Human life vs Animal life

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

What about the ones that are not - or not in a way that we would understand? Also animals are emotional beings....

I never said that they weren't. I believe that animals should be treated humanely.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Well that may be a more philosophical topic then, but some people like that Kurzweil Singularity guy would argue that in 20-30 years, computers would be able to become self aware, able to feel, perceive and act. I can imagine very well that the true emotional part and certainly any spiritual part of such a being would be missing, but I cannot be sure.

I disagree with Kurzweil Singularity. Having studied computers from the bottom up, in a nutshell they are just long chains of logic gates. If you put a specific voltage in, you can always expect the get a certain voltage out. At no point does free will come into the equation nor is there any possible way of forming a consciousness. A computer simply reacts.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

If you do not like the example use biotechnology instead. What about a "improved human" some people get their wet dreams about - some sort of "superhuman" with more capability of being sentient.

You either have the ability or you don't. I don't see how something can be more "sentient" than another. A human and "superhuman" both being sentient deserve the same treatment. If dolphins and gorillas were ever scientifically proven to be sentient then I would agree that they should be treated as such. Also do not confuse this with eugenics. Being smarter, faster, or stronger, does not make you any better "better". I should also point out that intelligence =/= sentience.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Or something more fundamental. Would a world with 9 billion people not be a lot more worth than a world with onl 7 billion people in it according to the utilitarian principles, because there would be more beings in the world that can feel and are sentient? What about 25 billion people?

My point here is that utilitarianism is a consideration that should be included. If you had two planets exactly equal in every way except for population, then with population being the only variable, you would choose to save the planet with more individuals. Now in reality, things aren't as simple as one variable. In fact there are an infinite number of variables and we can never hope to account for all of them. That is why ultimately we have to fall back on intuition rather than a set of rules in extreme situations.

Utilitarianism as a sole guide for policy was never something I believed in.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Again - you make a distinction of 1 versus 0. Something deserves something and the other does not because of X.
I would even stretch that - does a river deserve a ethical treatment to flow free? Or does a mountain top deserve an ethical treatment to not be blown away for cheap coal? Can there be mountain-beings or river-beings?
What science does (and I am a scientist, so I tend to do the same, which is maybe why I now explore other ways) is to draw a line someplace. Between a cell wall and no cell wall, or nervous systems, or communication, or social interaction, or emotional expression, or complex thinking, or toolmaking, or developing a language or creating a symbolic culture. But these divisions are arbitrary - they more or less are based on the idea thet there is a pyramid with humans on top and everything else being "lower". Could it not be that the humans are in one place and the more distant something is from us the less we identify with it and the less we are willing to apply ethical thinking to it?

I don't consider this to be arbitrary.

If something is alive, do not kill it without justified reason.
If something can feel pain, do not injure it without justified reason.
If something is self aware and has a sense of identity, do not insult it without justified reason.

Simple cause and effect. I can mow my lawn. I can cut blades of grass in half to make my lawn look pleasing but what I cannot do is just go and uproot random plants (killing them) because I am bored and need entertainment. Likewise I cannot just kill an animal so I can stick its head on my mantelpiece. That would be causing it pain (I do not agree with hunting for sport).

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Very well put. But I would also include more into that picture. Because without the water raining from clouds onto mountains and flowing down to the ocean in a river, none of that life exists. So we should value the water and the mountain and the river. Or the rock that sits in the mountain and is broken down by the water and the bacteria and becomes ions in the water and nourishes the plants in the floodplains and ends up washed to the sea where it forms the shells of clams and the bones of fish until it gets buried and crushed and millions of years later returns to the mountains. So we should value the rocks.

I agree in the sense that nonliving things should be valued by their ability to provide for living things.

If a mountain provides a habitat for many creatures, then I would have some qualms about blasting it apart.

If a mountain is completely barren, then by all means blast it apart if the minerals inside of it could provide supplies for higher forms of life. It would be a tragedy not to do otherwise as to not do so would be denying everyone benefits.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

EDIT: P.S: While it does not adress the human vs animal question, this talk from TED I just saw (nice coincidence ) makes very interesting points about how rules are not working and why it is better to apply wisdom (ethics, morale,...) to everything we relate to. Basically it makes the point that a decision based on simplified rules can be right, but also can be very wrong depending on the situation. And that setting up these rules actually shape our thining and behaviour in rather unexpected ways: Barry Schwartz: Using our practical wisdom | Video on TED.com

I agree with his overall message. I believe that we are ultimately accountable to values and not a rulebook. Using his examples, I too think it is sad that teachers are pigeonholed by certain in teaching children. I would like to see teachers teaching for the sake of teaching and not just to seem certain test standards; however, our debate isn't about rules.

The source of debate among us stems from the fact that our values are different. You believe that things are equal whereas I believe in a hierarchy in the natural order of things yet both of us would advocate the same policy. I too would agree that there needs to be more environmental regulation, more consideration for animals, etc., yet we disagree over the idealogy behind it.

You speak of everything as if it as the exact same qualities as a human. You speak of inherent respect for mountains as if they had an identity and that nature can be insulted. As if the simple act of mining a mountain is somehow disrespectful. Or you speak of a plant as if it can be hurt. This is what I am scratching my head at.