Why is 'human life' so important?
Like it or not, we are at the top of the food chain due to our intelligence and ingenuity. Death is necessary for many organisms to live and thrive. Even plants, which are autotrophs, benefit from the death other plants, particularly when it comes to the improved fertility of the soil. Death is justified when it objectively helps a higher organism survive.
Top of the food-chain you say? And why is it then, that when faced against, say, a lion, we're f****d?
No, we are not at the top. Sure, we can create the fancy tools, but we are generally weak.
Oh, and can you create those tools I mention? If you that is the reason for us 'being on the top', then every human should be able to do it. I mean, every lion can rip you to shreds. Every human should be able to make an elevator.
No, we are not at the top. Sure, we can create the fancy tools, but we are generally weak.
Oh, and can you create those tools I mention? If you that is the reason for us 'being on the top', then every human should be able to do it. I mean, every lion can rip you to shreds. Every human should be able to make an elevator.
Our ancestors bravely hunted the wooly mammoths and saber tooth tigers with spears. Simply put, it's not our strength but our intellect and creativity that has put us above the rest.
I think they taste *quite* good.
Since humans are made, more or less, of the same proteins that construct other animals, it's a reasonable that people probable would be delicious if prepared by a good cook. One of my neighbors, at one time, kept me awake at all hours with horrible loud music and no protest would make it stop. If it was legal I would have no compunction about holding a party of select friends and eating her. The neighborhood would undoubtedly have benefited and a good time would have been had by all including my cat.
Do the Finns have a national tradition of cannibalism?
Since I'm not a Finn I wouldn't know but they do make delicious sausages.
There seems to be a good deal of enthusiasm throughout the world for killing people and one of the most prosperous industries worldwide is concerned with doing this very efficiently. That's why it's worth asking.
No, we are not at the top. Sure, we can create the fancy tools, but we are generally weak.
Oh, and can you create those tools I mention? If you that is the reason for us 'being on the top', then every human should be able to do it. I mean, every lion can rip you to shreds. Every human should be able to make an elevator.
But to a large extent no doubt we're weak because we use tools. Since the emergence of obvious tool based weaponry in H. erectus several hundred thousand years ago, humans have gotten significantly less robust.
And weak is quite relative. Yes, an unarmed person *may* be pwned by a grizzly bear, but we're still a lot more dangerous than the vast majority of animals simply because of our large size.
It is absolute poppycock to start excluding human tool use from any evaluation of our abilities because tool use is inextricably tied to our entire evolutionary lineage for at least like, what, 2 million years?
_________________
* here for the nachos.
I still answer all of this with my own original post.
This entire matter of "top of the food chain" has nothing to do with our actions. It is clearly an unwarranted move from "is" to "ought", as just because we have the power to kill anything in our way and eat it, does not mean that we *should* kill anything in our way and eat it. It does not matter whether we have guns, or whether a set of guns were found by a pack of monkeys who did the same, or even cattle if they could hold guns, Krem's question stands because it was an ethical question about value.
In any case, to go back to the "top of the food chain" argument, if an alien race showed up with bigger brains, and better technology than we had, should we surrender and become farm animals or what? If we *should* become their farm animals then the matter of "top of the food chain" is coherent, but if we should not surrender then the argument is incoherent, as top or bottom would not actually matter for the behavior of the human race.
This entire matter of "top of the food chain" has nothing to do with our actions. It is clearly an unwarranted move from "is" to "ought", as just because we have the power to kill anything in our way and eat it, does not mean that we *should* kill anything in our way and eat it. It does not matter whether we have guns, or whether a set of guns were found by a pack of monkeys who did the same, or even cattle if they could hold guns, Krem's question stands because it was an ethical question about value.
Carnivorous and omnivorous animals consume animals lower on the food chain in order to survive. Are you suggesting that they are immoral for following their survival instincts? Humans are omnivorous animals whether you like it or not. Consuming meat is beneficial for our growth and development.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4282257.stm
The aliens, after evolving so long on another planet wouldn't need to consume us in order to survive. In fact, we wouldn't be a part of their diet and they may not be able to digest us in the first place. If this far fetched scenario actually does occur, we should strike back by any means necessary. We have the weapons and cognition we need in order to put up a fight.
Last edited by timeisdead on 30 Dec 2008, 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This entire matter of "top of the food chain" has nothing to do with our actions. It is clearly an unwarranted move from "is" to "ought", as just because we have the power to kill anything in our way and eat it, does not mean that we *should* kill anything in our way and eat it. It does not matter whether we have guns, or whether a set of guns were found by a pack of monkeys who did the same, or even cattle if they could hold guns, Krem's question stands because it was an ethical question about value.
Carnivorous and omnivorous animals consume animals lower on the food chain in order to survive. Are you suggesting that they are immoral for following their survival instincts? Humans are omnivorous animals whether you like it or not. Consuming meat is beneficial for our growth and development.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4282257.stm
If consuming animals is natural and you conclude thus that it is a moral action, then you are using a classic fallacy, Appeal to Nature.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
This entire matter of "top of the food chain" has nothing to do with our actions. It is clearly an unwarranted move from "is" to "ought", as just because we have the power to kill anything in our way and eat it, does not mean that we *should* kill anything in our way and eat it. It does not matter whether we have guns, or whether a set of guns were found by a pack of monkeys who did the same, or even cattle if they could hold guns, Krem's question stands because it was an ethical question about value.
Carnivorous and omnivorous animals consume animals lower on the food chain in order to survive. Are you suggesting that they are immoral for following their survival instincts? Humans are omnivorous animals whether you like it or not. Consuming meat is beneficial for our growth and development.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4282257.stm
If consuming animals is natural and you conclude thus that it is a moral action, then you are using a classic fallacy, Appeal to Nature.
I am not saying it's right simply because it occurs in nature but because it's needed for many species to survive. If there were no predators, many herbivores would die of starvation anyways due to overpopulation causing a lack of resources. Do you really want to force lions to become herbivores and thus cause their extinction? Face it, we need death in order to preserve life.
Just because something is necessary does not automatically make it right. If I were a vampire who needed to suck dry the veins of the living (non consensually) in order to survive, is my behavior automatically moral? If that isn't gruesome enough for you, I'm sure you can substitute any number of absolutely dreadful things which aren't polite to mention on a public forum.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
So if you had your way and forced the carnivorous animals to consume plants (unlikely and almost impossible but bear with me) and thus caused them to go extinct, that would be a better example morality? If you outlawed the consumption of meat and caused impaired physical and mental development in children, wouldn't that too be immoral? Necessity is justification for many actions in the world. If someone is trying to brutally murder you, would you rather him or you be the one who survives?
Last edited by timeisdead on 30 Dec 2008, 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
First human implanted with neuralink |
03 Feb 2024, 6:55 pm |
Scientists Discover The Human Brain Is Even More Powerful |
05 Mar 2024, 3:38 am |
Grotesque Human Rights Scandal Happening To Autistic People |
05 Apr 2024, 7:25 am |
No one's life is a failure. |
02 Mar 2024, 4:35 pm |