.
e) Torturing an animal is an act of pure malice (hatred).
f) An act of hatred towards God’s creation is an act of hatred towards God.
g) An act of hatred towards God turns man away from God.
h) A man separated from God risks eternal suffering.
i) Eternal suffering is undesirable.
j) If the outcome of a behavior is undesirable, it is not a man’s best interest.

Everything I’ve said above is consistent with a Catholic worldview and provides sufficient grounds for believing that torturing an animal is contrary to a man’s best interests. If it’s not, I defy you to find a logical inconsistency in it.

Now, let’s hear an equally well defined case for the unacceptability of torture from your materialistic perspective.

If you want to refute that argument, you must do so using Catholic principles. Keep in mind, the debate here is not whether Catholicism is right, it is whether my argument is consistent on the underlying premises of Catholicism, and therefore represents a valid Catholic perspective.

Diverting attention from the argument by saying “Well, on my definition…” is unacceptable.

 

[triumphguy]

Right, but not everyone who abuses animals turns out to be a criminal – some are undoubtedly quite normal in their human interactions.

Prove it.

 

[triumphguy]

Why not? Can you provide any kind of a rational defense as to why a permanently unconscious human, who cannot *experience *life at all, is worth more than a fully conscious animal such as an active young puppy?

Because they are human,

 

[triumphguy]

That’s absurd. If a human has no prospect of living any kind of life–except for merely breathing–then it’s clear to me that her life isn’t more valuable than a dog’s life.

It’s clear to you, but then the fundamental premises you base your world view on are totally different than ours.

You are an atheist.

You believe humans and animals are of equal worth.

How can you ever understand unless you’re hardness of heat is melted?

19 I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,Ezekiel 11:19

Maybe the reason you keep posting on here is because deep inside you long for more.

 

[Nate13]

@Spencelo
I have another bit for you in support of the line of reasoning we went through earlier that you had to ignore because it meant you were wrong. What do we call maltreatment of animals today? We call it “inhumane”. Notice we don’t call it “inanimal”. Even secular society recognizes natural law, get with the program. That is really a good way to sum it the point earlier that you had to ignore. Torturing a puppy is inhumane i.e a human acting against their nature.

 

[meltzerboy]

Why not? Can you provide any kind of a rational defense as to why a permanently unconscious human, who cannot *experience *life at all, is worth more than a fully conscious animal such as an active young puppy?

Perhaps the value of a human should not be judged by their present unconscious state alone but rather by the totality of their conscious lives. IOW, have we the moral right to argue that the value of a human diminishes because they are at the present time elderly, ill, disabled, or unconscious? Of course this argument does not take into account humans who may have never experienced a higher level of consciousness. However, in this situation, how should we determine the magnitude and quality of human consciousness that would lead to either maintaining or ending life?

 

[epan]

George Carlin sums it up.

Every child is special and precious, right? But every adult is not special. So, when does the person become no longer special? Unless of course, not every child is special and precious.

 

[Nate13]

Perhaps the value of a human should not be judged by their present unconscious state alone but rather by the totality of their conscious lives. IOW, have we the moral right to argue that the value of a human diminishes because they are at the present time elderly, ill, disabled, or unconscious? Of course this argument does not take into account humans who may have never experienced a higher level of consciousness. However, in this situation, how should we determine the magnitude and quality of human consciousness that would lead to either maintaining or ending life?

It does when your ideology of morality takes the idea that we should reduce suffering whenever possible and puts in up on a pedestal as the only rule. Then when you have a human in a coma who costs thousands of dollars to keep alive, you have to weigh whether that amount of money could be spent to reduce more suffering by maybe for instance fixing the broken legs of 10 monkeys. Fixing the broken legs of the monkey’s then becomes the moral choice under that reasoning because its the choice that reduces the highest quantity of suffering for you buck. Unfortunately the human dies, but they were in a coma and couldn’t feel much anyways. You might feel bad about it, but don’t worry you made the right choice in relieving a greater amount of suffering in fixing the 10 broken monkey legs.