A general consensus is that humans are the most valuable lifeforms on Earth. This means that when faced between the options of saving humans or animals from say, a fire, most people will go for the humans first without a doubt, knowing that the human lives are more valuable. But what is it really that makes humans more valuable?

Some people use the "intelligence argument", claiming that humans are smarter than any other lifeforms and therefore deserve to have a longer life. This makes no sense to me. If intelligence equals value, doesn't that mean dolphins are more worth than mentally disabled humans? Should we really prioritise saving intelligent animals from death and deceases over some of our fellow humans just because they happen to be more intelligent than the human? No, I don't think so. We need a better argument.

What about the "impact argument", suggesting that the lifeforms that will have the greatest positive impact on other lifeforms should be prioritised? Using this argument, it makes perfect sense to go for the humans in a life saving scenario: The animals will care only for themselves in most cases. Either because they can't help make other's lives more comfortable, or bacause they don't want to. A human, on the other hand, is usually sympathetic by nature. Meaning that they can provide food for hundreds or even thousands of lifeforms throughout their lives. Not to mention how humans have massive impacts on close friends and relatives, which would probably backlash greatly if he/she suddenly died in said fire.

Even the impact argument suffers devastating counter arguments though. Let's say that there is a scenario where you will have to save either a dog which has been part of a family for many years and means a great deal to them, or you can save a homeless person who has no family, no friends and who will only be a burden to society for as long as he lives. Would the dog really be the ideal lifeform to save in this scenario? Can a dog really be more valuable than a human being? Again, I don't think so. If there is a scenario where a dog is worth more than a human being, we might as well start slaughtering humans in great isolated groups for provision, just like we do with animals.

So, how do we solve this issue? What is it that makes humans objectively more valuable than animals?

Make your opinion heard!

So, our intelligence?

Just like animals, babies can't discuss these issues though. So what is stopping us from using human babies for meat production? Sure, we are all (?) grossed out by the thought, but I really see no valid argument against it.

We can relate to those who have feelings or thought processes similar to ours, so we are sympathetic to them. That's why we would also feel more sorry for a dying dog (with complex feelings somewhat similar to ours) than a pidgeon or some shit like that.

Yes. Perhaps with an exception for children that will one day be more self-aware than said dolphins. But yes.

And babies (and severely mentally disabled individuals) don't have any of that.

Interesting. I guess intelligence/future potential intelligence = value, in your opinion?

Because those are somehow objective?

Empathy is a poor basis for decision making.

Since I believe, that the moment you die, since your memory and conciousness is in the brain that is now inactive, from that moment, from your perspective, you have never existed.
Therefore, consciousness is the most irreplaceable and valuable thing on this planet. Anything that is conscious has a right to exist forever and should not, under any circumstance be killed.

Those are key words. They can be, but what if they aren't? Can humans who are proven to lack intelligence, compassion and empathy be slaughtered like animals, in your opinion? That appears to be your argument.

Not every living thing is conscious. Fish use the part of our brain that is for thought as their smell processing center, for example.

I get a little uneasy about cows and pigs though, their brains are pretty advanced.