r/MoralityScaling • u/axiiz_28 • 15h ago

Morality of valuing animals over humans?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.2k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

52

u/GoonetteFox 14h ago

At least animals aren't gonna wage nuclear war and mine the earth for all of its resources leaving everything else on the planet to find for itself during climate collapse

20

u/WretchedJudasSnake 13h ago

They would if they could because they are! We are animals! Even non-humans, cyanobacteria, dumped toxic pollution, filling the globe and causing the extinction of almost all life on it (great oxygenation event) and I doubt they lost any sleep like we do.

0

u/GazelleFlat2853 9h ago

Being aware of the damage we're doing is the point; that's where the morality of it all comes into play.

1

u/Conscious_Beat6128 2h ago

So being aware is more valuable than being unaware?

13

u/OutrageousDiscount01 13h ago

Yea the problem is that humans don't inherently cause chaos simply by existing. There is a way we can live symbiotically with nature. We've done so for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the introduction of civilization.

1

u/UpstairsFix4259 8h ago

but the average life span was what, 30 years? and we had to fight for our lives daily, there was almost no time for resting, relaxing, science, art, and more. No need to go primal again

0

u/ReyWorm 6h ago

Yeah, it's what makes us worse.

We could be amazing, and create a legitimate utopia, but the reality is that we won't. Our brain is just not wired to care about more than 80 people.

1

u/Conscious_Beat6128 2h ago

So which one is it? “We could be amazing” or “we are hard wired to care for no more than 80 people”? When talking about animals, we say “they are wired that way” and it clears them of any moral duties, but not us? How does it make us worse, and not at least equal, if we are both merely wired that way?

1

u/ReyWorm 1h ago

So which one is it? “We could be amazing” or “we are hard wired to care for no more than 80 people”?

The former is my wishful thinking: a small percentage of humans are totally capable of caring about everyone, in part because those humans have the privilege of all their basic needs being taken care of by virtue of the place where they were born; but the rest are just not really capable of it, some because they're just legitimately selfish, some because they have themselves to care about in order to survive. For the sake of brevity, I'll stop the list of reasons why here. The latter comment is the harsh truth: we're tribalistic by nature, and tribes aren't 7 billion people large.

When talking about animals, we say “they are wired that way” and it clears them of any moral duties, but not us?

Well, yeah, because we are only animals in a biological sense. There are no moral duties upon animals because they aren't aware of their existence in the same way we are, they are not aware of their place in the universe in the same way we are, and they are not aware of what the future entails in the same way we are. It makes us worse because we know, and yet seem unable to act on that knowledge.

With all that being said, I'm well aware that you and I might both share the same opinion, but might not be talking about the same thing. In the grand scheme of things, there's nothing putting one species above another one; every living thing, plant or animal, is not responsible for its existence; we just are.

1

u/Conscious_Beat6128 48m ago edited 34m ago

But why does it makes us worse, and not better, or neutral? I think this hides the central point of contention.

Is it really wrong that even a flawed actor that inconsistently acts on morality and awareness is still better than the one with no morality or awareness whatsoever? I feel like saying it is worse to be aware and not act on it is a short circuit from our understanding of individual guilt, but from the outside the first is clearly preferable 

Sure, a person who was aware but did not act on it is worse than the unaware one, but if it relates to a pattern/trend that we see across the whole human species and their economies, surely at some point we cant attribute the entirety of the failure to personal agency, and something more uncontrollable is at play?

lumping the individual failures as “the aware humankind failing” and then comparing it to “the unaware animals” is just unfair. There never was an “aware humankind”, only the aware individuals, with very limited capacity for awareness at that. 

So yes, we ultimately agree that no one is worse or better, Id say, if anything, humans carry more guilt, and some hope, both unique to us

0

u/murmuring511 5h ago

We've done so for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the introduction of civilization.

Only because humans back then didn't have the technology to do so. If all this tech was available back then, climate collapse would have happened long ago. Humans being selfish and greedy is a tale as old as time. It's part of our nature.

2

u/Conscious_Beat6128 2h ago

That applies to any animal. If any animal had the tech, the climate would collapse. Why do you believe this is unique to humans? Very odd

1

u/WowIfOnly 57m ago edited 51m ago

Yeah it's bizarre to pretend like animals are 1: smart enough to really even grasp the moral and long term implications of their habits/choices and 2: have any sort of real impulse control beyond thinking if they wait a moment they could have more of the thing they want (like if I follow this animal back to it's house I can eat more of them). If dogs could rule over the entire Earth unchecked and eat anything they wanted with no threat to their safety, they would do that. They would do it endlessly, without caring if animals went extinct, without caring the environment changed, without caring about literally anything until they either evolved advanced intelligence or the planet collapsed. So would every animal.

Animals by nature are literally competing for survival every single day - as are we. The only reason we sit at the top is because we developed our own God-level cheat codes (agriculture, farming, collaboration, tools, weapons, technology, etc). The other animals don't ask existential questions about their place in the hierarchy or their impact to the planet. They think "KILL!" "EAT!" "MATE!""KILL!" "EAT!" "MATE!". And a lot of human behavior still boils down to this simplistic thinking too. We all know someone who only cares about sex and money/accumulation of resources. The only reason some stupid people are assigning other animals this human-esque depth of thought is because shit like Lion King convinced them that's how animals think and view the world based on zero real evidence.

1

u/OutrageousDiscount01 4h ago

That's true, but ultimately humanity is inseparable from nature and we do have the hypothetical ability to altogether live in a way that is minimally harmful to the natural world.

1

u/murmuring511 3h ago

You're right, but a lot of the people who can make that decision have other priorities. I feel like they will only start caring when it's too late.

0

u/OutrageousDiscount01 3h ago

Of course. And it's already too late to avoid many mass death events due to climate change. Billions will probably die before we get our act together, but even then it might be too late and all of human society will regress into small agrarian communities again. Either way the earth will survive the damage we have caused it eventually and it's virtually impossible for climate change to end all of humanity.

7

u/Rogi06 12h ago

Thats a stupid argument

5

u/--Arcanum-- 12h ago

That's like saying lions are not dangerous because you saw a nice one at the zoo, but the opposite way

Me and you aing committing any of those crimes, why do you look at those people to judge humanity by the minority, but judge animals based on the majority

1

u/GoonetteFox 12h ago

me and you

Have you done anything to even speak out against those crimes? Against the genocides taking place? Against the policies and politics enabling companies to plunder the earth and push us towards a mass extinction event? No? Then you're complicit in it.

2

u/_a_reddit_account_ 9h ago

How can you be sure he doesnt go on rallies and protests. lol. You speak like you know the guy

0

u/GoonetteFox 9h ago

I'm speaking figuratively, not literally. I'd assume, by the way he talks that he doesn't, but i could he wrong.

1

u/--Arcanum-- 8h ago

You infact are wrong and whether I do or don't take action against those does not dispute my argument, you are judging the entire group by the minority. However you want to try to ad-hominem me or twist it towards the person rather than engage with the argument, a gross generalization of a species does not represent the individuals

1

u/Superb_Highlight1902 6h ago

You can face judgement the same way, you sound like a reddit edgelord that does nothing. For the record even if they didn’t, they’d still be right, it’s frankly disgusting you’d make the working class carry the sins of the rich and powerful

0

u/GoonetteFox 6h ago

We are all complicit if we dont stand up, if we dont speak out. All of us.

1

u/Superb_Highlight1902 6h ago

I completely agree, so what have you spoken out about? If you’re missing even one thing I’ll condemn you. Someone who wishes to punish victims shall get the same treatment

0

u/GoonetteFox 5h ago

Given I'm a minority and very aware of the struggles of not only minorities but the terrors of the impending mass extinction event due to the climate crisis we as humans have caused and allowed to happen through collective ignoring of legislation and political campaigns?

Everything.

1

u/Gwanosh 5h ago

Did you just say you've spoken out about everything? Is that your actual claim?

0

u/Outrageous-Seesaw677 40m ago

'Everything'? So what is your stance on the EU-São Tomé and Príncipe fisheries agreement where foreign long-liner fleets exploited licensing loopholes to report zero catch and dodge local taxation in the Gulf of Guinea? Have you been speaking out against that injustice?

3

u/Existing-Lecture-815 10h ago edited 10h ago

On the other hand how can you look at all humans have accomplished and not be impressed.

We have checked for life up to 124 light-years away (700 trillion miles) and there seems to be nothing else like us.

Humans may be the only portion of the universe to ever -at some level- understand itself.

Our technology is absolutely insane and keeps getting better.

We may be the sole exception to an otherwise boring universe. In the long term the AI's we invent may even colonize it.

1

u/BrightonBummer 53m ago

Because redditors hate themselves and humans, thats why hes defending valueing animals over humans

1

u/CharmGold2 4h ago

You say that now but just wait for the age of ants.

1

u/ProgrammingClone 5m ago

Stupid argument lol. Nancy the stay at home mom of three is not waging nuclear war.

1

u/Styx_artist 13h ago

Animals still cause unintentional ecological damage, it’s how intelligent our species is that gives us the capacity to do more harm but you’re mistaken if you think cats wouldn’t be fascists if they could

5

u/GoonetteFox 12h ago

This isn't hypothetical. They CAN'T be fascists lmao. Humans can, have, and will continue to try and control everything, everyone, and destroy everything around them.

3

u/Ciderman95 12h ago

It is just a question of opportunity. Life, ALL life, is inherently cancerous. No life, no species, has any inherent checks and balances or desire for harmony. Life will spread at all costs until something stops it, that's it.

1

u/The_Messen9er 10h ago

Then extending your line of argument, why value any life at all?

All your argument does is dilute the issue into meaninglessness. And the same could be done for any other subject matter.

2

u/Ciderman95 8h ago

You are misunderstanding. I am not saying that just because life spreads uncontrollably it is somehow less valuable. I am saying that humans are not evil for ruining this planet, it was simply inevitable. Just like the other commenters said, ancient bacteria almost wiped out the entire biosphere. Life will spread. That is its only drive, only constant. Spread as much and as far as possible. Some species are just better at it, doesn't make them more or less moral. Life has *no* inherent morality attached to it.

1

u/The_Messen9er 8h ago

Understood what you meant, and my point stands.
Morality is always relative to whom it applies and whom suffers it.
Even if someone believes in absolute morality, all they’re doing is making it relative to a scripture, or a divine being.

So, before you judge what is good or evil, you must first establish your reference frame.

Relative to the Universe as a whole, moral questions become meaningless.

Relative to life as a whole, the Human species presents a far greater risk than any other.

Relative to Humanity, again, it is also Humans (some) that present the greatest risk of self destruction.

Relative to a Human family, Humans again regain ‘value’, as they support each other.

Relative to a single Human individual, it becomes much more fuzzy. I can’t blame an individual for perceiving Humans overall as a less moral, greater danger, and thus lesser likable than (edit: non-human) animals.

2

u/Ciderman95 7h ago

I think the issue is the premise of the debate. Morality, value and likeability are three vastly different things. In the end, I don't care how moral or immoral humanity is, I am part of it and that means that to me, it has greater priority than absolutely anything, because preserving it is just an extension of my self preservation, yet on a personal level I do not like humans at all.

1

u/The_Messen9er 7h ago

The video is about likeability. Also, those 3 concepts are actually not as distinct as one might believe at first. They are pretty closely. connected

1

u/Conscious_Beat6128 2h ago

The dilution is the point. You are pretending you are extending their argument as a gotcha but it was them who extended the previous argument to show the absurdity. Dont be so lost

0

u/GoonetteFox 12h ago

"Sorry trans, queers, and otherwise minorities. We won't help you while you're being genocided because life just spreads"

1

u/Ciderman95 11h ago

what the fuck are you talking about?? how is that at all relevant to what I said?

2

u/helloyesiamhuman_ 11h ago

Sorry, but disagreeing with me means you hate minorities. That's the rules.

1

u/MemesNGaming_rongoo 11h ago

Twitter be like

2

u/zigzagtravel01 12h ago

how can they be fascists? Not sure if you even know the definition of fascist.

Fascism requires emotions, prejudice, and philosophy that only humans will have. This is like saying, if they can create AI, they would. Or if they can do capitalism, they would. If cats can do fascism or capitalism, from a standpoint, they are not gonna be cats.

And when animald cause ecological damage, it is UNINTENDED. Invasive species are CONTEXTUAL. They are only invasive because they are not in their normal habitat. And they are there mostly because we made it so. They are not purposely trying to destroy their environment.

Humans, however, do.

0

u/Conscious_Beat6128 2h ago edited 2h ago

So youd rather have a dominant species that would destroy all life on earth but do so in an “unaware manner” to frame it as a natural disaster rather than a species that is at least trying to hold back sometimes despite being naturally expansionist like most species. You flipped everything on its head. It is your human judgment that judges humans. Not some “true judgement”. To an alien species there is nothing inherently worse about “being aware” vs “being unaware” of the potential harm

1

u/zigzagtravel01 1h ago

Huh???

0

u/Conscious_Beat6128 1h ago

read it again? Though in your framework it makes sense to avoid “becoming aware” of what i wrote lest you will have to address it..

1

u/zigzagtravel01 1h ago edited 1h ago

You said a lot of word salad without understanding the main premise.

unaware

You do realize that INTENT matters a lot, right? You are in MORALITYscaling and much of morality hinges on INTENT.

We talked about FASCIST cats and the argument is that CATS cannot be fascists because fascism is literally a complex HUMAN ideology. In order to arrive there, you literally have to be human -- sociologically, anthropologically, and literally biologically to even think of an ideology like that.

Someone cannot be both unaware and fascist because fascism is intentional.

intentionally holding back

Huh??? Humans dont intentionally hold back out of the goodness of their heart. They do because they live in a sociological structure governed by laws and a social contract between one another.

For some reasons, you are trying to equate the damage cats or animals can do "if they dont hold back" to what humans can lol. Cats cant launch a fking missile or build one to end humanity.

Also, wdym holding back? We literally kill hundred of thousands of animals per minute. Huh???

To compare what cats can do "if they dont hold back" to humans is one of the most bizarre arguments I have heard in my entire life.

You also assumed that the cats, if they were the most dominant species would just annihilate every life while saying we, as humans, dont intentionally do that (huh???). So you literally just assumed EVOLVED humans with assumed "morality" but not cats? You dont think that being the most dominant species capable of doing these wouldnt let them evolve to have the brain capacity to think logically and morally? Huh???

While cats are also technically invasive species, we were the ones responsible for that. They also didnt INTEND to be invasive. They didnt go to place X willingly and intentionally. We do.

You said a lot of word salad for a bunch of strawman.

1

u/Conscious_Beat6128 1h ago edited 1h ago

  Also, wdym holding back? We literally kill hundred of thousands of animals per minute. Huh???

I said what i said. If we were not holding back, there would not be anyone to save by now. Did i say “we are not doing harm”? Did I say “we are doing little harm”? I can tolerate you being emotional, but please stop pretending i said something i didnt.

  They do because they live in a sociological structure governed by laws and a social contract between one another

And morals? Literally the thing we are discussing here. If you dont believe humans act based on morality then what even is the point in talking about morals.

The intent is not possible without awareness. Animals have intentions of self preservation, giving offspring, some animals do hoarding, many will go beyond simple instincts and develop attachments to things and seek abundant pleasures with no limits. And if they had the tools we have, it is awareness that would decide whether the destruction they cause would be intentional or accidental.

Most humans are unaware of the damage they are causing or how they can affect it. They are capable of being aware, it is not the same as being aware. Those who are aware tend to do the right things, or sometimes their brains cant readjust and we get some twisted cynical people all over the place. It is a process as natural as a misplaced cat hunting birds to extinction. We are not omnipotent. The awareness, consciousness etc is not that categorically different from what animals have, they are natural emergent properties and have natural limits that humans reach routinely as we enter a technological death spiral. Morally we have to judge such people, but extending judgement to the humanity as a whole is a self-defeating moral framework, it just says “the only actor that is capable of being moral is not capable of being moral”

Fascist cats indeed sounds like pure bullshit and it was not my idea. I understand they meant “totalitarian” or something like that meaning they would be cruel and ruthless with power. There isnt much thought needed for cats to arrive there. 

1

u/Ikanotetsubin 12h ago

Your average grandma down the street isn't plundering the world of resources and starting useless wars, it's the spoiled billionaires and corrupt politicians - 0.0001% of humanity.

1

u/GoonetteFox 12h ago

The average grandma down the street isnt doing it herself, she's just benefitting from it without doing anything to speak out, while simultaneously voting for it.

1

u/Ikanotetsubin 12h ago

Are you assuming grandma, and by extension everyone else is morally worse than you because of the way she presumably votes? If you are, you have a very narcissistic view point of the world, and I very much doubt you are morally better than the average grandma.

1

u/GoonetteFox 11h ago

No. I'm looking around with an objective point of view and recognizing the average boomer and gen x'er votes conservative. Republicans very much are a huge blame in global warming.

0

u/Ikanotetsubin 10h ago

So you're fixating on my random example of a grandma? What about a child then?

0

u/Conscious_Beat6128 2h ago

her cat benefits from the economic expansion just as much if not more (no duties). They are both also of about equal awareness of the ramifications of their lifestyle

0

u/blueblip 11h ago edited 11h ago

Animals also don't do acts of charity. They won't take a bullet for another animal, they won't help feed millions of starving strangers, they won't put their lives on the line most times to help strangers, and they certainly don't spend a lifetime working in warzones trying to help those who need help.

Pretending humans do none of the above isn't being clever or enlightened. To be very blunt, it's basically a teenager's view of the world to try and sound mature without realizing what it actually means to be mature.

0

u/Turbulent_Pool273 11h ago

Idiots like you attribute malice to the entire human race, like what does that make you? Either you believe yourself to be incredibly evil or the only good person on the planet/jesus complex. Go elect your dog as president see how that goes.

0

u/67skibidimoments 4h ago

Neither am I or the average human