Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Does your life intrinsically have any more value than that of any other animal?

I say no.
A life is a life and it's the only one any creature gets. Mine is not more objectively valuable just because i'm a human.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
You are presuming a symmetry here. All living beings are equivalent in their lives having worth. There is nothing scientific that asserts a basis for that symmetry. Flea, pig. Human, toad. Jellyfish, worm. All equal worth.

That can only come from some value system you are projecting.

It is a valid position for Jains and Buddhists and other practitioners of ahimsa. In the Buddhist context, all sentient beings have Buddha nature, and thus identical potential.

Even there, there is a broken symmetry, as not all beings have equal odds for actualizing that potential.

Which is what I think physics shows. The non equilibrium thermodynamics that lead to life, also lead to incredible complexity and diversity which includes higher animals with capacity for language, kinships, abstraction, the use of tools, etc. I would have a hard time with a false equivalence between all living beings as this would weigh killing 100 worms when I deworm my dog with killing 100 chimpanzees, whales, dolphins, elephants, etc.

So I am good with a model where all living beings have equal value re being protected and valued as part of an ecosystem. Not one that elevates killing a yeast cell with killing a 10 year old girl.
@CopperCicada

Not one that elevates killing a yeast cell with killing a 10 year old girl.

The yeast cell has only its life.
The girl has only her life.

Why is one objectively more valuable than the other?
@Pikachu Well. It is a valid answer to say that the yeast cell and the 10 year old girl have the same value. Some people hold such a confession. It is a valid answer based on their values and how they live their lives.

If we hold this confession, then we wouldn’t eat foods with live cultures because we might kills some micro-organisms. We would also not take antibiotics, or do things to our bodies that might harm the flora in our biofilms.

But it is a valid answer based on specific values.

You haven’t stated the values that inform your position. It’s not a scientific position. It’s axiological.

My values weigh a) higher beings who have higher capacities for suffering (even extended suffering in clans or tribes) and actualizing their potential, and b) living beings on which life on this planet wholly depends. I have to include b) as we are living in disequilibrium, and there are real threats to life globally. As much as I love whales, walruses— if it’s them or the algae, I’m going with algae. We’re all dead without it.
@CopperCicada

Don't get it twisted: I'm not arguing that i think we ought to value a yeast cell as much as we value a little girl. I'm only pointing out that the reason we make that value judgement is not based on some intrinsic value of human life but rather our homo-centric bias.
@Pikachu Of course. Even saying life has worth comes from our values.
@CopperCicada

Indeed.