Human life vs Animal life
 

It seems to be one of the biggest philosophical problems on these boards as evdienced by many of the arguments going on in various threads. Most of the arguments have been over single issues but we should perhaps address the overall question -- At what point does animal life take precedence over human life?

Just to highlight the scope of the issue, look at these questions:

If a pack of wolves is attacking a human, can I kill all of the wolves?
If wolves often attack humans, can I eradicate the several thousand wolves living in the area?
i.e. What is the cut-off point between saving human life and saving animal life?

If a bear is breaking into my car can I shoot it?
i.e. Can I kill animals to protect my property?

If blackbirds are eating my crops can I poison them?
i.e. Can I kill animals to protect my livelihood?

If a deer is crippled, can I shoot it to put it out of its misery?
i.e. Euthanasia on animals?

If a fly is buzzing around my house, can I take a flyswatter and smack it?
i.e. Can I kill animals so I can be more comfortable?

The questions are endless but it shows the scope of the dilemna. What are everyone's thoughts?

Maybe in the case of self defense (just as any animal would try to kill YOU to protect itself), but whenever possible, humane solutions should be sought. (A bug vaccuum for the fly, sonic repellent/scarecrows for the birds, relocation programs for wolves, etc).

Humanity likes to use death as the quick fix for a lot of it's problems, we should realize there's more solutions out there.

I might expand on this post later.

An animal life only takes precedence over a human life when the destruction of said animal life threatens the existence of yet more human life.

Hmm, ok here is my take on this.

Humans are animals, we are not plants or minerals and thus by process of elimination we are animals, if we aren't animals then we don't exist.

Now, are humans more important than other species? No I don't believe so. We can create technology, forge weapons etc - we have intelligence as an asset and that makes us strong. However other creatures have superior sight, hearing, sense of smell etc. Some can blend into their surroundings, some can hunt effectively with just their bodies as weapons/tools. My point is, every creature has something special that makes it unique in nature and make it strong enough to survive.

I believe it is quite alright to slay another creature for food or if it poses a serious threat to you or your loved ones (for example a cub can't defend itself so it's mother must protect it) Killing something for fun or because it MIGHT attack you is wrong in my opinion.

I don't think it's ok to kill another animal to protect your property, material goods can be replaced, lives can not.

All creatures have to deal with competition for food, if there's not enough food to go round then something is going to have to suffer. If birds are eating your crops then you haven't protected them and thus you deserve to lose them.

If you stumble across a creature that is badly hurt and you know there and then you cannot do anything to save it, I would say it's ok to kill it as long as you make it as quick and painless as you can and try and limit the amount of time it spends fearing for it's life when you take your gun/knife out.

The last one, I'm not sure about. The idea of a nuisance animal means that it doesn't pose a threat to you but inconveniences you in someway. I'd say it's wrong to kill it but do whatever you can to get rid of it while not causing it any harm.

Where'd you learn humans were animals? I mean, sure. We're mammals. That's a scientific analysis. But animals? No.

Read a science book.

Read a history book.

Humans are mammals. Mammals are a class of animals. Humans are animals. You can't be a mammal and not be an animal - that is a ridiculous assertion.

Clouds are 100% water. Water is in snow cones. Snow cones are also 100% water. That means clouds are snow cones.

Roses are flowers. So are daisies. That means daisies are roses.

Examples of good reasoning, but bad conclusions. I could go on..

:rolleyes:

Interesting.

I don't think of it as "yes" or "no", or even "yes" in some cases and "no" in others. Its more about having a genuine level of respect, appreciation, and understanding. It becomes a paradigm.

Think about the Native Americans. I don't know much about them, but I imagine they had a lot of decisions like these. But I don't think the specific decisions they made in this case or that were that important. What was important was their paradigm - their whole way of seeing the natural world and where they fit in it.

I'll have to revisit this.

If we aren't animals, what are we?

(I believe) we're sentient, biological beings with souls. Or in Japanese terms, I think we're "rei".

http://www.reiki.net.au/images/word1.jpg

As opposed to all those other non sentient creatures that arent biological and don't have souls?

The fact that a comparison can be made doesn't have any bearing on its relevance. All of the examples you provided are quite obviously false. However, we are debating whether or not humans are animals. Something so fundamental should hardly be up to debate.

Humans are animals.

Meanwhile, in On-topic Land:

I believe, as an animal myself, that one animal killing another for sustenance is justified. Whether it's a wolf hunting a human or a human hunting a wolf (not that I imagine wolf meat is particularly delicious). I also believe each animal has an equal right to defend itself in said situation and kill its attacker. It's just the natural way of things, really...

However, if a kill can be avoided, it probably should be.

Woah woah, I think this subject of whether or not humans are animals is very relevant to this discussion, and very on-topic.

The reason I gave such examples is because you cannot just assume humans are animals because we're both mammals. I've heard some pretty good arguments in favor of the assertion, and the one you gave was not one of them. This is not some sort of "truth" that you automatically suppose is reality because you heard some teacher say so, or read a couple of articles that assumed the point. No. We're going to talk about this...

The first point that should be brought up in a debate like "Human Life vs. Animal Life" is the establishment of the view of whether or not humans are animals. Are they? Because we possess a biological semblence, does that make us part of the classification?

Or being more unambiguous, what is the "fundamental" significance of the phrase "humans are animals"? I've been around hundreds of people who believe otherwise, and for good reason. Are these people all crazy? Or is there a legitimate point being made, here?

This is not an "A = B, and B = C, thus A = C" discussion. It is FAR more complicated than that. That's why I gave the initial argument: Clouds = Water, and Water = Snow Cones, thus Clouds = Snow Cones". You're doing the same thing.

Ok, well I won't argue with you're beliefs. However, I found your posts on another thread interesting - when talking about dead blackbirds you said:

Does life have to be "sentient" in order to have value? Or can you appreciate that birds are beautiful creatures, even though they might not have souls?

I don't mean for this to be offensive. I want to know more. One of the most troubling things I see is - just because people think humans differ from animals, that means the death of life around us is meaningless or "not a problem". Life is a beautiful thing and (I think) we should cherish it.

I'm not for the killing of blackbirds just for the sake of it. ;) It seems they were being a nuisance to the crops. Nuisances should be taken care of. How? Well, shooting them shouldn't be considered "wrong" because they're causing problems; very serious problems.

I'm reminded of "To Kill a Mockingbird":

You've misunderstood. I didn't say that whether or not humans are animals is irrelevant to the topic... far from it! I think it's an absolutely essential aspect of the debate, which is why I addressed it in my reply. What I said is that the comparisons you made were irrelevant to the topic of "whether or not an animal is a human" :gsmile:.

I believe it's fairly insulting you'd assume I'd only reach the conclusion that humans are animals because "some teacher said so" or because I read it somewhere. It is a conclusion that I have come to through my own freedom of thought. Please don't degrade your argument by assuming that your beliefs are more thoroughly researched.

I do not believe that people who think humans are not animals are crazy. However, I do not believe their belief.

My belief that humans are animals is based on biological similarities and my belief in the theory of evolution, amongst other things.

I wasn't attempting to debase your opinion on the matter by countering it with my own. I'm simply asserting my world view for the context of the debate. I could make this clear in future by putting "It is my belief that..." or "In my opinion..." before all of my statements... but I hope that it would be clear that this is my opinion based on the fact that I was the one who said it :gtongue:.

This is the reason that I believe a human's right to kill an animal is equivalent to that animal's right to kill a human. That's my opinion on the main topic at its basest form... I'm sure I'll go into more detail as the thread develops.

In self defence, if there is not a reasonable way to drive it off otherwise (most animals that attack humans can be scared off and will only attack if provoked, extremely hungry or threatened, or the person does the wrong thing to make themselves a target) then that should be done if at all possible - most wild animals that kill humans either do so when humans attempt to interact with them, if they mistake humans for a more vulnerable prey animal, or if threatened and cornered.

Preemptively is not right unless a man-made problem is causing them to become a threat (individual animals such as bears that have become accustomed to humans and lost their fear of them) or there is overpopulation that makes them become a threat to people and/or to the biodiversity of the area, and then it should only lower the population to a sustainable level and not damage their ability to survive in the long term.

Humans ARE animals. Sentient ones, but animals nonetheless, but to me, sentience is the important factor.

I tend to agree with this statement.
I believe that humans are animals, but the main distinction is sentience. As for the examples given in the first post, I believe that killing animals should be absolute bottom of the bucket last decision. If there is any other way to resolve the problem without killing, it should be exercised. Capture the fly and take it outside...as for the birds eating the crops, find a passive way to keep them out...ie scarecrow. If a human life is in danger, do what is necessary to save the human, preferably without any harm to the animal.

Just my thoughts.

Whether or not humans are animals comes down to the definition of "animal." For scientific purposes, humans are animals. We share the characteristics established for the kingdom Animalia and are thus members of this particular classification. If we choose a more colloquial version of "animal," humans and animals are usually set apart from one another. Thus, scientifically, we are animals but often when people mention animals as if they are a separate group from humans, they are doing so not using a strict scientific definition of the term "animal" for the purposes of distinction between humans and all other animals.

And what of dolphins? If we are not animals, based on sentience, then if dolphins are proved to be sentient in the future, then they would not be animals anymore, either, based on that logic. Same with neanderthals and other prehistric humanoids.

Most animals are more afraid of humans than humans are afraid of animals. So if there is some way to keep the animal alive I am all for it. I mean, that's why tranquilizers were invented.

Actually, your examples are examples of deductive fallacies.

Where as the logic in:

All humans are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore all humans are animals

does not suffer from any deductive fallacy (at least not that I can see).

Well, i would say.. if one's life is threatened... everyone has the right to defend the life, an animal would do the same, so its justified seen from that point, but all other reasons why to kill...

No thanks, at least i see that that way

The conclusion is loaded, though. The assumption is that all mammals are animals, when that's up to debate.

Why wouldn't all mammals be animals? What else would they be? But under the scientific definition of the term "animal," all mammals would be animals.

As some of you have mentioned, there is the difference made between the degree of sentience. There can be no doubt that sentient life is abundant on this planet. I'm basing this on the definition of sentience being a creature that is subject to only its baser, primitive urges, e.g. cells or what have you.
When it comes down to a question of degree, it is always always subjective. One person believes that sentience is higher thought and another that sentience should be deserved for having the will to live.
It is my belief that, yes, while we as humans are subject to the primal instincts of animals (eat, mate, live) we have the ability of deductive and logical thinking. With that comes a vast array of other factors. We begin to question the food chain, we begin to question the value of life whereas animals don't.
And that is a philosophical distinction which can be believed alongside the scientific distiction that humans are animals aswell (which I do). It is just a matter of looking at it on different levels.

Honestly, I don't care about "sentience". It doesn't make any difference. We should respect nature because:

We are part of it

Our livelihood depends on it

Life is special. It is beautiful. Remarkable. Extraordinary and magnificent. We could debate about how much life exists in the universe. We could debate what is or what isn't sentient. But what is indisputable, is life...is something amazing. Something worth cherishing. Something worth our own expense, as to allow it to blossom. We are part of that - we are part of the phenomenon called "life". I feel lucky and blessed to say that, although it may seem weird to say such. It doesn't matter. Life rocks, and we should do everything we can to promote its wellbeing as a whole.

So my revised conclusion is this: It is not animal life vs. human life. It is just life. And life is something worth promoting, even if it sometimes comes at our minimal expense.

The assertion takes into account all mammals, which would include humans. That's where the debate is.

I'm a little confused as to where the debate is. It's not in the scientific community, as in regard to science humans are animals. In order to say that humans are not animals, one would need to redefine "animal" in such a way as to deliberately not include humans in the definition. This would conflict with the scientific definition of "animal." In this thread, it seems that the use of "animal" is meant to denote all animals that are not human, which is fine. But I do not see how humans are not animals in the scientific sense.


The argument:

All humans are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore all humans are animals

is correct if we use scientific definitions of the terms.

This. This. THIS!:)

I couldn't agree more.

Nobody ever said sentient beings aren't animals. Indeed, I said that humans are just sentient animals, nothing more.

If you admit your point is fallacious, why make it? This is certainly not the first time someone has called you out on intentional use of fallacy.
Under the actual taxonomic definition of animal, then yes, all mammals are animals because mammal is a subtype of that kingdom (under the domain eukaryotes). Equally, by definition, humans are animals - they have a species, genus, family, order, class and phylum, all of which belong to animalia.

caveman - I understand the part about the importance of life, but not all life is equal - if you consider all life equal, then do you avoid stepping on an ant? Do you avoid using antibacerial soap?, would you allow an animal atatcking a person to continue doing so rather than stop it doing an and in doing so potentially injure or kill it?
The vast majority of people would not, therefore they are making a decision about which forms of life they find more important or more deserving of different treatment. There is nothing wrong with the fact that 99.9% of people WILL make decisions on which life they value more, at all, as long as all life still gets basic respect.

So, which would you put more value on? A fruit fly or an endangered shark?
When life is life. They are equally valuable? And yet one is an endangered species? Does that affect your judgment?

I do consider all life equal, and no, I have *never* killed any life intentionally in my life. Not stepped on any ants, not squashed any mosquitoes, etc, etc. I do avoid using antibacterial soap - and if they were two animals attacking, no, I would not stop them.

I do realise that in extreme situations my instincts would take over and I might very well do things not according to my opinions and beliefs - but nevertheless, this is what I believe.

No. And I wouldn't allow a human attacking another human either. Or Human attacking an animal.

I agree with what Eltu said pretty much. For me the only time I'd intervene between 2 animals fighting is if one was a pet and I loved it or if 2 humans were fighting and the person I considered to be in the right was losing. Apart from that, I prefer to let nature take it's course.

I don't know what to say, other than you missed the point :P

Life is awesome. Plain and simple.

It's like being a kid - just having a simple appreciation for all the plants and animals because they're fascinating, and we recognize life is something special.

So to answer your questions:

I would avoid stepping on all bugs. Bugs are cool! Especially ants. Individually they seem small, but together they can build huge ant mounds and dig elaborate caves. And sometimes you'll see them carrying leaves to their underground hideouts. Fascinating!

I use antibacterial soap. Mothers know best.

As for the wolf - let me answer your question with another question: Would a pack of wolves simply watch if I attacked one of their own?

So, there is judgement. I just don't think of it as, "this life is more significant than the other life." I just think of it as life, and life is cool. So although I might hurt it sometimes (what animal doesn't), for the most part I try my best to promote its wellbeing as a whole.

Again, I completely and fully agree with you, caveman.

Me too. :)