Which do you value more, the life of a human or an animal?

It goes in this progression for me.

Endangered species (almost extinct) > people > endangered species (Not at the very brink of extinction) > Large mammals (giraffes, dolphins, etc) > domestic cats/dogs > domestic other animals (birds, ferrets, etc) > large birds (storks, herons, etc) > medium sized mammals (foxes, mountain lions, etc) > small mammals (rabbits, raccoons, etc) > small birds (bluejays, doves, etc) > urban scavenger birds (pigeons, sea gulls) > fish > vermin/insects

Some exceptions may apply.

It's hard to generalize and so it would all be situational for me. I take a dim view on humanity however so you best make yourselves useful if I'm in the decision chair.

It goes in this progression for me.

Endangered species (almost extinct) > people > endangered species (Not at the very brink of extinction) > Large mammals (giraffes, dolphins, etc) > domestic cats/dogs > domestic other animals (birds, ferrets, etc) > large birds (storks, herons, etc) > medium sized mammals (foxes, mountain lions, etc) > small mammals (rabbits, raccoons, etc) > small birds (bluejays, doves, etc) > urban scavenger birds (pigeons, sea gulls) > fish > vermin/insects

Some exceptions may apply.

Panzer-schreck

Thats an interesting question. However I don't think that any form of life can be quantifiedlike 1000 mice equalling one person. If you look at it genetically it's very reasonable to base the value of life on phylogenetic similarity to yourself (the most valuable thing there is). However I think that fails to make the seperation between mind and body, devaluing life to the merely material. I would say that the ability of an organism to appreciate it's own existance would be a more appropriate measure of value.

Just an idea

Thats an interesting question. However I don't think that any form of life can be quantifiedlike 1000 mice equalling one person. If you look at it genetically it's very reasonable to base the value of life on phylogenetic similarity to yourself (the most valuable thing there is). However I think that fails to make the seperation between mind and body, devaluing life to the merely material. I would say that the ability of an organism to appreciate it's own existance would be a more appropriate measure of value.

Just an idea

domatron23

Another idea.

I tend to lump animals into two categories. There are those I would be willing to killmyself with the intention of eating them(cows, rabbits etc) and those I would not (dogs, chimpanzees). I think this once again relates to the intelligence of the animal (and other things like population size). Where do you guys draw the line with what animals you will and will not eat?

Redudant question as we are all animals!anandram

yes, but some animals are more important than others.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Thats an interesting question. However I don't think that any form of life can be quantifiedlike 1000 mice equalling one person. If you look at it genetically it's very reasonable to base the value of life on phylogenetic similarity to yourself (the most valuable thing there is). However I think that fails to make the seperation between mind and body, devaluing life to the merely material. I would say that the ability of an organism to appreciate it's own existance would be a more appropriate measure of value.

Just an idea

tazzydnc

I would sacrifice as many mice as it took (as long as it was humane and wasn't endangering the species) to help just one person

with a little salt and pepper and maybe some ketchup ill eat just about anything.dholmes19

Would you eat me? I hope not. Cannibalism is the last way I would expect to die.

[QUOTE="dholmes19"]with a little salt and pepper and maybe some ketchup ill eat just about anything.domatron23

Would you eat me? I hope not. Cannibalism is the last way I would expect to die.

he he, if you were a female i would.

Redudant question as we are all animals! Just more so evolved.anandram

OK so after mustering up the energy to read your post...i now see "for medical research", again, your topic title is misleading, and the poll is poorly construed as meaning simply what you have put, "man or beast", none of which indicates anything about mdeical research:?

Anyway, survival of the fittest ftw in that case :) we have the ability to research what we can, just dont over-use in stupid excess amounts i say.

OK so after mustering up the energy to read your post...i now see "for medical research", again, your topic title is misleading. Anyway, survival of the fittest ftw in that case :) we have the ability to research what we can, just dont over-use in stupid excess amounts i say. anandram

If the fittest given individual is the most valuable would you admit that you deserve life less than someonemore intelligentor with more grandchildren than you?

There are things other than evolution which might determine the value of life. Think outside the boxdomatron23

situation:

If i had a rare blood type that YOU only had also, i needed a transfusion. YOu are 70 years old, i am 20 per say. Can i kill you (legally) to get the blood i need from you, because the value of my life is more important than yours? i mean you being 70 and me being 20 i mean?

Why are humans held in such high regard? Because we can talk? We are the clever species?

Its a question, not an argument to your post btw :)

[QUOTE="domatron23"]There are things other than evolution which might determine the value of life. Think outside the boxanandram

situation:

If i had a rare blood type that YOU only had also, i needed a transfusion. YOu are 70 years old, i am 20 per say. Can i kill you (legally) to get the blood i need from you, because the value of my life is more important than yours? i mean you being 70 and me being 20 i mean?

Why are humans held in such high regard? Because we can talk? We are the clever species?

Its a question, not an argument to your post btw :)

It depends if you believe the Socratic concept of knowledge being the only worthwhile pursuit in life

As for the question about the blood transfusion I would admit that a seventy year old person would most likely have grandchildren (the evolutionary mark of a successful life) and would therefore be redundant in terms of life value. However this only applies when you view life materialistically. If you take things like my rational capacity to know that I exist into account It would be harder to write me off as less valuable. Harder but not impossible as you have many more years to live than I do. I'd let you kill me if I was braindead (which is impossible because I'm incapable of making a decision).

I think humans are so highly regaurded because we are the only ones capable of considering things like these in the first place. material life is transient but ideas (like we are forming now) are immortal.

If the people I was saving weren't part of my culture/ethnicity (let's say 1000 people) and I had to choose a dog or them, obviously a dog. Also, I go out of my way not to kill insects...unless they are things like wasps in a solitary area in my home. Then they have to die, I'm not risking getting repeatedly stung to free it. If it's a spider though I say, "Hey, what's goin on dude" and I'm off to where I have to go.soulsofblayck

[QUOTE="domatron23"]There are things other than evolution which might determine the value of life. Think outside the boxanandram

situation:

If i had a rare blood type that YOU only had also, i needed a transfusion. YOu are 70 years old, i am 20 per say. Can i kill you (legally) to get the blood i need from you, because the value of my life is more important than yours? i mean you being 70 and me being 20 i mean?

Why are humans held in such high regard? Because we can talk? We are the clever species?

Its a question, not an argument to your post btw :)

In the end I'm trying to get at the ethics and morals behind the use of animals in medical research. Most everyone would agree that a suffering and eventually killed lab mouse is a small price to pay to save a loved one from say cancer, but the reality is 1000s of mice (prolly much more) die for cures.

How do we quantify that?
Animals for medical research debate commence!tazzydnc

Your topic question is misleading. My answer is human. And 2 cents on medical research..

The main point is we all benefit from animal research and even if you don't like it it's benefiting you. Animal research and the information in medical advances that comes out from it are responsible for most of us living 20 or 30 years longer. So whether you're against it or for it you're living longer because of it. Animals are a vital part of research field to advance medicine. Medical progress isn't just for humans, if any of you have pets and you've taken them to the vet, much of the science involved in taking care of them is based on animal research. And basic research of insulin therapy for diabetes was based on inducing diabetes on a dog. Also, the animals used in research do not always have to be euthanized, some of them go home healthy and happy, and actually more rats go to reptiles' stomachs in the animal kingdom than researchers' trash bins. And if your child has a disease and you go to the doctor, you want whatever they're giving your child to have been tested numerous times on something before it got to you.

Do animals have the same rights as humans do? That animals and man share equal rights - both are moral agents. That if you feel pain and depressed so do they, therefore equal. That all beings deserve equal moral consideration. No, I do not believe so. If you say yes, well then animal research is never justified.. so is pet ownership or drinking milk. Scenario: There's an ant, a worm, a dog, and a boy in a sinking boat, there's only one life jacket. I think we (well, most of us) know who the life jacket is going to be given to. We have at some point have made a basal decision that maybe animals and human lives are not equal.

i dont think there's a hierarchy when it comes to "dogs over mice" etc, we kill mice coz they screw around with our house and leave crap on our kitchen counter.. a dog is our pet

i bet if a stray dogs crapped in random peoples kitchens they be killed too

[QUOTE="tazzydnc"]In the end I'm trying to get at the ethics and morals behind the use of animals in medical research. Most everyone would agree that a suffering and eventually killed lab mouse is a small price to pay to save a loved one from say cancer, but the reality is 1000s of mice (prolly much more) die for cures.

How do we quantify that?
Animals for medical research debate commence!hobbez

Your topic question is misleading. My answer is human. And 2 cents on medical research..

The main point is we all benefit from animal research and even if you don't like it it's benefiting you. Animal research and the information in medical advances that comes out from it are responsible for most of us living 20 or 30 years longer. So whether you're against it or for it you're living longer because of it. Animals are a vital part of research field to advance medicine. Medical progress isn't just for humans, if any of you have pets and you've taken them to the vet, much of the science involved in taking care of them is based on animal research. And basic research of insulin therapy for diabetes was based on inducing diabetes on a dog. Also, the animals used in research do not always have to be euthanized, some of them go home healthy and happy, and actually more rats go to reptiles' stomachs in the animal kingdom than researchers' trash bins. And if your child has a disease and you go to the doctor, you want whatever they're giving your child to have been tested numerous times on something before it got to you.

Do animals have the same rights as humans do? That animals and man share equal rights - both are moral agents. That if you feel pain and depressed so do they, therefore equal. That all beings deserve equal moral consideration. No, I do not believe so. If you say yes, well then animal research is never justified.. so is pet ownership or drinking milk. Scenario: There's an ant, a worm, a dog, and a boy in a sinking boat, there's only one life jacket. I think we (well, most of us) know who the life jacket is going to be given to. We have at some point have made a basal decision that maybe animals and human lives are not equal.

Well the decision to help a boy rather than a worm could come down to a evolutionary behavioural adaptation like reciprocal altruism (helping a stranger with the expectancy that another stranger may help you some day). Although there would always be some conscious consideration taking place in such a situation. The thing isa young boy looks more like something which could be our offspring. Even if we knew for certain that the boy was not related I think there is a fundamental drive for humans to protect their own species which would explain the inequal decision to give the boy the life jacketdomatron23

Regardless whether reciprocal altruism or selfish attitude of our race dictated the saving, all the basis this question had is culture and it's saying life forms aren't equal.

Human life is infinitely more important than any other. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.1ND1FF3R3NT

I agree.

Human life is infinitely more important than any other. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.1ND1FF3R3NT

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Well the decision to help a boy rather than a worm could come down to a evolutionary behavioural adaptation like reciprocal altruism (helping a stranger with the expectancy that another stranger may help you some day). Although there would always be some conscious consideration taking place in such a situation. The thing isa young boy looks more like something which could be our offspring. Even if we knew for certain that the boy was not related I think there is a fundamental drive for humans to protect their own species which would explain the inequal decision to give the boy the life jackethobbez

Regardless whether reciprocal altruism or selfish attitude of our race dictated the saving, all the basis this question had is culture and it's saying life forms aren't equal.

That's true. Well I guess the cultural attitude that humans and animals are not equal originated in the traditional religious chain of being- God, Man then beast etc. Plus as an omnivorous species it makes sense that we view the animals we eat as subordinate

it is mislead! looks like a simple question but oh no I tried to stir up some deep discussion :O True a lot of animal research isn't painful but in the case of lab mice (or rats) there is almost no chance of them ending up in any reptiles' stomachs. "Normal" mice aren't often used in research but rather the mice are bred - all clones of each other specifically for research purposes. If they had no use in medical researhch, philosophically they would have never existed.

Of course it's a similar case with most of the meat people eat. It's not going out and killing a wild cow for food, the animals are bred with the sole purpose of being slaughtered in their prime. A "natural death" was never in their future.tazzydnc

"In the case of lab mice there is almost no chance..." This is a myth. Not all lab rats die. Not all experiments require surgeries or poisoning. Many survive to see another day. True, most are bred in the laboratory but not cloned, we do not have the time or the resources needed to clone every single rat we use. Also, we cannot have all the rats completely the same as some experiments are more reliable if you have a wider variety (for lack of better words) of rats. Technically, cell cultures and computer models can sometimes replace animal testing, and they can and have replaced a lot of animal testings. Also in vitro methods have reduced our reliance on animals an awful lot but at this point we cannot mimic the whole body with a computer or a petri dish.

I'm speaking in general of course. I'd chose my cats over the lives of a lotta people for example lol. So animal, human, or equal? (yes I know humans are animals, don't nit-pick)
I'm guessing most people would say humans. But what about sub****s of animals? Is killing a dog or cat as bad as killing a mouse? what about a bug? How does that hierarchy work? I think the general consensus is, the more human the lifeform, the more we value it's life. Do you think "yea, that's the consenus, but its wrong"

In the end I'm trying to get at the ethics and morals behind the use of animals in medical research. Most everyone would agree that a suffering and eventually killed lab mouse is a small price to pay to save a loved one from say cancer, but the reality is 1000s of mice (prolly much more) die for cures.

How do we quantify that?
Animals for medical research debate commence!tazzydnc

I don't think it is possible to make a general statement such as all humans are more valuable than all other animals. Some animals are more important to me than others, and some of those animals that are important to me have more importance than other humans.

For example, suppose I only had time to save either my cat or someone I knew was a serial rapist. I would not hesitate for a moment to save my cat, knowing that by doing so the serial rapist will die.

If I had to choose between saving my dog, or a family member from dying....I'd choose my dog.......that can't be good :x

Yeaahh....for me it's dogs, then humans, then all the other animals.....

[QUOTE="tazzydnc"]I'm speaking in general of course. I'd chose my cats over the lives of a lotta people for example lol. So animal, human, or equal? (yes I know humans are animals, don't nit-pick)
I'm guessing most people would say humans. But what about sub****s of animals? Is killing a dog or cat as bad as killing a mouse? what about a bug? How does that hierarchy work? I think the general consensus is, the more human the lifeform, the more we value it's life. Do you think "yea, that's the consenus, but its wrong"

In the end I'm trying to get at the ethics and morals behind the use of animals in medical research. Most everyone would agree that a suffering and eventually killed lab mouse is a small price to pay to save a loved one from say cancer, but the reality is 1000s of mice (prolly much more) die for cures.

How do we quantify that?
Animals for medical research debate commence!Decessus

I don't think it is possible to make a general statement such as all humans are more valuable than all other animals. Some animals are more important to me than others, and some of those animals that are important to me have more importance than other humans.

For example, suppose I only had time to save either my cat or someone I knew was a serial rapist. I would not hesitate for a moment to save my cat, knowing that by doing so the serial rapist will die.

Thats a really good point...at the end of the day, i think it suffices to say that IT IS ALL RELATIVE. however, vague that concept is, its the truth of the matter.

Save your life long PET or a random stranger? Id choose my PET, selfish i know, but when you think about it...is it selfish really? Is it not JUST as selfish to kill the Pet? What - because the family of the stranger you killed has a mouth it makes you feel guilty, as oppsed to the pets "family" that will not utter two words to you because they cannot. All you'd have to do is look into the dog/cats peers eyesto realise how deeply sadenned it has become, and there is your answer. Actions in that case would speak louder than words.