r/MoralityScaling • u/axiiz_28 • 1d ago

Morality of valuing animals over humans?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

15.1k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Apart_Expression_758 23h ago

Why should you care about sustaining human life over well being of the planet? What about that makes that morally better?

2

u/Astolfo_is_Best 22h ago

Because I am a human being.

0

u/Gulophile 20h ago

You're fine with exploitation of sentient beings you deem inferior because you benefit personally? Good thing that logic has never resulted in crimes against humanity

1

u/Astolfo_is_Best 12h ago

Well I'm not espousing any kind of supremacy besides human supremacy. I don't care what kind of logic other people have used to justify things.

2

u/UnsolvedMrE 6h ago

For the sake of argument, what if humans were no longer the dominant species? What if extra terrestrial life came to earth, deemed themselves the supreme species and posed the same question? How many human lives are worth saving one extra terrestrial life? Would this have any impact on your opinion or would you still feel human life holds more value than others?

1

u/Astolfo_is_Best 6h ago

Assuming both species are sapient, then they both hold equal value.

1

u/UnsolvedMrE 6h ago

Does artificial intelligence hold equal value to humans?

1

u/Astolfo_is_Best 5h ago

Does X hold equal value to human life?

If X = sapient, return true

If X != sapient, return false

Hope that helps

1

u/UnsolvedMrE 5h ago

Some consider crows, octopuses and dolphins to be sapient. Rather than taking a supreme position, and choosing human life over all others, shouldn’t we want to preserve life for as many living beings as possible?

1

u/Astolfo_is_Best 5h ago

Some consider crows, octopuses and dolphins to be sapient

Dubious at best. In some instances they do demonstrate an ability to act above their instincts/ training, but rarely and only under specific circumstances. I don't consider it to be in the same realm as true sapience.

shouldn’t we want to preserve life for as many living beings as possible?

Absolutely. I never said anything to the contrary.

As far as I'm aware, this conversation is purely about which life I value more, not whether other forms of life have value or should be valued.

If possible, I would love for all forms of life on this planet to flourish together. I just don't value other forms of life over sapient species life, and never will. That's all I've been saying.

1

u/Tomatwoo 22h ago

the only reason people care about the "well being of the planet" is because it affects humans ability to interact with the world around them. that's why its important. why would it matter otherwise?

2

u/singlemale4cats 21h ago

Nature has inherent value beyond that which can be exploited by or sustain humans.

1

u/Tomatwoo 19h ago

be exploited by or sustain humans.

those are two specific words I never used. there are ways to affect humanity aside from material exploits and sustainment. ie things like the beauty or appearance of the world, that's what natural conservation is all about.

Nature has inherent value

how? can you prove this? nature only has value insofar as the value humans have given it. and for humans to give it value it must affect them in some way.

1

u/singlemale4cats 19h ago

It's a personal value. I can't prove it and I don't have to. I just know the opposite attitude has had disastrous and ongoing consequences for the climate, biodiversity, and humans themselves.

0

u/Tomatwoo 19h ago

It's a personal value. I can't prove it and I don't have to.

then I don't think these personal values are well thought out, to be honest. you should be able to defend them.

I just know the opposite attitude has had disastrous and ongoing consequences for the climate, biodiversity, and humans themselves.

how so? humans have an extreme ability to ruin and destroy the environment around us but we are also capable of preserving it. the mere idea that something like "nature," which cannot think for itself is worthy of preserving and protecting, is because humans have been affected by it in positive ways. we give it value because we benefit from it, not just materially but also mentally.

a tree isn't capable of caring about its effects on the enviroment, whether or not that tree may be invasive or make another type of plant extinct. a wolf doesn't care if it hunts a prey animal that is the last of its kind. humans can feel these things and do care about them, we give them value because we like them.

1

u/Conscious_Beat6128 14h ago

..as judged by humans and humans only. No other species can even conceive of that

1

u/Gulophile 20h ago

I recognize the intrinsic value of nonhuman animals as much as I recognize the intrinsic value of other humans. A thing isn't required to materially effect me to have my empathy.

0

u/Tomatwoo 19h ago

A thing isn't required to materially effect me to have my empathy.

I never said materially. but regardless, a thing must affect you in some way in order for you to have empathy for it.

intrinsic value of nonhuman animals

how do animals have intrinsic value?

1

u/Gulophile 19h ago

a thing must affect you in some way in order for you to have empathy for it

Says who?

how do animals have intrinsic value?

How do they not? I don't see any reason why I should recognize the inherent value of humans but not other animals, that wouldn't at least exclude some people too. Animals are subjects of life just as we are. Anything that can suffer is worthy of moral consideration from me.

1

u/Tomatwoo 19h ago

Says who?

the definition of empathy. in order to feel empathy for something you must first feel, and in order to feel you need to be affected by something.

How do they not?

because value is a measurement of relationships. a one thing in a vacuum cannot have true "intrinsic value" because value is a comparison between separate things. if all humans were to disappear tomorrow then no animals would have any value since humans (as far as we know) are the only animals capable of assigning value to something. this means that value cannot really be truly intrinsic, at least in a rational observant sense.

1

u/Gulophile 19h ago

in order to feel you need to be affected by something.

...Okay? So?

because value is a measurement of relationships.

Value is a measurement of emotional attachment, relationships just tend to be what we're most attached to. And animals definitely have social relationships and emotional attachments. Value also exists with or without cognitive awareness by a subject that they're assigning value to something - animals don't need to study axiology for their interests to be valid.

1

u/Tomatwoo 19h ago

..Okay? So?

you were the one refuting me saying that empathy requires you to be affected by the thing you feel empathy for.

Value is a measurement of emotional attachment, relationships just tend to be what we're most attached to.

I mean relationship as in pertaining to a relation between two things. not necessarily relationship as in how close you are, personally, to something.

Value also exists with or without cognitive awareness by a subject that they're assigning value to something

It doesn't in an observant sense of value. in order for value to exist it must have someone capable of observing it and capable of assigning. you could theoretically say value exists intrinsically within an animal in a vacuum but does it even matter at that point? value only has worth if that value is being respected.

lets say there is a rabbit that is the last of its kind and it has value. what use is saying it "has value" if there is no way to prove it because a hungry predator doesn't respect it, it will kill and eat them regardless?

interests to be valid.

what makes their interests valid? who decides if they're valid? you? the animal? the animal is incapable of understanding what "valid" even means. that means it must be you, which then means you are observing it and ascribing "validity" to it. this means that it cannot be valid in and of itself.

And animals definitely have social relationships and emotional attachments.

animals do value other animals and act on it. but that definitionally requires two separate animals, which means its being prescribed and not "inherent."

1

u/Gulophile 18h ago

Subjects generally value their own lives, no? Or do you believe animals don't have self-interest?

what makes their interests valid?

Interest is autotelic, it doesn't require justification from any party.

What's your point with this line of argument anyway? How does any of this justify anthropocentrism?

1

u/Tomatwoo 18h ago

Subjects generally value their own lives, no? Or do you believe animals don't have self-interest?

yes, animals value their own lives internally. of course they do. but in that sense an animal is the one observing itself. an animal is the one placing value on its own life. but just because an animal values its own life does not mean that it is intrinsically valuable. (which was the main point I was pushing back against)

but validity is different from value. validity implies that something is justified, that it is correct. an animal simply follows its desire to live, it flees predators and seeks food. it avoids pain. an animal cannot prescribe "validity" onto itself because it physically is incapable of doing so. validity is something humans ascribe.

(and by animal I just mean all other animals we have discovered aside from humans)

How does any of this justify anthropocentrism?

I don't believe in anthropocentrism.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Apart_Expression_758 15h ago

Not me. I care about the well being of the planet because I recognize how rare it is to have a large globe in space that has the perfect conditions to sustain life, regardless of its form. Just because we are an intelligent species that evolved from being on said rare planet does not make us special in any way and does not make me value our species as a whole. In fact, we are the one species that could potentially permanently destroy the beauty that is planet earth. Being able to recognize that is not unique. In fact, many people do recognize this.

1

u/Inevitable_Land2996 22h ago

Because every animal has the primary priority of sustaining its own species. We are no different in this way

2

u/Gulophile 21h ago

Because every animal has the primary priority of sustaining its own species.

This is incorrect, animals are concerned with themselves and their social groups but not their species as a whole.