Choosing one species over your own

[Arthur]

I assume you're interested in more than the purely subjective opinions of anonymous aliases -- you want the the reasoning (if any) behind those opinions?

Is there any objective basis for holding one life as more valuable than another? (Subjective valuations are irrelevant and boring, to be honest -- we're all much more interested in why those valuations are held), surely?

Humans of course are also animals. But are they only animals and nothing more? If so, then choosing puppy or person is simply a personal and whimsical preference arising from personal circumstances, and therefore entirely boring to discuss.

On the other hand, one can aver (as Classical philosophy and many religious systems do) that humans - in addition to the features of animals - have a nature that transcends the value of any merely physical creature (such as plants and beasts). I am of this school.

[Elimentals]

I would pick any animal above any human, even more so if I have an emotional bond to them. Sadly I have to admit I have little to no emotional bonds to any humans alive on this planet.

Reason: they can not fend for themselves and we made them dependable on us.

Insects on the other hand get looked over purely because of the sheer number of them, so I guess my preference is also scarcity based.

[TheHiveMind]

I would pick any animal above any human, even more so if I have an emotional bond to them. Sadly I have to admit I have little to no emotional bonds to any humans alive on this planet.

Reason: they can not fend for themselves and we made them dependable on us.

Insects on the other hand get looked over purely because of the sheer number of them, so I guess my preference is also scarcity based.

So your "solution" is to coddle them MORE, to try to fix the fact that we've coddled them too much, to their detriment.... *cough*

I must be honest, I don't think people with your attitude deserve life. I think people like that are pathetic, an evolutionary deadend, an embarassment to nature. You are not in harmony with nature at all, you are completely opposed to it, which is ironic, because you probably think the exact opposite, having chosen the animals.

[Elimentals]

So your "solution" is to coddle them MORE, to try to fix the fact that we've coddled them too much, to their detriment.... *cough*

I must be honest, I don't think people with your attitude deserve life. I think people like that are pathetic, an evolutionary deadend, an embarassment to nature. You are not in harmony with nature at all, you are completely opposed to it, which is ironic, because you probably think the exact opposite.

I guess you are right, and do not worry I fixed the problem as well, by not having any children.

[TheHiveMind]

On the other hand, one can aver (as Classical philosophy and many religious systems do) that humans - in addition to the features of animals - have a nature that transcends the value of any merely physical creature (such as plants and beasts). I am of this school.

arthur is a terrible person waiting to happen. If we are to believe his threats, his ethics are as dependable as his God. Wonderful stuff..

[Arthur]

I would pick any animal above any human, even more so if I have an emotional bond to them. Sadly I have to admit I have little to no emotional bonds to any humans alive on this planet.

Reason: they can not fend for themselves and we made them dependable on us.

Insects on the other hand get looked over purely because of the sheer number of them, so I guess my preference is also scarcity based.

- Dependence a criterion? What then of human babies, the most dependent of all mammals?
- Scarcity a criterion? By what criterion are insects not scarce? Comparison to the numbers in other terrestrial species? Why choose that as the measure, and why choose a planetary scale?
- Emotional bond a criterion? This situates you in the centre of the cosmos - a very narcissistic position to be in. It easily leads to idolatry.

[Unhappy438]

I would pick any animal above any human, even more so if I have an emotional bond to them. Sadly I have to admit I have little to no emotional bonds to any humans alive on this planet.

Reason: they can not fend for themselves and we made them dependable on us.

Insects on the other hand get looked over purely because of the sheer number of them, so I guess my preference is also scarcity based.

I find this very strange and firstly i presume you are a vegetarian with this view. I have a situation for you however, you a stranded on an island with a fellow human being and a horse. You are starving and you're running out of food, you have an equal opportunity to eat the horse or the human. Which one do you choose?

[Elimentals]

- Dependence a criterion? What then of human babies, the most dependent of all mammals?
- Scarcity a criterion? By what criterion are insects not scarce? Comparison to the numbers in other terrestrial species? Why choose that as the measure, and why choose a planetary scale?
- Emotional bond a criterion? This situates you in the centre of the cosmos - a very narcissistic position to be in. It easily leads to idolatry.

Depends on situation, like burning building, falling into a pool, car crash and so on.

Dependance: If I have to pick between a baby and a dog in a building. Baby comes out 1st cause it is possible that the dog can find a way out. If a man and a animal that can not swim falls into a pool, animal comes out 1st cause I know how to resus a human.
Scarcity: As above depends on situation. If a cat and a mouse is stuck in a fire, the cat comes out 1st, cause there are plenty of mice in the world.
Emotional bond: Kind of a heavy one, again not to worry as I dont have any emotional bonds but when I did, I would have saved my cat/dog above you or anyone for that matter.

Oh and something that was not asked, I would place someone elses baby or pet above my own life, in fact there is very little that I would place under my own, but as TheHiveMind pointed out I am probably a freak of evolution so not to worry, not many that share that view.

Bottom line is yes I would place another species above my own.

[Elimentals]

I find this very strange and firstly i presume you are a vegetarian with this view. I have a situation for you however, you a stranded on an island with a fellow human being and a horse. You are starving and you're running out of food, you have an equal opportunity to eat the horse or the human. Which one do you choose?

If its a women, horse goes, if its another man, I hope he is fat.

[Devill]

So after reading this http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthre...=1#post8515999, I decided to create this thread to find out people's opinions and views about this.

It is innate and our responsibilities to provide for and care for our offspring to ensure survival of our species as a whole. However after I read this here , I began to wonder...

If I had to run into a burning building and see a dog, I'd try and save it, but as soon as I see a fellow human beign and I cannot save the dog as well then I'm going to have to leave the dog there

Why would I choose the life of a species other than my own to be more significant than my own species? Please note I'm not attacking this poster above, but his comment itself.

Let's go!

Pack-gene

Also i would save the human because the dog is not going to discover the cure for aids / cancer etc etc

[Unhappy438]

If its a women, horse goes, if its another man, I hope he is fat.

Haha ok so i have one more question for you please, why do you value the life of a women more than a man?

[Elimentals]

Haha ok so i have one more question for you please, why do you value the life of a women more than a man?

Scarcity: 2 x men vs 1 man + 1 woman + possibility of entertainment.

Not gonna sleep with a horse

[beans100]

So after reading this http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthre...=1#post8515999, I decided to create this thread to find out people's opinions and views about this.

It is innate and our responsibilities to provide for and care for our offspring to ensure survival of our species as a whole. However after I read this here , I began to wonder...

If I had to run into a burning building and see a dog, I'd try and save it, but as soon as I see a fellow human beign and I cannot save the dog as well then I'm going to have to leave the dog there

Why would I choose the life of a species other than my own to be more significant than my own species? Please note I'm not attacking this poster above, but his comment itself.

Let's go!

I was thinking the same thing a few years back. Knysna was thinning elephants (Killing them) back then, because there were too many of them. So I was thinking, there is too many people as well.........
Why is killing Elephants called thinning and killing people called murder?????