If humans are more valuable, why? — hypericin
? Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable. — hypericin
Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable. — hypericin
Various countries have different estimates:What value do you put on a human life? — Wayfarer
Reasonable people argue against anthropocentrism. Moreover the point of my post is that both answers to the question seem untenableWho maintains the 'equality of humans and animals' - well, apart from fanatical animal liberationists? — Wayfarer
So then human rights rests on the philosophically very shaky foundation of free will? Becuase otherwise animals seem to move about as freely as we do.I think that rights are only meaningful to beings that are capable of exercising free choice. — Wayfarer
Mother or no (imagine your poodle vs the live of someone else's child), the choice of the animal seems monstrous. — hypericin
Anyway humans do generally, rightly or wrongly, accord more value to humans than they do to other animals. — Janus
So might say an apologist for the worst tyrants of history. — hypericin
If humans are more valuable, why? — hypericin
How do you justify this assertion? — hypericin
If humans are more valuable, why? — hypericin
How do you justify this assertion? — hypericin
Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable. — hypericin
Then, human value must also be gradated on the basis of intelligence, and from there we arrive at eugenics. — hypericin
I'm going to take a Darwinian stance on this — TheMadFool
why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? — 3017amen
For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? — 3017amen
Why should we care? — 3017amen
are those questions reasonable — 3017amen
And if they are absurd, why? — 3017amen
Then suppose that there are mistakes (whatever that means, but just for thought experiment purposes) where some primates get to have something more in the way of self-awareness and intellect. — 3017amen
why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? — 3017amen
We do. — James Riley
For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? — 3017amen
We do. — James Riley
Why should we care? — 3017amen
Because an abundance of food allows us to think we are different, and better.
are those questions reasonable — 3017amen
Yes. — James Riley
Whenever an invasive species enters a new territory, it has a honeymoon period where food is not an issue. Indigenous species suffer, of course, and often go extinct, but eventually there is, as Wall Street would call it, "an adjustment" or "correction" and sometimes there is a lot of bouncing until things settle. We, with our self-awareness and intellect, have been pushing the due date out and extending the honeymoon period. We are not on the ground yet so we think we are flying. But that is yet to be determined. We could wake up one day and find the decrease in biodiversity has cut our own throat. We weren't flying after all; we were falling and just hadn't hit the ground yet. That's why some have their eye on outer space. — James Riley
Anyway, on the micro scale, it's been proven, time and again, that people will indeed kill each other for food. Take the food away and a whole host of modern problems (like depression, boredom, etc.) go away and things get real again. — James Riley
are you suggesting thatall humans should kill each other to achieve social dominance — 3017amen
Really? This seems to make me think of cannibalism. — 3017amen
Please share your theory. — 3017amen
What are you trying to argue? — 3017amen
Really? This seems to make me think of cannibalism. — 3017amen
Ah, I see: When you saw the words "kill each other for food" you thought "eat each other." Rethink that. We don't eat each other for food. But we kill each other for food. — James Riley
But your theory states that we should, no? — 3017amen
I guess your specific theory then, using your sense of logic, would not support Darwinism. — 3017amen
No. Take humans off the plate. Look at animals only. Eating members of their own species is either an aberration within species, or species specific. Most mammals don't go around eating each other for food. They do, however, fight each other for food all the time. Do you see the difference between fighting for food, over food, and eating each other? — James Riley
I guess your specific theory then, using your sense of logic, would not support Darwinism. — 3017amen
Wrong. It falls four-square within Darwinism. — James Riley
If they would, they might feel sorry for us, or wish we knew what they knew. But I think they are too busy living, and living in grace. And by living, and living in grace, they are leading by example; they are showing us, they are telling us what we want to know. It's just that we don't know how to listen. — James Riley
That being said, why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? Why should we care? — 3017amen
That being said, why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? Why should we care?
— 3017amen
We would if food was not abundant. It's not a matter of "should care". but " do care" or "don't care", which largely depend on what we can afford to care about, or at least pay lip;service to caring about. — Janus
We are. most likely, the only beings who conceive of value at all, — Janus
That's the glaring problem with your argument, right? I haven't eliminated humans from the equation, and you didn't either from your theory. — 3017amen
For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? — 3017amen
And so, in reference to the OP, you haven't been able to make the correlation between human value systems and other primates. — 3017amen
You must incorporate humans for your theory to wash or become clear, and otherwise for your logic to follow. — 3017amen
Are we not back to the justification for why the treatment of humans and animals should be different? You're saying that they/there shouldn't be. — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.