I would have to go with the intelligence/capability argument. If a child is handicapped to an extreme severity, then he's no more capable than an animal. Therefore, objectively, he would be no more valuable in any way.

I think you are forgetting the fact that humans are not objective machines. We are subjective and oftentimes irrational beings capable of love, compassion, sympathy, etc. It's simply not in our DNA to be objective. We our biologically wired towards certain behaviors, some of which happen to be irrational. One of those irrational behaviors is our tendency to place unconditional value on fellow humans. I'm no biology expert, but this tendency probably evolved and helped our species survive together. We don't always act objectively and logically and we weren't meant to, either.

So, objectively, a human may be as capable thus as valuable as an animal. However, humans are not objective by nature. We feel a love for others unlike no other animal. This love has helped us survive as a species, so I don't think we have any obligation to change. I get a chuckle out of a few posters here who claim they only act in the most objective way possible, claiming that they would value their son no more than an animal if he had extremely poor intelligence. We aren't meant to act that way and 99.9999% of all mentally stable wouldn't act that way; it's one of the perks of being irrational and subjective, I guess.

Also, while a lot of dolphins may have high intelligence, it's the capability that matters imo. Primarily, communications is what's important. There may be animals with extreme intelligence, but they lack the tools to effectively communicate their thoughts and ideas. That alone drops the value of many of these intelligent species below that of humans. So, even objectively, how valuable is intelligence if it can't be practically seen by others?

kowenicki said: dsgrue3 said: The title doesn't match the OP at all. I'd save a family pet over a human stranger any day and twice on Sunday. You're all completely worthless to me, so why would I save you? Now animal stranger vs human stranger would be different. It's about connection. We identify with our own species. save? hmmm Really? Well how about swerving your car to avoid running over your pet if it meant ploughing into a pushchair where you can see a baby sat there.

My instinct to swerve to avoid running over my pet would cause tunnel vision and I wouldn't even notice the baby until its carcass is melded to my fender.

We're overpopulating anyway, no harm done. Keep your baby out of the damn road.

On a small scale humans will usually pick humans over animals. Emotions take care of that. However on a big scale emotions stop working and 'other' human life isn't worth all that much.

Ideas, revenge, money and power are all more valuable then human life. Also animal life is frequently more valuable then human life. Plenty of save the ... animal charities are flourishing while children are still dying of starvation all over the world.

Are we really better then animals? The human race is pretty easy about killing their own.
"Out of all the mammals on Earth, only chimpanzees and humans tend to enact lethal violence upon members of their own species. Other mammals may display aggression or violence in order to compete for food, territory or mates, but rarely act so violently as to kill their competitors."

Googling "humans saving animals" turns up pages of animals saving humans instead. Irony?

Because the ultimate timeline of all lifeforms is evolution to become smarter and fitter to survive in your environment, and we are the prime example of such. We are the winners of our planet.

And there's also the fact that species tend to value the lives of their own kind over other species. You value what you feel you have a closer relationship with. Without specific bonds being made, that is generally one of your own species, right?

Jay520 said: I would have to go with the intelligence/capability argument. If a child is handicapped to an extreme severity, then he's no more capable than an animal. Therefore, objectively, he would be no more valuable in any way. I think you are forgetting the fact that humans are not objective machines. We are subjective and oftentimes irrational beings capable of love, compassion, sympathy, etc. It's simply not in our DNA to be objective. We our biologically wired towards certain behaviors, some of which happen to be irrational. One of those irrational behaviors is our tendency to place unconditional value on fellow humans. I'm no biology expert, but this tendency probably evolved and helped our species survive together. We don't always act objectively and logically and we weren't meant to, either. So, objectively, a human may be as capable thus as valuable as an animal. However, humans are not objective by nature. We feel a love for others unlike no other animal. This love has helped us survive as a species, so I don't think we have any obligation to change. I get a chuckle out of a few posters here who claim they only act in the most objective way possible, claiming that they would value their son no more than an animal if he had extremely poor intelligence. We aren't meant to act that way and 99.9999% of all mentally stable wouldn't act that way; it's one of the perks of being irrational and subjective, I guess. Also, while a lot of dolphins may have high intelligence, it's the capability that matters imo. Primarily, communications is what's important. There may be animals with extreme intelligence, but they lack the tools to effectively communicate their thoughts and ideas. That alone drops the value of many of these intelligent species below that of humans. So, even objectively, how valuable is intelligence if it can't be practically seen by others?

Well, there is a difference between forgetting and ignoring a point. Our personal opinions and values are subjective, which is why I left them out in the OP. I asked for an objective answer, and so far your communication capability argument is probably the only one presented outside the OP.

How about this: Has a completely disabled human with average intelligence close to zero value? What objective argument would stop us from creating meat out of disabled humans? Using your argument, certain animals would have a higher value than some humans, as I see it.

It's all of the above.

Also, the tastiness factor.

It's the fact we're the same species.

On average humans value animals more than animals do their own kind, often their own blood.

When you talk about babies you're missing the point and being shortsighted. Babies develop, and when they're young and vulnerable they need to be protected and taken care of. They hold our future, and thus are incredibly valuable.

And it's not like babies are "bad" or anything. They're sensitive, and thus many stupid, irresponsible parents think them selfish, but they're sweet and cute, and some toddlers can surprise you with such empathy and compassion you would think was beyond capability of any human being. And goodness is the highest criteria any human can be measured by in my book.

Just because we 'won' the race doesn't make us more entitled to anything nor does it give us rights to anything.
We didn't get voted to rule the world did we?
We're here and we're doing a pretty lousy job while being here.
As long as humans aren't able to live in harmony most animals are worth more than any human.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Jay520 said: I would have to go with the intelligence/capability argument. If a child is handicapped to an extreme severity, then he's no more capable than an animal. Therefore, objectively, he would be no more valuable in any way. I think you are forgetting the fact that humans are not objective machines. We are subjective and oftentimes irrational beings capable of love, compassion, sympathy, etc. It's simply not in our DNA to be objective. We our biologically wired towards certain behaviors, some of which happen to be irrational. One of those irrational behaviors is our tendency to place unconditional value on fellow humans. I'm no biology expert, but this tendency probably evolved and helped our species survive together. We don't always act objectively and logically and we weren't meant to, either. So, objectively, a human may be as capable thus as valuable as an animal. However, humans are not objective by nature. We feel a love for others unlike no other animal. This love has helped us survive as a species, so I don't think we have any obligation to change. I get a chuckle out of a few posters here who claim they only act in the most objective way possible, claiming that they would value their son no more than an animal if he had extremely poor intelligence. We aren't meant to act that way and 99.9999% of all mentally stable wouldn't act that way; it's one of the perks of being irrational and subjective, I guess. Also, while a lot of dolphins may have high intelligence, it's the capability that matters imo. Primarily, communications is what's important. There may be animals with extreme intelligence, but they lack the tools to effectively communicate their thoughts and ideas. That alone drops the value of many of these intelligent species below that of humans. So, even objectively, how valuable is intelligence if it can't be practically seen by others? Well, there is a difference between forgetting and ignoring a point. Our personal opinions and values are subjective, which is why I left them out in the OP. I asked for an objective answer, and so far your communication capability argument is probably the only one presented outside the OP. How about this: Has a completely disabled human with average intelligence close to zero value? What objective argument would stop us from creating meat out of disabled humans? Using your argument, certain animals would have a higher value than some humans, as I see it.

As I said, objectively, an incapable human is no more valuable than an animal. In fact, I'd say humans objective value is quite low compared to say...trees. For the most part, humans are only valuable to other humans. That doesn't make us objectively valuable at all.

As for your question, there is no objective argument to stop us from creating meat out of disabled humans. Fortunately, most humans are biologically programmed to naturally care more for humans than other lifeforms. Yes, some animals have a higher objective value than some humans imo. So, what stops us from creating meat out of disabled animals? Our nature. And our love for humanity. Is it objective? No.

Also, civilized humans tend to eat only certain animals. We tend to only eat the meat of farmed animals like cows, pigs, chickens, etc. For the most part, humans only eat animals that were meant to be eaten before they were born (farmed animals). Or we eat animals in the wild (deer). We don't just walk down the street, see a domesticated dog and say, "Hey, that animal has no objective value, I should eat it." No, we know the dog wasn't created for food and it likely has people that cares for it. Humans have grown to eat only certain animals. Fortunately, this doesn't include other humans.

I already wrote a paper on this topic. I've talked about it enough lol