What are humans worth?

[viscousmemories]

In another thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3427&postcount=4), JoeP said: "I can think of one species worth devoting the rest of your life to. but few others."

For most people that seems to be a truism. Human lives have inherent value, other forms of life don't. I understand it. If I had to choose between killing a human and an ant, for example, I would not hesitate to kill the ant. But why? There are of course myriad obvious reasons (laws, emotions, etc.), but in the grand scheme of things what do human beings contribute to the universe that ants do not?

When I think about the most respected humans that have lived, it occurs to me that they are generally respected for one of two things: Improving the life of other humans, or reducing or reversing environmental damage we caused in the process of improving the life of other humans.

So given the probability (or so it seems to me) that humankind will eventually cease to exist, why are either of these ultimately insignificant efforts considered noble human endeavors, while trying to improve the life of other species or reverse damage we've done to their environment is considered by some a waste of time and resources?

[LadyShea]

Because humans think we are the pinnacle of creation or evolution or whatever....simple arrogance. I would also throw some empathy in there...it's much easier to understand the plight of other humans because we are the same species :: shrug

[Blake]

All true. Though it shocks me a little to "say it out loud" for the first time, it seems to me that in the marketplace, human life is very cheap. The question depends entirely on who you ask. A few value it highly; some (who can affect the lives of vast numbers of people) value it very, very low.

[Gawen]

Indeed. How many of us would stoop over to help the ant climb up the hill? Or how many of us just kill one fire ant hoping the rest get the message and move over to the neighbours house?
There are few people I'll help...break my back to help them climb their hill...and perhaps split a bottle of wine at the top...*grinnin*. Why do I put more 'worth' on those people than others? I reckon because I like them more than I do the others. They mean something to me. But then again, I know a few people I'd help but won't accept the help due to pride or other reasons. What does that tell me of their own self-worth and the worth they place upon me?


'What are humans worth' is a loaded question. How can anyone possibly answer it? It's entirely so very subjective. Any one of us can sit down and with little thought say human life is priceless and in the next moment not really care. There are people I know and billions of people more that do NOT know me and could care less if I existed.

*shakin me head*...I do not devote my life to a species. I don't have the time for that. So I devote my life to those that matter most to me. Even if some of them don't know it yet...*grinnin*

[squian]

Human lives have inherent value, other forms of life don't.

Your OP has not convinced me that human lives have inherent value. I would assert human lives have value because we imbue them with it. As Blake points out, it is unfortunate that we do not see that value in the same way. Indeed, for some, human lives have no more value than ant lives.

I think it is much more than simple arrogance. From an evolutionary stand-point, our species is a distinct biological grouping that competes (although it's strange to call it competition anymore) with other species for resources, survival, and reproduction. Moreover, many other primates exhibit similar gregarious tendencies, working in groups to ensure survival. Perhaps it is more useful to say that humans are inherently social creatures. Our view of other humans as valuable is an evolutionary advantage.

I also think your assertion about "noble efforts" is unsubstantiated. By popular measures, Jesus would be one of the most respected people who ever lived and his respected efforts were neither to improve human life nor the environment.

Most of all, I object to notion of "ultimate insignificance". You seem to be suggesting that significance is something other than relevant to the context of the observer. Just as human life has value only because we deem it to, so too "noble efforts" have significance because we deem them to. Since we do not operate in the scope of "ultimately", you seem to be implying the existence of an "ultimate observer". Else who could judge the "ultimate insignficance" of human efforts? For all we know, the universe exists because we do and will cease to when the last of us dies. In such a universe, nothing is more significant than human efforts.

[Dingfod]

I think most will agree killing an ant is OK, they'll make more. But, does an ant not feel pain? I've heard an ant has about 200 brain cells. Most will agree that an ant's life isn't worth much, some even think an individual human life isn't worth much. But, where does one draw the line, 2000, 20,000, 200,000, 2,000,000, or at anything less than 20,000,000 brain cells? "What is the standard?" I ask, as my immune system just exterminated thousands, maybe tens of thousands of uninvited, yet living, foreign cells in the time it took to write this, quite without my conscious consent.


Warren

[viscousmemories]

Because humans think we are the pinnacle of creation or evolution or whatever....simple arrogance. I would also throw some empathy in there...it's much easier to understand the plight of other humans because we are the same species :: shrug
True, I'm sure arrogance plays a role. And there's the species thing. I wonder about plants, too. I mean, plants are living things, but most people wouldn't equate chopping down a tree with killing an animal. I wonder why. Is it because animals have brains that we care more about their life than plants?

All true. Though it shocks me a little to "say it out loud" for the first time, it seems to me that in the marketplace, human life is very cheap. The question depends entirely on who you ask. A few value it highly; some (who can affect the lives of vast numbers of people) value it very, very low.
I had never heard of the massacre in Rwanda 10 years ago until very recently, and I was stunned when I found out about it. For days, probably weeks after I thought about it regularly, mentioned it to people, wondered how such an incredibly monstrous thing could happen without my even hearing about it. More than one person I mentioned it to didn't know much if anything about it either, but they were visibly uninterested, like I was talking about deforestation or something.

I don't really think these people lack morals or a conscience (though I honestly do think that about politicians like GWB, who I think is literally a sociopath), I strongly suspect it's an American thing. Like many Americans (apparently) when I think about people from countries I've never been to I tend not to really think of them as people. Or at least I don't feel the same degree of empathy I feel when I hear about things happening to Americans. Traveling around Europe and interacting with nice people from all over the world here on the 'net has changed that for me substantially, but I think I still have a certain amount of it and I'm not terribly surprised that people who haven't traveled and don't spend a lot of time on the 'net have it worse.

Indeed. How many of us would stoop over to help the ant climb up the hill? Or how many of us just kill one fire ant hoping the rest get the message and move over to the neighbours house?

There are few people I'll help...break my back to help them climb their hill...and perhaps split a bottle of wine at the top...*grinnin*. Why do I put more 'worth' on those people than others? I reckon because I like them more than I do the others. They mean something to me. But then again, I know a few people I'd help but won't accept the help due to pride or other reasons. What does that tell me of their own self-worth and the worth they place upon me?
That's a good point, too. In fact I bet a lot of pet and/or garden owners value the life of their pets and plants more than the life of their neighbors. I think in a pinch, though, most people would act to protect a fellow human even at the cost of their beloved pet, regardless of their relationship to the human. But I wonder…


'What are humans worth' is a loaded question. How can anyone possibly answer it? It's entirely so very subjective. Any one of us can sit down and with little thought say human life is priceless and in the next moment not really care. There are people I know and billions of people more that do NOT know me and could care less if I existed.
That makes sense to me if you're talking about specific humans, but I just meant what are humans in general worth. Most humans simply don't value the life of plants and animals. We plant trees where we want them and chop them down where we don't. We breed plants and animals to kill for either sport or food, or kill wild plants and animals for the same reasons, for the most part without remorse. Yet most of us would be (and are) appalled by the concept of treating humans thusly.

Your OP has not convinced me that human lives have inherent value.
Sorry, I phrased that poorly. There should've been a colon instead of a period after my first sentence. I don't believe that it's a truism that human lives have inherent value, but most people seem to.

I would assert human lives have value because we imbue them with it. As Blake points out, it is unfortunate that we do not see that value in the same way. Indeed, for some, human lives have no more value than ant lives.
Why is it unfortunate?

I think it is much more than simple arrogance. From an evolutionary stand-point, our species is a distinct biological grouping that competes (although it's strange to call it competition anymore) with other species for resources, survival, and reproduction. Moreover, many other primates exhibit similar gregarious tendencies, working in groups to ensure survival. Perhaps it is more useful to say that humans are inherently social creatures. Our view of other humans as valuable is an evolutionary advantage.
I agree that seems probable, but of course we're always talking about how our big brains help us overcome our instinctive inclinations and behave in a more 'civilized' manner in many areas. Why is it not considered 'uncivilized' to breed and massacre other life forms for our continued survival, particularly when it's unnecessary? I mean of course we have to eat to live, but we don't have to eat such a wide range of things. Why don't we make any effort to limit our killing of non-human life unless we see all non-human life as without value?

I also think your assertion about "noble efforts" is unsubstantiated. By popular measures, Jesus would be one of the most respected people who ever lived and his respected efforts were neither to improve human life nor the environment.
On the contrary, I think most people who respect Jesus do so because they believe he made a tremendous contribution to the improvement of human's lives. What other reason can you think of that someone would claim respect for Jesus?

Most of all, I object to notion of "ultimate insignificance". You seem to be suggesting that significance is something other than relevant to the context of the observer. Just as human life has value only because we deem it to, so too "noble efforts" have significance because we deem them to. Since we do not operate in the scope of "ultimately", you seem to be implying the existence of an "ultimate observer". Else who could judge the "ultimate insignficance" of human efforts? For all we know, the universe exists because we do and will cease to when the last of us dies. In such a universe, nothing is more significant than human efforts.
If humankind is destined to eventually die out, which I strongly suspect it is, then any effort to perpetuate our existence will ultimately fail. True that doesn't necessarily imply that the pursuit is insignificant, so I probably phrased that poorly too. But nevertheless, I didn't mean to argue that there is or isn't any ultimate significance to efforts to perpetuate human life, I just wonder why most people seem to believe that doing so should be our highest goal, even to the detriment of all other life and to the natural environment. In business terms, what value do we humans add to the universe that justifies the cost of sustaining our way of life?

I think most will agree killing an ant is OK, they'll make more. But, does an ant not feel pain? I've heard an ant has about 200 brain cells. Most will agree that an ant's life isn't worth much, some even think an individual human life isn't worth much. But, where does one draw the line, 2000, 20,000, 200,000, 2,000,000, or at anything less than 20,000,000 brain cells? "What is the standard?" I ask, as my immune system just exterminated thousands, maybe tens of thousands of uninvited, yet living, foreign cells in the time it took to write this, quite without my conscious consent.
Is it brain cell count or the ability to feel pain that makes the difference? If so, why? I mean, cows and chickens can feel pain but we kill them wholesale without remorse. Dogs can feel pain too, but as far as I know it's illegal to kill a dog to eat and killing a dog for fun would be considered unconscionable.

[LadyShea]

True, I'm sure arrogance plays a role. And there's the species thing. I wonder about plants, too. I mean, plants are living things, but most people wouldn't equate chopping down a tree with killing an animal. I wonder why. Is it because animals have brains that we care more about their life than plants?

I think thats where empathy comes in. A plant doesn't have a mind, or eyes, to look at us to make us wonder "what are they thinking" like we do with animals. If there is any consciousness in plants, it is so alien we cannot fathom it. Empathy is a must I think.

Dogs can feel pain too, but as far as I know it's illegal to kill a dog to eat and killing a dog for fun would be considered unconscionable.

It is NOT illegal to kill your own dog and eat it. It is illegal to kill someone else's dog, or to torture or neglect your own while keeping it alive. But no, you can go shoot your own dog and you can take it to the vet to be put down for any reason or no reason.

[squian]

Why is it not considered 'uncivilized' to breed and massacre other life forms for our continued survival, particularly when it's unnecessary? I mean of course we have to eat to live, but we don't have to eat such a wide range of things. Why don't we make any effort to limit our killing of non-human life unless we see all non-human life as without value?

One of the main points I was trying to express is the subjectiveness of "value". It's not that people don't value cows -- we just tend to value them for their flesh. And some don't. Some just think eating meat is wrong or unhealthy; others think cows are gods. So the valuation of cows is a fairly wide range -- not an absolute yes or no.

To cut to the heart of the issue, I think the value of human beings is largely determined by economics more than civility or morality. For me, morality is simply the 20/20 hindsight we apply to our actions to suggest that what we do is done for a reason. In the US, a human being is worth at least $5.15 an hour. Outside of that we do what we do to other animals because it is profitable -- be it slaughtering cattle or wiping out ant colonies. Our economy grinds on unthinking and uncaring. The forces are so strong that between profit and people, profit wins.

In business terms, what value do we humans add to the universe that justifies the cost of sustaining our way of life?
The sad thing about our economic situation is that it is not sustainable. Our global economic system does more to accelerate our demise than to prolong it. In other words, I don't think we are choosing to improve the human condition at the expense of other species -- we have chosen the pursuit of profit at the expense of all else.

[Farren]

Its interesting that you brought up the ant, because a friend of mine just recounted to me how he noticed an ant floundering in a water bowl the other day and fished it out. He said he was watching its behaviour afterward and he had a profoundly empathic moment.

The ant kind of struggled to get the last bit of water off its legs (its decidely more sticky for ants because of the dynamics of scale), then kind of stood there for a moment, as if just thinking "phew!", then dashed madly off. My friend said he felt as warm inside as if he'd just saved a dolphin or something.

I must say I've had many similar experiences. I regularly rescue ants, spiders, crickets, mice - even cocaroaches. I'd rather dissuade than kill an insect (for instance, using every device imaginable to keep ants out of the food closet before resorting to insecticide)

I can't honestly say I do value humans more highly than other species, although I think such an impulse is natural. If I had a choice between saving one of my dogs and saving a human stranger, I would save the dog. My animals have given me a tremendous amount of joy and love and the thought of betraying someone that loves me with all of their heart and soul simply because of a principle that says humans are more important is beyond me.

I had a long debate with someone over at II about this (I think it was Hooboy). He claimed that any affection felt for an animal by a human is a faked emotion resulting from anthropomorphisation.

The absurdity of such an argument is immediately apparent, we share a CNS, various organs, a brain with other animals. We're evolved from a common ancestory. Obviously there are a vast number of common signals and behaviours. Does my dissimilarity from other humans mean I'm "Farrenizing" people when I empathise or guess at their emotions?

In response to the OP, I think our attempts at conserving creatures and ecosystems is a natural altruism, not some contemporary constructed new age thing. Latter-day hunter-gatherers such as the San of South Africa, Botswana and Namibia who choose to live in the traditional way continue to thank their prey whenever they make a kill.

Their rock art, some dating back over a thousand years, shows ceremonies in which shamans and hunters dress up like their prey, reflecting a desire to "be" like the creature they are seeking. The intent is similar to the technique in Neuro-Linguistic Programming, where practitioners are instructed to mimic another person right down to facial ticks to get inside their skin and get insight.

Similar rock art several thousands of years old is found in cave walls elsewhere in the world.

The modern preconception of prehistory most people seem to have involves humanity struggling against a savage and unforgiving environment. But our early domesticisation of dogs, cats, elephants and other creatures, the totem animals and animalistic rituals of hunter-gatherer societies and many other clues indicate that we come from a past where humanities relationship with other animals was playful and collaborative as well as combative.

I can't help feeling that, if anything, we've lost something. Some connection to other creatures that dictates a certain degree of altruism without requiring a religious or secular philosophy that bases arguments on "bio-diversity", "compassion" and other named principles. When I say we've lost it I don't mean the innate biological response, I mean the inner ear that listens to that response and acts on it.

I think the secular philosophies that relentlessly pursue nessecity as the parent of all that is good and the religious doctrines that state animals have no souls, the obsession with hygeine that forces people to partition their space into "animals go here" and "humans go here" - all these things drive a wedge between us and our natural feelings, and I think we are diminished by it.

My friends are disgusted when I let my labrador lick me all over the face. I just sit there while he covers me in gob and I love it. There's so much love coming at me when he's doing that. Looking at Brandi's doggie pix on HH I remember thinking "now there's a helluva good person to know" simply because the dogs were on the couch. Every single friend I have bar two people never let dogs on the furniture.

Its those kinds of distinctions and divisions enforced constantly that make ideas like conservation remote and alien to a lot of people. They've been conditioned into seeing humanity as the pinnacle of evolution, the end of evolution even. I wish most people who think like that would read a little Stephen J Gould or Brian Goodwin and realise that far from being the predestined ultimate outcome of evolution we're simply a contingent result with some very bad design.

Our eyes for instance are crap compared to those of the octopus and there's no compelling reason why we don't use the octopus design other than dumb luck. In mammal eyes, the optic nerve goes around the rods and cones and enters from the front, obscuring vision. In octopi, it comes from the back as it should.

Reading Gould would also inform people that there was no "Age of Bacteria", "Age of the Fish", "Age of the Reptile" and so on through to the "Age of Man". Life has gone backward and forward in both diversity and complexity. There have been six great extinctions and theres a distinct possibility we'll be part of the next one if we don't get off the planet. In terms of sheer numbers and biomass, we're still in the "Age of the Bacteria".

They're still more successful than us, would survive a major extinction event and will almost definitely travel to and flourish in any environment humanity does. Certain single celled life forms are quite capable of surviving the cold vacuum of space, hinting at the tantalizing possibility that life originated elsewhere and is carried across the void by the simplest of organisms.

Even better, more peeps should read James Lovelock. The Gaia hypothesis is a beautiful, elegant thing. Many people may disagree with his more contentious kite-flying exercises, like the living planet having conscious intent as a whole organism, but his simple reminder that we cannot manufacture sufficient quanities of oxygen, nitrogen and other critical gases without the continued assistance of kelp, phytoplankton and trees - and that that makes us as dependent on these creatures as our own lungs - gives one pause for thought.

Humanity, in short, has not superceded nature, and any domination we have demonstrated over it has usually been destructive, so its not much to be proud of. Especially when algae, trees, phytoplankton etc and the ecosystems they rely on (which include mammals, fish and birds) continue to regenerate substances critical to our survival, and the fossil fuels we continue to overuse are the dead tissue of still other organisms of long ago.

Mostly, though, I think the issue about being disconnected from your own feelings is the most important one to me. When you really feel animals emotionally as a reflex response, it seems warped and alien witnessing other people treating "lesser creatures" as simply automatons, livestock or worse yet, cruel sport.

[copiae]

The absurdity of such an argument is immediately apparent, we share a CNS, various organs, a brain with other animals. We're evolved from a common ancestory. Obviously there are a vast number of common signals and behaviours. Does my dissimilarity from other humans mean I'm "Farrenizing" people when I empathise or guess at their emotions?



In a word, yes. What is empathy? If someone has never felt any pain, or love, how is it possible at all for them to understand what pain, or love, is? Whenever you empathise, you extrapolate from your own experiences - "Farrenizing" others, if you will.

[Farren]

In a word, yes. What is empathy? If someone has never felt any pain, or love, how is it possible at all for them to understand what pain, or love, is? Whenever you empathise, you extrapolate from your own experiences - "Farrenizing" others, if you will.

That's more or less what I was trying to say. Dismissing empathy with animals as anthropomorphising is simply introducing extraneous terms. Its empathy, pure and simple, whether its with man or beast.

[Farren]

I had never heard of the massacre in Rwanda 10 years ago until very recently, and I was stunned when I found out about it. For days, probably weeks after I thought about it regularly, mentioned it to people, wondered how such an incredibly monstrous thing could happen without my even hearing about it. More than one person I mentioned it to didn't know much if anything about it either, but they were visibly uninterested, like I was talking about deforestation or something.

I don't really think these people lack morals or a conscience (though I honestly do think that about politicians like GWB, who I think is literally a sociopath), I strongly suspect it's an American thing. Like many Americans (apparently) when I think about people from countries I've never been to I tend not to really think of them as people. Or at least I don't feel the same degree of empathy I feel when I hear about things happening to Americans. Traveling around Europe and interacting with nice people from all over the world here on the 'net has changed that for me substantially, but I think I still have a certain amount of it and I'm not terribly surprised that people who haven't traveled and don't spend a lot of time on the 'net have it worse.


Its funny, Rwanda crops up often in my thoughts when thinking about other tragedies, precisely because it received so little media attention.

What fascinates me is how values are placed on world events. A million people died in three short months in Rwanda, and it barely registered in the media, yet "The world is a different place after 9/11" and countless books are still being written about the Holocaust, but hardly any about Rwanda.

The obvious thought that occurs is that Rwanda was "just" bunch of poor brown people in a third world nation with no critical natural resources killing each other.

It makes a person deeply, irreversably cynical about the motives of world leaders who declare humanitarian motive, then intervene in trade-critical Panama, oil-rich Iraq, pipeline-route Afghanistan, on-our-doorstep Kosovo... but turn a blind eye to places like Rwanda and Sudan.

[Dingfod]

Fucking-A, farren: deeply, irreversably cynical.


Shouldn't this be in the Fucking America thread?


Warren

[Gawen]

Well, isn't it true for most people to apply a worth standard on some and fuck the rest?

Take that analogy of dog vs. man and which to save. Sure, the dog has worth. The man (unknown) has no worth, at least not to you. But he has worth to someone, and by saving a pet, you have indirectly dashed away any worth of the unknown man. Now apply this to Rwanda or any other place in the world. Yeah, ok, Rwandan's are...what was it?...brown third-world...whatever. They are nothings to us. And off they go killing each other. It seems logical to us that many Rwandans place no worth on other Rwandans. Why should we? But then, for ever million killed, another 2 million grieve.
Are humans even worthy to place a value to themselves? It appears not in the overall scheme of things. Worth takes different shapes and forms.

We bend over backwards to please the kids or loved ones at Xmas time. We hold in high esteem those that further the cause...whatever that cause may be. They say it's a small world. But it ain't small enough yet for people to treat everyone with dignity and goodwill. Perhaps sometime in the future, everyone will be worth the same. But on the other hand, didn't the communist try this?

[Dingfod]

You have to put yourself in their place. If you were Hutu and your family was getting hacked to death by Tutsis, you'd care.

Personally, I think distance and difference are contributors to indifference, right or wrong as it is.


Warren

[Farren]

Well, isn't it true for most people to apply a worth standard on some and fuck the rest?

Take that analogy of dog vs. man and which to save. Sure, the dog has worth. The man (unknown) has no worth, at least not to you. But he has worth to someone, and by saving a pet, you have indirectly dashed away any worth of the unknown man. Now apply this to Rwanda or any other place in the world. Yeah, ok, Rwandan's are...what was it?...brown third-world...whatever. They are nothings to us. And off they go killing each other. It seems logical to us that many Rwandans place no worth on other Rwandans. Why should we? But then, for ever million killed, another 2 million grieve.
Are humans even worthy to place a value to themselves? It appears not in the overall scheme of things. Worth takes different shapes and forms.

We bend over backwards to please the kids or loved ones at Xmas time. We hold in high esteem those that further the cause...whatever that cause may be. They say it's a small world. But it ain't small enough yet for people to treat everyone with dignity and goodwill. Perhaps sometime in the future, everyone will be worth the same. But on the other hand, didn't the communist try this?

Gawen in my original comment I described a situation where there was a choice, dog or human, mutually exclusive. Given the opportunity, I'd save the human, too. subsequent discussions of Rwanda its clear there weren't mutually exclusive choices. It was possible to intervene in Kosovo AND Rwanda.

The world is small enough for every square inch to be covered by satellite and events like the Rwanda genocide to be reported as they begin. Its small enough that Joe Public can know about any major world calamity as it happens -if politicians and the press see fit to inform people.

Its small enough that we can respond to calamities around the world in a reasonably short time. And the west is wealthy enough that if it acts in concert, it can do so without a major drop in lifestyle for it's citizens.

So when needless wars are fought and needful peacekeeping actions are ignored, not one but two disservices are done to social justice. The US, Europe and other rich nations and political blocs engaged in ineffectual handwringing over Rwanda, then promptly forgot about it. A million people died. The US invaded a country where there was no ongoing human tragedy other than the crippling effects of sanctions and more than 10,000 people have died so far, the death penalty has been re-introduced, the economy has been farmed out to foreign multinationals and women are no longer safe on the streets because of it.

That's the cause of my cynicism.

[JoeP]

In another thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3427&postcount=4), JoeP said: "I can think of one species worth devoting the rest of your life to. but few others."

For most people that seems to be a truism. Human lives have inherent value, other forms of life don't. When I posted that I - as usual - didn't write all I was thinking about it. I disagree that most people would say "other forms of life don't" - just that most would agree that human lives have (some) more value than others.

Remember that the context originally was scientific research. I thought of art too, that only the human species has enough interest and reward to be the sole subject, if you can only have one, of a lifetime of scientific or artistic endeavour. And the reason for this is that it's "close" to us - we can know more and we can differentiate more things about our own species and our own lives than others. This happens, and is objectively true, whatever moral spin you put on it.

But all this is saying is that there's more to know and more to do - nothing about value. It's a whole new question (but a good one) whether this extends to doing good, or avoiding or preventing doing of evil.

In fact, I don't think it's such a different question. I believe it's impossible (except by denial - which some groups are good at :)) to separate the value/worth/moral dimension from the simple facts of familiarity, proximity, and personal emotional attachment (like to your pet dog more than a strange human).

Because humans think we are the pinnacle of creation or evolution or whatever....simple arrogance. I would also throw some empathy in there...it's much easier to understand the plight of other humans because we are the same species :: shrugEmpathy, exactly ... pinnacle of evolution, pish (to those who believe it)!

[Larry]

Great topic! :bow:

Being short on time, for the moment, I haven't read through the responses but if I may add my two cents I would say that one reason why we (humans) place a higher value on humans, is simply because we can ask the question. Of course, I wouldn't know for sure, this may be due to the fact that I can't conceive of other animal species doing the same. Perhaps they do, but in a language we have yet to understand.

[seebs]

I once formed the theory that the monetary value of a human life was "the smallest amount of money for which you could save a life". In other words... Should I spend $10,000 on medical treatment to save someone's life? Only if I can't save another life for less.

This produced the disturbing realization that human lives are worth a few pennies, because in third world countries, a lot of people die for lack of things that quite literally, would cost pennies to provide. Maybe a buck.

I have abandoned this theory as non-viable, but... It's humbling.

[viscousmemories]

Oops. I totally forgot about this thread. I'm sorry if I missed any questions/points but for the sake of time I'll start responding a few posts from the bottom:

When I posted that I - as usual - didn't write all I was thinking about it. I disagree that most people would say "other forms of life don't" - just that most would agree that human lives have (some) more value than others.
Thanks for the clarification. I hope you don't think my starting this thread was to challenge your comment at all. It just got me thinking, so I ran with it. :)

Anyway as I said in my OP I think you're right. It's a given with most people I've met that human lives have more value than other forms of life.

Remember that the context originally was scientific research. I thought of art too, that only the human species has enough interest and reward to be the sole subject, if you can only have one, of a lifetime of scientific or artistic endeavour. And the reason for this is that it's "close" to us - we can know more and we can differentiate more things about our own species and our own lives than others. This happens, and is objectively true, whatever moral spin you put on it.
That makes sense to me.

But all this is saying is that there's more to know and more to do - nothing about value. It's a whole new question (but a good one) whether this extends to doing good, or avoiding or preventing doing of evil.
Thanks! I thought it was a good question too. :)

In fact, I don't think it's such a different question. I believe it's impossible (except by denial - which some groups are good at :)) to separate the value/worth/moral dimension from the simple facts of familiarity, proximity, and personal emotional attachment (like to your pet dog more than a strange human).
I agree.

Great topic! :bow:
Thanks, Larry. :)

Being short on time, for the moment, I haven't read through the responses but if I may add my two cents I would say that one reason why we (humans) place a higher value on humans, is simply because we can ask the question. Of course, I wouldn't know for sure, this may be due to the fact that I can't conceive of other animal species doing the same. Perhaps they do, but in a language we have yet to understand.
So: I think, therefore I empathize? ;)

I once formed the theory that the monetary value of a human life was "the smallest amount of money for which you could save a life". In other words... Should I spend $10,000 on medical treatment to save someone's life? Only if I can't save another life for less.

This produced the disturbing realization that human lives are worth a few pennies, because in third world countries, a lot of people die for lack of things that quite literally, would cost pennies to provide. Maybe a buck.

I have abandoned this theory as non-viable, but... It's humbling.
That's an interesting theory. I was also thinking about squian's earlier (probably tongue-in-cheek) statement that human's are worth the minimum wage. I would say that's a true statement about the value of a human's (at least an American human's) time, but of course not human's themselves.

Anyway still, is there a non human-centric justification anyone can think of for why we should value the lives of humans over other life? In other words, is the fact that a particular course of action might in the long run be best for humans adequate reason to do it? Even if it comes at the cost of many other life forms?

[Larry]

So: I think, therefore I empathize?
I'm not so sure empathy is entirely depended on the capacity to think (in the sense of asking questions such as this). It could be just as well instinctual. But let me ask my dog Bitzi and see what he thinks. ;)

[Larry]

Ok. I asked Bitzi and all he did was wag his tail. :D

[JoeP]

That's an interesting theory. I was also thinking about squian's earlier (probably tongue-in-cheek) statement that human's are worth the minimum wage. I would say that's a true statement about the value of a human's (at least an American human's) time, but of course not human's themselves.There are economic approaches to valuing human life, or at least comparing different valuations. Some of the results ... which I can't remember at the moment ... are quite illuminating. I think one example is that we expect governments to spend far more of our tax money, per life saved, on air safety than on road safety. We're not entirely logical.
In industrialised countries, most studies using this method come up with a value of $5m–10m.

Anyway still, is there a non human-centric justification anyone can think of for why we should value the lives of humans over other life? In other words, is the fact that a particular course of action might in the long run be best for humans adequate reason to do it? Even if it comes at the cost of many other life forms?
I don't think there's any justification for anything humans do that isn't human-centric. However, your question may need to be refined: value a human life above other life does not mean other species, or resources, are valued at zero. What's best for humans includes understanding what value other life-forms have ... for us.

Obviously (and by this I mean observing society's actions) we value some things at zero, or even negative: it's worth eradicating all smallpox viruses to save one human death from smallpox (ok, thousands). Something similar with mosquitoes and malaria.

But we don't kill all tigers because one of them might become a man-eater. There is a human-centric way of valuing other life forms and resources - either emotionally, for the cute furry things, or officiously, through carbon taxes and environmental regulation.

joe

[trendkill]

The reason I value a human life more than an ant life is because I see all humans, or possibly any being that can interact on a moral level (recent talk about gorillas at a certain other forum has been quite illuminating), as part of a community that I am also a part of, and membership in which carries certain obligations. Beings that can't interact in such a way, I may still feel sympathy for, but I will not act towards them in the same way as I would toward a "person", so it would be meaningful to say I don't value them as much.

[viscousmemories]

The reason I value a human life more than an ant life is because I see all humans, or possibly any being that can interact on a moral level (recent talk about gorillas at a certain other forum has been quite illuminating), as part of a community that I am also a part of, and membership in which carries certain obligations. Beings that can't interact in such a way, I may still feel sympathy for, but I will not act towards them in the same way as I would toward a "person", so it would be meaningful to say I don't value them as much.
Do you mean beings who can, or for whom the potential exists or existed? In other words, can a child - or someone who is mentally impaired - be said to be able to "interact on a moral level", or do they just have the past or future potential?

[trendkill]

Children and the mentally impaired are still related to the moral community by blood, they are emotionally inextricable from that community, so I see them as members. Gorillas, on the other hand, would be more difficult to predict. Biff the Unclean says the average gorilla has enough innate intelligence to communicate with humans through language--but their society in the wild doesn't seem to have that feature. We are still forced to treat them like uncommunicative animals, for the most part, it seems. I suppose that in practice, I only really see gorillas as people if they can already talk. And even then, species prejudice interferes to a degree.

[viscousmemories]

Children and the mentally impaired are still related to the moral community by blood, they are emotionally inextricable from that community, so I see them as members.
Hmm... that doesn't make any sense to me. What correlation is there between emotions, blood, and morals?

[trendkill]

Hmm... that doesn't make any sense to me. What correlation is there between emotions, blood, and morals?Let's break down that question. What is the connection between emotions and "blood"? Well, if that isn't obvious, I don't know if I'm up to the task of explaining. People have emotional attachments to those they are related to.

Now, a morality statement is basically a statement about how people should behave. If you feel a certain way about someone, that dictates ways in which you think you should behave towards them. There's the moral connection.

[viscousmemories]

Let's break down that question. What is the connection between emotions and "blood"? Well, if that isn't obvious, I don't know if I'm up to the task of explaining. People have emotional attachments to those they are related to.

Now, a morality statement is basically a statement about how people should behave. If you feel a certain way about someone, that dictates ways in which you think you should behave towards them. There's the moral connection.
Hmm... well that doesn't really answer my question at all, so I suppose I just wasn't clear. Let me try again. First, you said (emphasis mine):
The reason I value a human life more than an ant life is because I see all humans, or possibly any being that can interact on a moral level (recent talk about gorillas at a certain other forum has been quite illuminating), as part of a community that I am also a part of, and membership in which carries certain obligations.
Since I wasn't sure if you were talking about beings with the potential to "interact on a moral level" or the actual ability to do so, I said:
Do you mean beings who can, or for whom the potential exists or existed? In other words, can a child - or someone who is mentally impaired - be said to be able to "interact on a moral level", or do they just have the past or future potential?
To which you replied:

Children and the mentally impaired are still related to the moral community by blood, they are emotionally inextricable from that community, so I see them as members.
I asked you what the connection was not because I don't understand what 'blood', 'emotional' and 'moral' mean. So your answer didn't really help me any. What I don't understand is how you have come to the conclusion that all beings who share a common genetic makeup (humans, in this case) comprise a "moral community" which is inextricably emotionally linked. I honestly don't see any difference between that answer and saying, "Why do we value humans more? Because humans are more valuable".

Are humans all part of the "moral community"? What is the main component of the "moral community"? Is it the potential to make moral judgements, the actual ability, or something else? Can someone who is mentally impaired be said to be capable of making moral judgements? If so, how? If not, why do they still count as part of the moral community? Because they have the same genetic makeup? If the main component is something else, what is it?

I understand if that's too many questions, but that's really just a start. Perhaps I'm just obfuscating what really is a very simple and obvious point you're trying to make but if so I really am not getting it.

[trendkill]

Maybe this will help: the problem seems to be that you are trying to find a single property, that I claim the entire community shares, one property that makes me value all the beings that I value and is lacking from all the beings that I don't value as much. The problem is, I don't think there is one. There are at least two (species relationship and the ability to interact morally), and maybe more, and all are not always present in a given member of the community. In fact, the moral component is missing from every single member of the community at least some of the time (when they are unconscious, for example).

The "moral community" is actually the main thing that makes me treat some beings different from others, which is why I mentioned it. But, moral ability is not enough by itself. A community is a real, physical thing, not some philosophical abstraction, and it has to sustain itself. This means that there have to be beings in the community that aren't moral, or else there is no community, period. So what happens is, we end up treating certain non-moral beings as if they were moral beings, either because they used to be moral beings, or because they will be such beings in the future, or because they have relatives that are.

So it may seem like I'm obfuscating or changing my answer when I point first at morality and then at genetic relationships, but in reality, it's just that the thing I value is ill-defined. (As is almost everything, when you get right down to it.)

[viscousmemories]

Maybe this will help: the problem seems to be that you are trying to find a single property, that I claim the entire community shares, one property that makes me value all the beings that I value and is lacking from all the beings that I don't value as much. The problem is, I don't think there is one. There are at least two (species relationship and the ability to interact morally), and maybe more, and all are not always present in a given member of the community. In fact, the moral component is missing from every single member of the community at least some of the time (when they are unconscious, for example).
Ahhh. Yes that does help me understand where you're coming from, thanks.

The "moral community" is actually the main thing that makes me treat some beings different from others, which is why I mentioned it. But, moral ability is not enough by itself. A community is a real, physical thing, not some philosophical abstraction, and it has to sustain itself. This means that there have to be beings in the community that aren't moral, or else there is no community, period. So what happens is, we end up treating certain non-moral beings as if they were moral beings, either because they used to be moral beings, or because they will be such beings in the future, or because they have relatives that are. So it may seem like I'm obfuscating or changing my answer when I point first at morality and then at genetic relationships, but in reality, it's just that the thing I value is ill-defined. (As is almost everything, when you get right down to it.)
Fair enough. It makes a lot more sense to me now, anyway.