Why is human life more important than animal life?

Page 2 of 6 [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

PunkyKat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,492
Location: Kalahari Desert

25 Apr 2010, 7:18 am

astaut wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
JetLag wrote:
I think one of the reasons people are more important than animals is that people are made in the image of God and animals are not. .


That is the kind of mindset that almost turned me into an athiest.


. I hope you never let other people's mindsets determine your beliefs.



I said it almost turned me into an athiest. I believe that the whole "dominion" thing is about protecting and taking care of the animals and enviroment as well. Rats and mice were made for snuggling and cuddling, not for expirmenting on in the name of science. Rats can be very sweet and friendly. The only reason they are used in expirments is because they are cheap and breed quickly. Saint Francis of Acissi is my patron saint.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

25 Apr 2010, 11:52 am

My guess....because animals haven't invented firearms yet. :lol: 8)



Mindtear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 721
Location: UK

25 Apr 2010, 6:18 pm

I think the original question should be slightly changed to: Why is your own life more important that anything elses?

I dont think species has much to do with it in my opinion. To believe you are greater and more important that anything else ensures self interest. The interest to help yourself before anything else, as your own suvival is infinitly more important to you than anything else.



ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

26 Apr 2010, 12:30 am

i must aggree, the autism makes you see the world from outside the automatic emotional instinctive point of view

people are mostly automatic, their opinions are based on their "survivability chances within the pack", so is everything else they do.
people will deliberately ignore overpopulation, and still see fellow humans (pack members) as the most important thing on earth.


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Apr 2010, 2:14 am

The notion of importance is a human mental artifact. The question is biased from the git-go. Only a human could entertain the notion that humanity is the most important life type.

If you go by quantity we humans are not all that important. The one-celled living organism on our planet outweigh us at least a thousand to one.

It is not even clear that we are the smartest critters on God's Green Earth. If smarts are measured by reproductive success that ants have us beat. That have been around for 250 million years. We have been around for maybe 250 thousand years.

ruveyn



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,148
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

26 Apr 2010, 2:26 am

Sam Harris was on a radio talk show and the host brought up the connection of PETA, Holocaust on a Plate, etc. with atheism and animal-human equivalency. Sam shot back that he agreed the notion of equivalency was absurd, he did so on the grounds that humans have a far greater capacity for suffering ('and if you don't believe me spend some time with a chicken'). Physical pain may be the same but we have emotional/existential anguish that can exceed anything else out there.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Apr 2010, 5:34 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Sam Harris was on a radio talk show and the host brought up the connection of PETA, Holocaust on a Plate, etc. with atheism and animal-human equivalency. Sam shot back that he agreed the notion of equivalency was absurd, he did so on the grounds that humans have a far greater capacity for suffering ('and if you don't believe me spend some time with a chicken'). Physical pain may be the same but we have emotional/existential anguish that can exceed anything else out there.


That someone has had telepathic intimacy with the emotional side of a chicken is indeed impressive. There must, obviously, be some congruency with mental capacity to permit this.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,148
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

26 Apr 2010, 5:01 pm

Sand wrote:
That someone has had telepathic intimacy with the emotional side of a chicken is indeed impressive. There must, obviously, be some congruency with mental capacity to permit this.

I probably wouldn't confuse him for a Jainist.



CaroleTucson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 824
Location: Tucson, AZ

28 Apr 2010, 8:33 am

ruveyn wrote:
CaroleTucson wrote:
PLA wrote:
"Animals don't make war" is simply not true.


Yes it is true, except in very unusual cases.

Show me another species who routinely conscripts large numbers of individuals from their society, systematically stockpiles weapons, and intentionally invades the territory of other groups for the purpose of annihilating them, for no other reason than some vague political principle.


Conscript is a legal concept. Fighting, particularly male coalitional killing is a fact among chimpanzees. They are nasty critters who make organized war and who commit chimpicide. Unfortunately we humans share many of the less admirable characteristics of the chimpanzee.

ruveyn


Read what I said again. "Fighting" is not the same thing as "conscripts large numbers of individuals from their society, systematically stockpiles weapons, and intentionally invades the territory of other groups for the purpose of annihilating them, for no other reason than some vague political principle."

Yes, chimpanzees have been seen to kill individuals from other troops in territorial disputes. That is hardly comparable to modern warfare.



CaroleTucson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 824
Location: Tucson, AZ

28 Apr 2010, 8:51 am

you_are_what_you_is wrote:
Of course, whether or not the violence in other species counts as 'war' is debatable,


It's debatable? Debatable by whom? Even in the cases where animals kill other than for food, it is basically one-for-one, and in response to some circumstance of the moment. That is homicide, not warfare. There is an enormous difference.

I say again, no animal except humans assembles large fighting forces and systematically invades the territories of others for the purpose of annihilating entire populations, with no other motivation that abstract political principles, using technologically advanced weapons that have the ability to kill hundreds or thousands of the "enemy".



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Apr 2010, 8:57 am

CaroleTucson wrote:
you_are_what_you_is wrote:
Of course, whether or not the violence in other species counts as 'war' is debatable,


It's debatable? Debatable by whom? Even in the cases where animals kill other than for food, it is basically one-for-one, and in response to some circumstance of the moment. That is homicide, not warfare. There is an enormous difference.

I say again, no animal except humans assembles large fighting forces and systematically invades the territories of others for the purpose of annihilating entire populations, with no other motivation that abstract political principles, using technologically advanced weapons that have the ability to kill hundreds or thousands of the "enemy".


Army Ants?

ruveyn



you_are_what_you_is
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 755
Location: Cornwall, UK

28 Apr 2010, 9:21 am

CaroleTucson wrote:
It's debatable? Debatable by whom?


Ethologists.

Quote:
I say again, no animal except humans assembles large fighting forces and systematically invades the territories of others for the purpose of annihilating entire populations, with no other motivation that abstract political principles, using technologically advanced weapons that have the ability to kill hundreds or thousands of the "enemy".


And I say again: this is because no other species has the ability to do that. Of course humans are the only species that kill hundreds or thousands with technologically advanced weapons. This is because humans are the only technologically advanced species.

I can concede that humans are the only species who go to war. My point is that this is largely irrelevant.


_________________
"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Apr 2010, 10:48 am

Ants vs Wasps? Ants vs. Humans? Killer Bees?



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

29 Apr 2010, 6:48 am

Yay, reposting for the addressee.

PLA wrote:
CaroleTucson wrote:
PLA wrote:
"Animals don't make war" is simply not true.


Yes it is true, except in very unusual cases.

Show me another species who routinely conscripts large numbers of individuals from their society, systematically stockpiles weapons, and intentionally invades the territory of other groups for the purpose of annihilating them, for no other reason than some vague political principle.


Hey, bada bing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Cooper ... ompetition

The "vague political principle" in humans is often, though not always, "more for me".


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

29 Apr 2010, 6:30 pm

there was a man walking with his lion friend, the man stopped at a statue showing a man standing over a deaftedlion. "See this proves man's dominion over animals." Said the man. "And just who was it that mage the statue?" Asked the lion.


_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Apr 2010, 9:25 am

Eggman wrote:
there was a man walking with his lion friend, the man stopped at a statue showing a man standing over a deaftedlion. "See this proves man's dominion over animals." Said the man. "And just who was it that mage the statue?" Asked the lion.


In what language the above quoted material written?

ruveyn