On the value of life

Post Reply New Topic

This one came to me from the abortion thread: how do we assign value to life, and what makes one life more valuable than another? Why do we assign human life a higher value than other kinds, and are we even right to do so?
I've been able to come up with three different systems so far: one where life is valued according to how useful it is to humans, one where it is valued by how sentient it is, and one where all life is valued in general, which I know exist even though I can't fully wrap my head around yet.
The first, basically, we put humanity at the top, and then classify the others according to how human they look or behave, or generally how likeable they are or how useful to humans they are. People feel bad about killing chimps or gorillas because it feels a bit too close to home, or about baby seals because they are cute, having characteristics associated with human babies like big eyes and heads (people who claim for it to stop while still eating certain kinds of beef could qualify, for example) and plants, some of them are edible and produce oxygen thus making themselves useful, and pigs and chicken and other farm animals are food. This one is prevalent, although it appears to me as fundamentally selfish, as only human life is valued by itself, and all other kinds just as means to an end.
Another option is to put value on sentience. Plants are considered as non-sentient, that's why vegetarians would be fine with killing plants for them to eat. Invertebrates are on average simpler organisms than vertebrates, making people have few qualms about crushing a bug, the more intelligence an animal displays the less we're willing to harm them, and we humans are assumed to be the most rational and sentient of them all. Sounds a bit better; but if an adult pig is more sentient than a newborn, is the pig more valuable, or do we take into account the potential of the newborn to grow to be a fully aware human? We associate sentience with intelligence, does that make mentally ret*d people less human in any kind of way? And I think it is a bit preposterous to assume we humans are as good as it can ever get; I don't see a reason to not believe (double negation intended) in more intelligent and more sentient beings than us existing, if some sort of evolved human from the future or advanced alien race, either of them more intelligent and sentient than we are, existed, would such a being be even more valuable than us?
The third one is to believe all life is valuable, and that we humans are not better or no worse than other animals. It's a bit hard to grasp, but it does have its appeal. But I do wonder, is animal life still somehow better than vegetal life, and in that case, where is that line drawn? Or perhaps they are both equally important too. I was wondering what would give humans the right to hunt or to eat plants, but then animals also hunt inside the natural order of things, and plants can be eaten partially and survive anyway, or even some trees cut off if the forest as a whole is let to grow, so this worldview is mostly about keeping things balanced, instead of either starving out because of guilt or abusing other living beings for our own gain, I think I now get it a bit more than when I got started

Either way, what are other people thoughts on this?

I think an approach based on sentience is the best one.

I have no qualms with ending the life of a plant, fungus, or microbe, because these things have no semblance of consciousness.

I personally avoid killing insects wherever possible, but I do not necessarily object to their deaths if they are causing irritation to humans. In fact, I'd like us to replace our livestock with insects if possible. If people will insist on eating meat, then let it be less conscious animals that they kill.

I think it is morally wrong to kill most vertebrates if at all avoidable. Again, however, acceptability varies depending on sentience. I would rather you killed a pigeon or fish than a cow, I would rather you killed a cow than a pig, I would rather you killed a pig than a dolphin, I would rather you killed a dolphin than most humans.

If we go into ludicrous trolleyology situations, I would argue that you should save the life of a self-aware chimp ahead of an abandoned newborn human, or a human who has suffered severe brain damage, assuming the value of the beings to other being is comparable.

For myself I like the statement 'love people and use things'. According to Kant human life carries intrinsic value, it has no need to justify its existence nor is it's worth contingent upon some other factor. Human's ought to be seen as 'ends in themselves'. I am not certain as to how this view relates to animals but rather I see it as being based on establish the place of humans within their interaction amongst their own.

I think all living things have value. I was amused that someone brought up (in another thread) the idea of vegetarians committing murder against plants. I've gone to a mostly vegetarian diet, partly for spiritual reasons and partly for health reasons--in my case, they go hand-in-hand. Lately I've been consuming eggs for breakfast and fish once or twice on the weekends. Every now and then I'll eat other kinds of meat, but it's more something I'm trying to avoid rather than eliminate altogether. My concern with avoiding meat doesn't have anything to do with any regard I have to living things.

The thing is, though, I believe one can respect life without trying to perfectly preserve it. On the one hand, is it ethical to kill animals for food? Sure. Vegetarianism, or in my case "pescetarianism" is a personal choice, and I respect the choices others make about what they do or don't eat. Fish are valuable sources of protein and important fatty acids. Red meat is a good source of protein needed for brain function among other things. Plus using animals for food, particularly animals caught in the wild, also helps moderate populations which might turn destructive, or even self-destructive, without human intervention and consumption. Animal life, though, isn't HUMAN life, and thus as long as human activity doesn't cause an entire species to become extinct, which has happened in the past, killing it for good reasons shouldn't be a problem.

And that's the thing. Even with plant life, too. I recall reading once about an herb that was guaranteed to induce abortions in ancient times. It was in such high demand that it was eventually driven to extinction--demand seemed to exceed how much it could be cultivated. I have no issue with consumption of plants or animals as long as all life forms are protected from extinction.

The exception I'd make would be with microbes. Deadly plague viruses can be eradicated entirely as far as I'm concerned. If rhinovirus were eradicated, I wouldn't miss it one bit. I'd be overjoyed. Neither would I miss ants, mosquitos, or aphids (annoyance in my veggie garden), and exactly how the balance of nature would be upset without these is beyond anything I can see. I imagine there'd be more of an improvement without them. Bugs like that are the reason I don't kill spiders.

I think we HAVE to assign value to all living things as living things, even with the understanding that inexorably we have to destroy some. Without respect for even the living things we kill, one cannot say killing is inappropriate in some situations in order to curb it. Human life is important to us because of what it is--part of us. So for us human life will always take top priority with concern for all other creatures and things coming in next.

I think because all human life is valuable, if we suddenly become comfortable with taking human life we're in trouble. If anyone is comfortable with, for example, killing a baby because it's mother was raped, then we have a problem. We might say that the woman has a right to abort a baby conceived in rape, but the fact that she can go through with it and perhaps actually does go through with it should disturb us. I'm in favor of the death penalty because in some cases it's the only way to adequately dispense justice to surviving victims of horrible crimes. But it doesn't make me feel good or help me sleep better at night knowing that yet another person has to pay the ultimate price for their behavior. I don't see any good alternatives, but the point is putting that person to death doesn't magically make me feel better. It's because we value human life, whether it's a newly conceived baby or a serial killer on death row. If we're comfortable with killing people for ANY reason, it's just too easy to justify it for any OTHER reason(s). Just like killing a deer because you need the meat for food to survive and meat otherwise is unaffordable at the market is justifiable. Killing a deer or any other animal because you want a trophy, to me, is just plain tacky. I have no issue with catch-and-release fishing for sport, but dang it, if you're about catching fish, scale it/skin it, clean it/dress it, and cook it. If you don't need it, don't kill it and don't eat it. Killing human beings should always make us feel uneasy, but when it really is justified, such as in punishing someone for murder, it should be carried out nonetheless. If you're looking for someone to pass the guilt onto for the death of the guilty, blame the guilty person himself and no one else.

^^^^^^^

Brilliantly put, AngelRho! It's well balanced and rationally thought out. Although I'm predominantly vegetarian, I do eat fish and dairy products, and occasionally also meat or poultry and don't feel guilty about that; it's a personal chpoice based on health reasons and because I prefer not to have to eat meat, being an animal lover.

It's not justified to kill animals for trophies or cosmetic vanity.

The Native Americans had the right idea of reverence for life and taking what was needed, and utilising what they could. They gave thanks for the life of the animal and made sure it didn't die in vain!

I feel bad about having to kill mice from time to time for reasons of hygiene, if in my home, but would not kill one without any reason, such as while out walking in the field.

Here's in a nutshell my "defense" for the eating of animals by humans, given a certain theoretical construction. Here's what I'll set up for my theoretical example...

- Assume no animal cruelty. I will state here that animal cruelty or bad living conditions for animals is a bad thing and should not be tolerated. So I'm going to use a hypothetical example in which all animal farmers are humane and treat their animals well to give them a good life, in whatever ways that is for each species.
- Assume we approximate the lifespan for each animal if it were in the wild. Then we make sure to not kill an animal until it has lived to at least that point, and preferably longer (so no veal in this world).

Now with these conditions in place, we can reasonably assume two things...
1. Animals in the wild are not going to live as long as if they were raised by farmers for food.
2. Animals in the wild are not going to live as well as if they were raised by farmers for food.

Now we have the issue of killing them for food. This I'm not going to deny has a negative impact on the animal, since I think that's pretty obvious. But my argument for it being okay is more of a practical one...
1. It's better to raise animals in captivity than to leave them alone in the wild.
2. Farmers need financial compensation for raising animals in captivity.
3. Killing animals for food gives farmers enough financial compensation to raise them in captivity.
4. Therefore, it comes down to an issue of weighing: killing the animal after a good life, versus leaving it in the wild to probably have a worse life.

It's admittedly a judgement call, but I think it's reasonable to consider that killing the animal for food at the end of a good life may beat the animal living in the wild. So, between those two choices, it seems the animal comes out better when it ends up getting killed for food. Now obviously the best option could be made that would be the animals get to live protected by us in a good environment type of captivity and not get killed. And I will grant that... but for practical reasons this just doesn't seem possible, and the humane farming option seems to be the best practical option available.

Bitoku- I'd add that humans often overbreed their farm animals to maximise yields. So as a third condition, I would add "rate of population growth does not exceed the natural rate of population growth". Obviously that's highly theoretical. I object to breeding animals so that they can die.

I think your argument is a good one.

I personally do not feel comfortable eating something that has died so I can eat it, even an insect. I have been a vegetarian since a young age (the rest of my family are not- I converted independently, and I am glad that my family supported me) and will continue to be so indefinitely. I don't try and convert others though.

Is a more intelligent species really more conscious? Are consciousness and intelligence the same thing or are they two different things?

If humans were as tasty as lobster...

I tend to side with Richard Posner's sort of answer on the whole of the matter:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ts/_3.html

"I start from the bottom up, with the brute fact that we, like other animals, prefer our own—our own family, the "pack" that we happen to run with (being a social animal), and the larger sodalities constructed on the model of the smaller ones, of which the largest for most of us is our nation. Americans have distinctly less feeling for the pains and pleasures of foreigners than of other Americans and even less for most of the nonhuman animals that we share the world with."

The entire matter is based upon kinship. Now, as our view of the world expands, our notions of kinship and concern grow larger, but they probably will never include animals, and it's probably for the best given our other considerations that they do not.

@91: I am aware of Kant views on rational beings as ends of themselves, and thus one thing I was considering was whether that should be extended to life in general. Or at least not see other animals as just tools to reach an end, and no more, as many people seem to do.
@AngelRho: My justification at eating meat would be that the existence of obligate carnivores, like felines, would mean that within the natural order of things some animals are meant to eat other animals, so a human hunting a deer and eating it would be as bad as a lion hunting a gazelle and eating it, in the sense that neither is bad. I'm also against trophy hunting, it is an utter waste. I do wonder though, if the insects you hate were dead, would you kill spiders once they stop being useful? (assuming they don't starve out on their own) I read an article about how mosquito larvae were food for many aquatic species, while adult mosquitoes filled with blood served as a high-protein snack for the animals that eat them. So they too have their place. I also wonder whether the fact we happen to be human us enough reason to value human life in abstract the most.
I think you made an excellent point in the last post. Having to kill another human being should never feel comfortable, even if it is justified (differences of when it is justified may exist, but the point as a whole stands)
@envirozentinel: Interesting fact on the Native American tribes.
@Bitoku: I can see your point, but "assume no animal cruelty" is a very big assumption to make. Many domesticated animals are not kept in good conditions in the developed word, I've personally seen the overcrowded conditions some cows are kept in, wallowing in their own filth, and I've heard similar things about other animals. This could be the norm. Without that assumption, the argument of animals leading a better life in captivity falls down.
Another argument I am not comfortable with is the first one of the second set; it assumes leaving animals in the wild is a bad thing. I don't believe it is, as they have evolved for millions of years to thrive there (although I could concede that some domesticated animals could be better off with humans, as the faster-acting artificial selection has shaped them that way.)
@Awesomelyglorious: interesting article, I will talk about it directly. First, caring only about our group is fundamentally selfish, and humans have the potential to be better than that. "Americans care more about Americans than about foreigners" is the kind of thinking that allows the suffering and exploitation of millions of people. It could be argued, "why should I care about foreigners?" I have a decent enough answer to that question that I didn't have last time it was asked of me, but this is not the place for it.
To the example provided about the child and the dog, I would help the child because he is probably the victim in the situation, and there are chances of him being killed by the animal. But if I saw a person brutally beating a defenseless animal I'd step up to help the animal, and be willing to inflict pain on the person if it is the only possible way to accomplish it. And I don't think it is unreasonable to do so.
Although I wouldn't consider it a crime in the full extent of the world, killing an incontinent pet is not morally sound to me; it means that I only saw them as a tool, and that when caring after them becomes too inconvenient and is greater than the amusement they brought me when they were healthy, I can just dispose of them and buy a new one like a tv. I'd only euthanize a pet when it was suffering greatly without possibility of recovery, as I'd do to myself if I was in the same situation. Or if I was getting into the more advanced stages of Alzheimer's, for that matter.
The US is constitutionally not a religious nation btw, and I have some doubts with the concept of souls.

As they say, with great power comes great responsibility. We as humans have the power to change our environment to suit our needs like no other animal ever could, to shape other living beings in ways than benefit us through training, selective breeding, and the very latest genetic manipulation that comes with countless possibilities as science marches on. Tigers don't have a duty to their prey; what they do is part of the natural food web, where removing tigers would cause their prey to overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem, and besides they are not moral beings capable of having duties in the first place. We on the other hand can, and have, wipe other species off the earth. We can straight-up kill other species with extreme efficiency, or disrupt their environment to the point it can no longer support them. For those reasons, I believe we do have a duty to the other animals, to take care of them and their environments. How could we humans possibly think we're not animals, yet follow the same rules of caring only about us and consuming everything we see, just like rabbits let loose in Australia?

I guess my question comes in from "better than that". Humans are fundamentally selfish, and this selfishness also will impact the workings of any human ethical system. We need to be aware of how human ethics really works and the ends it really serves before trying to innovate an outright abstract notion.


I don't think the answer to the question "Why should I care about foreigners?" is at all best answered in the abstract. So, as part of Posner's point, he claimed that our moral reasoning really *isn't* just a matter of philosophical abstraction but stands outside of it: "I do not feel obliged to defend this reaction; it is a moral intuition deeper than any reason that could be given for it and impervious to any reason that you or anyone could give against it. ... If the moral irrelevance of humanity is what philosophy teaches, and so we have to choose between philosophy and the intuition that says that membership in the human species is morally relevant, then it is philosophy that will have to go."

The real issue is that in making a better world, we probably don't want the abstract ethic so much as for foreigners to be less foreign, and there are reasons why we may actually head that direction. So, if we want foreigners to seem less foreign, encouraging trade and social exchange is probably the best thing to do, and those actions are ones that don't involve sacrifice upon participants, unlike a more moralizing attempt would.

In some sense that seems UTTERLY horrible to think, but it's the reality we've ALL accepted by running our lives the way we do. So, you may want to put all human lives as equal or something else of that nature, and hold that this value stands ABOVE all of the crassness of money and whatever else have you, but... we have a dollar amount for what a human is worth: http://www.givewell.org/international/t ... rlifesaved Most people don't pay it. It's pretty cheap to save an African life. And the issue is that I've tried moralizing about this in the past to people, because it's dumbfounding to imagine that people care more about their Starbucks coffee in the morning and some overpriced meal than saving a life, but they do and when I moralize to them, they will tell me that their grand luxuries unknown to all past generations are just a matter of "living well". And... I find that even though I have the guilt of this and do donate to the charity, I too fail to meet the measure I'd extend if this was my mother or my friend or anybody I knew personally.

Human moral reasoning is often foolishly and idealistically overstated.

I agree, and that's why I'm arguing in support of a theoretical framework that I admit doesn't currently exist in full. But one thing we can do to potentially help it come about is to be choosy about what what kinds of meat we buy, and try to make sure they're from organic free-roam humane sources. I believe this is a better option to change things towards my hypotthetical ideal than not buying any meat at all. Consider these 3 options:
1. If nobody buys any meat, we're basically sending the animals al back to live in the wild.
2. If we buy meat randomly, we're supporting the inhumane farming methods.
3. If everyone only buys meat from humane sources, we're shutting down the inhumane methods and shifting the domestic farming methods towards the humane ideal I've outlined.
This is why I try to stick to option #3 myself.


I will say that it's possible for animals to live a comfortable life in the wild, but not likely. Just having the threat of predators removed from their life alone I would say often makes a humane domestic life more comfortable for them. Add in having shelter from environmental elements, not having to worry about being fed, and getting medical attention when necessary, and I think the domestic life seems to clearly be the preferable choice. I'm just trynig to look at it from the animal's view here, as best I can at least.