Reductio argument: humans not infinitely valuable

[spencelo]

God’s care is expressed in metaphors like a husband and his wife, a mother and her baby and so on.

But wait: if I should care for animals like I care for humans, then aren’t they equal in inherent value?

 

[spencelo]

What if he’s left the room and not coming back and so you’re unable to ask? What if he just leaves written instructions and isn’t seeing you at all before the operation? What if you’re unconscious or unable to speak or write?

I’d probably err on the side of caution and not eat anything.

 

[LilyM]

But wait: if I should care for animals like I care for humans, then aren’t they equal in inherent value?

No. A fake Rolex might be ‘like’ a real Rolex, but I wouldn’t care for them in the same way and their inherent value would not be the same.

 

[LilyM]

I’d probably err on the side of caution and not eat anything.

EXACTLY! So … we are at least to err on the side of caution and treat our animals well at all times … which puts the kybosh on any idea of torture.

 

[spencelo]

No. A fake Rolex might be ‘like’ a real Rolex, but I wouldn’t care for them in the same way.

But then it’s not clear that "care’ has the sense you claimed it does, because the analogies of husband-wife care and mother-baby care don’t apply. If they do apply, they we should care for animals like we do humans.

 

[spencelo]

EXACTLY! So … we are at least to err on the side of caution and treat our animals well at all times … which puts the kybosh on any idea of torture.

Actually, this proves my point. Why shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and treat animals just as well as humans?

 

[LilyM]

But then it’s not clear that "care’ has the sense you claimed it does, because the analogies of husband-wife care and mother-baby care don’t apply. If they do apply, they we should care for animals like we do humans.

Did I ever say He cares for all creation equally? I did not. I said He cares for all creation greatly. Even the least microbe He cares for in a way we humans cannot understand or match in our care for anyone or anything.

The mother-baby and husband-wife metaphors are to give us some vague concept of just how much we are to care for all His creatures.

Doesn’t mean that we don’t or can’t (or that He doesn’t or can’t) care more for some than others, or that the inherent value of each is equal. Mothers can favour some children over others while caring greatly for all of them, y’know.

 

[spencelo]

The mother-baby and husband-wife metaphors are to give us some vague concept of just how much we are to care for all His creatures.

And that “vague” concept would seem to imply that we shouldn’t raise animals to be slaughtered for food or use them in painful biomedical experiments.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, this proves my point. Why shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and treat animals just as well as humans?

Because it IS clear that God created with a pecking order in mind - hence man having authority over animals and plants and not the other way around (or their being equals). So it would be grave error to not prefer human welfare to animal …

But it is equally clear that this is true only to a limited extent, and so we are not to be tyrannical or utterly selfish in our exercise of our power over them. Matthew’s gospel makes clear that ‘you [humans] are worth more than many sparrows’. So not infinitely more valuable, but nonetheless significantly more valuable.

So it is just as wrong to treat animals as being of equal worth as it is to treat them as being of no worth.

 

[LilyM]

And that “vague” concept would seem to imply that we shouldn’t raise animals to be slaughtered for food or use them in painful biomedical experiments.

My last post answers this well enough. We are worth ‘many times’ more than the animals. Not infinitely more. Not nearly equal though.

So - it is a matter of weighing up the level of harm and benefit to humans on the one hand and harm to the animals on the other. Although some experiments may well benefit future generations of animals as well, I suppose, they suffer some of the same conditions we do, so that should also be factored in where applicable.

 

[spencelo]

Because it IS clear that God created with a pecking order in mind - hence man having authority over animals and plants and not the other way around (or their being equals). So it would be grave error to not prefer human welfare to animal …

First, I didn’t say we should prefer human welfare to animal welfare.

Second, adults have authority over children, but that doesn’t mean adults are free to use them for food, etc. So why do humans having authority over animals mean that they can use them for food, etc?

But it is equally clear that this is true only to a limited extent, and so we are not to be tyrannical or utterly selfish in our exercise of our power over them. Matthew’s gospel makes clear that ‘you [humans] are worth more than many sparrows’. So not infinitely more valuable, but nonetheless significantly more valuable.

So it is just as wrong to treat animals as being of equal worth as it is to treat them as being of no worth.

It’s not clear. You say “care” means something more than “constitutionally required care for prisoners” but less than “equal consideration with humans.” To support your claim for “constitutionally required care” interpretation, you invoke the analogies of mother-baby and husband-father, but those tend to support the latter interpretation. But you essentially say those analogies are misleading – that they only support the former interpretation. So what good are those analogies?

 

[spencelo]

My last post answers this well enough. We are worth ‘many times’ more than the animals.

If God told me that I am to care for animals *like *a husband cares for his wife, I would have a hard time believing your claim. In particular, I would have a very hard time believing that God meant it was okay to raise and torture factory–farmed animals for food and use them as non-consenting subjects in painful biomedical experiments. To be on the safe side, I would not do any of that. Why is my interpretation unreasonable?

 

[LilyM]

First, I didn’t say we should prefer human welfare to animal welfare.

That just says it all really! It fits perfectly, given your insistence that you would in some circumstances cheerfully give your life to save that of a bunch of animals.

Second, adults have authority over children, but that doesn’t mean adults are free to use them for food, etc. So why do humans having authority over animals mean that they can use them for food, etc?

Of course we don’t use our children for food - we aren’t cannibals! Seriously, it has to do with the fact that childrens, being every bit as human as adults, DO have equal inherent worth. Other animals, not being human, do not. Correspondingly, our obligations to them are less.

It’s not clear. You say “care” means something more than “constitutionally required care for prisoners” but less than “equal consideration with humans.” To support your claim for “constitutionally required care” interpretation, you invoke the analogies of mother-baby and husband-father, but those tend to support the latter interpretation. But you essentially say those analogies are misleading – that they only support the former interpretation. So what good are those analogies?

The good is to give us an appreciation of the depth of God’s love and care and a desire to emulate it. Mind you, even He didn’t offer His own life to save the lives of dogs cats or gophers et al, whereas He did to save mankind - so we have a correspondingly even higher standard to look to in our treatment of other humans.

 

[spencelo]

The good is to give us an appreciation of the depth of God’s love and care and a desire to emulate it. Mind you, even He didn’t offer His own life to save the lives of dogs cats or gophers et al, whereas He did to save mankind - so we have a correspondingly even higher standard to look to in our treatment of other humans.

Okay then your husband-wife and mother-baby analogies don’t make sense anymore, since taken at face value, they clearly imply roughly equal treatment for animals (especially when coupled with the cautionary principle). So I’m back to my original question: how do you know “care” rules out torture? After all, it could be *minimal *care that God is talking about.

Again, if you refer back to the above analogies, then either: a) I should take them at face value and believe that God mandates roughly equal treatment (err on the side of caution), or b) I shouldn’t take them at face value, in which case they are highly misleading. If (b), then you cannot use those analogies to rule out the “minimal care” interpretation, in which case you cannot rule out torture.

 

[LilyM]

If God told me that I am to care for animals *like *a husband cares for his wife, I would have a hard time believing your claim. In particular, I would have a very hard time believing that God meant it was okay to raise and torture factory–farmed animals for food and use them as non-consenting subjects in painful biomedical experiments. To be on the safe side, I would not do any of that. Why is my interpretation unreasonable?

Sheesh, I never said He told us to care for animals like a husband cares for his wife - by that logic bestiality would be fine and dandy, and I could marry my cat (assuming it consented, of course). Just that ‘care’ meant a bit more than what a prison guard is constitutionally required to give the prisoners in his or her charge!

Did I ever say it was OK to torture factory-farmed animals? Not a bit of it. I’ve been on a few chicken farms, which you could call factory farms. Some where the animals were anything but tortured, in fact they were treated very well. One perhaps where they were not so well treated. Even the worst of it, though, did not reach anything like the level of the puppy-punting that you were using as an example of torture.

In regards biomedical experiments - well, scripture is clear that a human is worth many times more than an animal. So it is utterly unreasonable and inconsistent with that to say that NO level of pain can under any circumstances be inflicted upon an animal or a group of animals in the course of biomedical experiments. It must, as I said, come down to a balancing act and a process of weighing up potential benefits and harms. And yes, the fact that the animals are not consenting is one factor to weigh in. Mind you, as a psychology student I was taught that it was quite ethical to do experiments on subjects who did not know what was happening to them. In some cases consent could not be asked, and so they were not all even consenting.

In fact, in cases where inflicting even severe pain on, say, 10 animals is fairly certain to allow for a cure for a disease that is both painful and fatal for hundreds of thousands of people, I would say the obligation might be the contrary - one might well be obliged to do what one can to alleviate the human suffering and proceed with the experiment. Assuming of course that one proceeds with the absolute minimum number of animals required for the experiment and with the minimum of suffering possible.

Such a case would be like that of your rockclimber who bears the scratches as a consequence of their greater aim - although with the added proviso that it is not merely for pleasure that they do it, but to save lives.

 

[spencelo]

Sheesh, I never said He told us to care for animals like a husband cares for his wife - by that logic bestiality would be fine and dandy, and I could marry my cat (assuming it consented, of course). Just that ‘care’ meant a bit more than what a prison guard is constitutionally required to give the prisoners in his or her charge!

A bit more or ALOT more? At face-value, the analogies imply that we shouldn’t be using animals for food and painful experiments.

Did I ever say it was OK to torture factory-farmed animals? Not a bit of it. I’ve been on a few chicken farms, which you could call factory farms. Some where the animals were anything but tortured, in fact they were treated very well. One perhaps where they were not so well treated. Even the worst of it, though, did not reach anything like the level of the puppy-punting that you were using as an example of torture.

I’m afraid you’re severely misinformed about factory-farming. In factory-farming, animals are routinely tortured – thousands of times worse than my torture scenario! And even if animals were treated well (not the case at all), if I am to care for them like a parent cares for her child, I would never slaughter them for food. Again, why is my interpretation unreasonable here?

jamesrachels.org/stuart/veg.pdf

animalfreedom.org/english/information/information.html

meat.org/

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2111455

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1006057

In regards biomedical experiments - well, scripture is clear that a human is worth many times more than an animal. So it is utterly unreasonable and inconsistent with that to say that NO level of pain can under any circumstances be inflicted upon an animal or a group of animals in the course of biomedical experiments. It must, as I said, come down to a balancing act and a process of weighing up potential benefits and harms. And yes, the fact that the animals are not consenting is one factor to weigh in. Mind you, as a psychology student I was taught that it was quite ethical to do experiments on subjects who did not know what was happening to them. In some cases consent could not be asked, and so they were not all even consenting.

Not analogous because those experiments don’t involve physical pain or torture.

In fact, in cases where inflicting even severe pain on, say, 10 animals is fairly certain to allow for a cure for a disease that is both painful and fatal for hundreds of thousands of people, I would say the obligation might be the contrary - one might well be obliged to do what one can to alleviate the human suffering and proceed with the experiment. Assuming of course that one proceeds with the absolute minimum number of animals required for the experiment and with the minimum of suffering possible.

Such a case would be like that of your rockclimber who bears the scratches as a consequence of their greater aim - although with the added proviso that it is not merely for pleasure that they do it, but to save lives.

What is your precise scriptural support for the claim that a human is worth “many times” more than an animal?

Links on animal experimentation:

humanesociety.org/issues/pain_distress/

spot.colorado.edu/~norcross/EngelExperiment.pdf

veganpeace.com/animal_cruelty/animal_testing.htm

scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/cures.html

animalexperiments.info/index.html

 

[LilyM]

A bit more or ALOT more? At face-value, the analogies imply that we shouldn’t be using animals for food and painful experiments.

More.

They would so imply if the comparison of types of love was the last word on the matter. It isn’t, as I’ve shown. The understanding provided by the comparisons is to be tempered and contextualised by the more explicit guidance given in the other parts of scripture I’ve quoted.

The truth lies, as so often, not so much in the analogy. Remember that no analogy is intended to be perfect - analogy at most means resemblance, not equivalence. And between parts of the things analogised only, and never a complete correspondence. As such, referring to the ‘face value’ of an analogy is a bit like referring to the ‘face value’ of a remark which was clearly intended to be ironic, or sarcastic, or hyperbolic or something.

I’m afraid you’re severely misinformed about factory-farming. In factory-farming, animals are routinely tortured – thousands of times worse than my torture scenario! And even if animals were treated well (not the case at all), if I am to care for them like a parent cares for her child, I would never slaughter them for food. Again, why is my interpretation unreasonable here?

jamesrachels.org/stuart/veg.pdf

animalfreedom.org/english/information/information.html

meat.org/

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2111455

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1006057

I’m afraid you are entirely mistaken if you imagine I’ll trust internet fims which can be so easily manipulated or even entirely faked over and above the evidence of those farms I have seen with my own eyes

What is your precise scriptural support for the claim that a human is worth “many times” more than an animal?

What do you mean? Those very words - ‘you are worth more than many sparrows’ - are in scripture. Matthew 10:31 - sorry if I didn’t give the citation earlier, but you could have looked it up easily enough - mind you if you’re going to argue with Christians it doesn’t pay to be so ignorant of scripture

 

[spencelo]

I’m afraid you are quite mistaken if you imagine I’ll trust internet fims which can be so easily manipulated or even entirely faked over and above the evidence of those farms I have seen with my own eyes

I didn’t just provide video links but also several scholarly papers on the matter. As for the farms you’ve seen, it’s highly likely that you’ve misinterpreted your observations, as many witnesses do.

What do you mean? Those very words - ‘you are worth more than many sparrows’ - are in scripture. Matthew 10:31 - sorry if I didn’t give the citation earlier, but you could have looked it up easily enough

Notice the passage doesn’t say: worth more than many pigs, cows, dogs, whales, chickens, sheep, etc. So how do you know it generalizes to all animals? In any case, the passage doesn’t support experimentation. At most, it would support the following: in cases where we have to save a human or 100 sparrows, we should save the human. That does not imply: we are permitted to intentionally inflict pain and suffering on 100 sparrows in order to save a human.

 

[LilyM]

I didn’t just provide video links but also several scholar papers on the matter. As for the farms you’ve seen, it’s highly likely that you’ve misinterpreted your observations, as many witnesses do.

Notice the passage doesn’t say: worth more than many pigs, cows, dogs, whales, chickens, sheep, etc. So how do you know it generalizes to all animals? In any case, the passage doesn’t support experimentation. At most, it would support the following: in cases where we have to save a human or 100 sparrows, we should save the human. That does not imply: we are permitted to intentionally inflict pain and suffering on 100 sparrows in order to save a human.

Yes - and sometimes we have to figure out how to save the human by experimenting on the hundred sparrows. It’s a difference without a distinction.

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.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m not sure your example captures the distinction between the value of human life and human welfare. Suppose the human in your example is in a permanent coma–and thus unconscious–and will die in 1 hour in his sleep anyway if saved. The dog, on the other hand, will enjoy at least 10 more years of life. Would you still save the human?

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