Humans vs. Animals: What's the big difference?

[SeXy ReDHeD]

This summer I took a philosophy class called "Modern Ethics." It was a pretty cool class all in all... we talked about abortion, capital punishment, cloning, pornography, euthanasia, etc. Anyway,the last topic we discussed was animal rights: whether or not animals should be endowed with the same rights as humans, and whether their lives are of equal value as those of humans. To prompt discussion, the professor presented us with this scenario:

You have a choice:

On one hand, say you have an infant born with severe physical and mental abnormalities that would make it impossible for this infant to ever develop normally... it would never, ever be able to mature further than about two year's of age mentally, and would never look "normal." He would have to be under constant medical care, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and would most likely die within three or four years.

Then on the other hand, say you have a perfectly good, healthy dog. A seeing eye dog, perhaps, or just a companion dog. Either way, he's healthy, and has many, many fruitful years ahead of him.

If you had to choose one to live and one to die, which would you pick? Why? And no fair saying you'd let both live!! I make the rules and that's against 'em!

Anyway, this debate got pretty out of hand in class... screaming, crying, the works.
I never knew people felt this strongly...
If it were up to me, though, I'd have to pick the dog. It just makes more sense all the way around. This human would never be productive or lead any kind of a life. Why kill a perfectly good dog to save a "defective" (no offense intended here... just making a point) human??

Why is human life more precious than animal life?

If it's because we are cognizant and rational, then don't we as rational beings have responsibilities to the animals? And shouldn't we realize that we really are not all that much "better" than animals??

Since I am not particularly spiritual or religious, I would like to hear some other views on this... and some sort of argument.

 

[Budokan]

Without some other parameters and guidelines as to the sides of the story involved, the question cannot be answered. This is one of those open-ended questions that are thrown into a group discussion to promote argument. To say one has to live and one has to die, and no details are given, that's kind of silly. Life isn't that simple. I can't think of a situation where I would be presented with this case and have to make a decision without knowing more of the history about the dog and the kid.

 

[Angelique]

Ok, here's my take on it. In order to justify my choice, I'd have to go with saving the dogs life simply because the dog would be an asset, rather than a liability. *note that I hate rationalizing it this way, as I tend not to think of humans or animals as assets or liabilities like that*

But here's a question along the same line. Why is it acceptable and LEGAL for humans to euthanize animals when they've reached a point in their life where it is too difficult for them to continue? Be it from cancer, leukemia, or whatever.

We're permitted to play God and put these animals to sleep on a daily basis, yet when it comes to humans, it's illegal? With that in mind, which species really has the "better" life?

Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[SeXy ReDHeD]

Bukodan... of course it's thrown in to promote argument. It's a question that challenges your morals and ethics and makes you think about what exactly you base these morals and ethics upon. Is your sense of morality really the right one? Why? Is there a right one? Is there even right and wrong? Is choosing the human life over the dog's life really the RIGHT thing to do? Why?

Angelique, I totally agree with you... neither humans nor animals should be thought of as "liablilities." But, alas, it happens.
And to answer your question, I honestly don't know. Dignity? A human suffers a loss of dignity when someone would make such a choice for them... animals don't understand dignity...
Another point.. a human understands his suffering... knows that it is "caused." An animal doesn't. To him, the pain just "is." It doesn't know why it is suffering. In this case, I think it's wrong to let it suffer, if it won't get better.

 

[Whispersecret]

Loaded question, no doubt about it. But there is also no doubt about my answer. The baby lives, the dog dies. I don't feel able to fully explain why I hold human life far and away above animal life, but I do.

I have begun to suspect that God does exist, and one of the reasons I've started to believe is that I heard a theologist once argue that humans have a conscience, which is why God put man "in charge" of animals. (Forgive me if I'm butchering Christian thought. I wasn't raised religious.) He asked how can evolution explain the development of a conscience? I was/am stumped by that question, and I was always a firm believer in evolution and dinosaurs, etc. But I digress.

It doesn't matter to me that the baby will not live a productive life. In your scenario, the baby was born, so to kill it would be murder. It wouldn't look normal? Who cares? It doesn't because two-year-olds don't care about looks. The parents would certainly like the chance to love and cherish their child for as long as they could.

I eat meat. I wear leather. (Yeah, baby!) I enjoy the benefits of modern medicine, all at the expense of animals. A "defective" human, to me, will always be worth more than any animal. Even if the choice was between my family pet and the baby, I'd choose the baby.

I know there are going to be animal lovers out there with their hackles up. I apologize for offending them. Did the professor bring up any other animal choices? Did people's choices change when the animal was not a cuddly domesticated pet? What if it was, say, a hyena or a cow?

On a side note, if you had to have me choose between a sane human murderer and a canine murderer, I'd likely choose to have the human executed. Kinda hypocritical, huh? The man would know what he was doing was wrong, the dog wouldn't.
There's that conscience thing again.

I'm sure there will be many other people who post after I do that will explain themselves more succinctly and bring up better points, but there are my thoughts as of this moment.

 

[Angelique]

Whisper honey, ya' know I love ya' hon, but I'm compelled to ask a question here.

Would it be fair to say that "conscience" is not something that humans and animals alike are born with? Rather, it's something that is taught and learned?

For example, if I didn't say a word to my children as they were growing up about what's right or wrong, would they automatically know that it's wrong to kill?

Same goes for animals...they appear to have a conscience, as well. But only because it was learned. The dog KNOWS it will be punished if it repeatedly chews on my shoes...but only because that's what it was taught.

Just a thought.

 

[Never]

I too have problems with the question.. and with some of the assumptions surrounding it.
If someone has the 'intellect of a two-year old' that makes them smarter than a dog. They can be useful, I work in a store that hires the mentally handicapped as baggers, many of them work fifteen hours a week and do a decent job. I'd say many of them are as happy as any of us and some of them tend to swing a more positive attitude than myself on any given day. In fact I can think of one person in particular who manages to slip a little brightness into the day of everyone who knows him so, no, they are not a liability. Not to their family at least and to me that's a valid point. The only person who decided whether or no an infant dies is typically a parent and I don't believe there are that many parents who would kill their child given the choice of an adult dog as a substitute.
I find little that's humane about killing the child, if an infant was basically a vegetable or was so sick they would probably be in pain for most of their life and might die young as well you could argue the humanitarian point with me.
Then again, I feel this is the parents' choice. For some there would be no way they could always care for a child then teenager then adult like that. While there are many on this board who'd say otherwise I find it difficult to believe they'd be able to kill the child. I don't mean 'pick which one will die' I mean, kill one or the other yourself. For me the only 'moral' choice in this question would be the one I could murder myself and, yes, I believe both killings to be murder.
I have to wonder about the mentality behind this question though. Isn't the whole basis of morality being able to make the 'better' decision? By taking away your ability to make decisions other than, the two given to you your professor took away your ability to make a moral choice.

 

[Never]

Addendum: If your children somehow grew up without any supervision whatsoever they would know it was wrong to kill another human being. If they were raised like Tarzan, they would know that it was wrong to kill another gorilla. That's genetics at work though, not morality. Few creatures kill another of their own species, even when fighting for mates or territory; it's a rare occurrence in 'normal'environments. (I'll add the normal because someone will bring up the cage full of white rats, I know they will. Someone else will bring up what the meaning of 'normal' is as well and I'll ignore them because that's not what I'm talking about)

How come humans killing humans is so popular? Displacement. Humans are the only species that can convince themselves, 'That person is not of my tribe/race/religion/country/political beliefs/whatever else' Therefore, they are not truly human.'

 

[SeXy ReDHeD]

Never... that just might be the most meaningful response yet!! heheh

Anyway... a question for you, Never. Why is it that the infants life is so much more valuable? Neither the infant nor the dog are able to think logically, both would lend a great deal of happiness to their respective families, and both have life. What exactly is it that humans have that gives them so much precedence over animals?

 

[SeXy ReDHeD]

BTW...

I'm not trying to force my views on you guys... quite the opposite, in fact.

I'm just trying to see the other side here.

 

[Bs]

That question is supposed to deal with animal rights? Wrong, not in my book.... Want to throw out a question why not a real life question of animal rights? Like say, do a few hundred snail darters have more rights than say a few million people? Or, how about the Spotted Owl? Oh, heres another one! Which have the most rights, Indians, wolves, antelope, or cattle ranchers? Do you know the answer?

Im sure that Al Gore, belives in animal rights, which is great but I'd almost wager that he still does'nt get every jackass's votes... (just most of'em)

and still...

 

[Stitchface]

This argument does turn on whether humans are somehow ‘inherently superior’ to animals: I remember one essay question asking whether or not animals should get total equality with humans, given the popularity of ‘equal rights’.

What are the arguments humans might put forward for their ‘superiority’ to animals? Because we are more ‘ethical’ or ‘moral’ This doesn’t really stand up: humans are generally only ‘moral’ towards each other, with only a few gestures at ‘animal rights’, and generally only towards the cuddlier and more appealing animals! We also fail pretty badly by our own standards of morality, with all the world wars etc.

Maybe a better argument would be that humans are more intelligent, ‘civilised’ or ‘cultured’. But I think this is really just a subconscious way of arguing that human superiority is somehow ‘right’, when the real is simply human self-interest as a species. Consider how we would behave if a more intelligent, stronger, alien race - possessing all the greater intelligence, culture or whatever that we claim makes us ‘superior’ to animals - invaded and took over the Earth. Would they, on the grounds of being more intelligent, cultured etc. be allowed to use humans for their own ends…as food, as slaves, often as sport, in just the same ways that we use animals? I think you’d find that most humans, while happily treating animals in just this way, would reply ‘no’ and would portray any species that tried this as ‘evil’ and ‘immoral’. In many sci-fi movies and books we’ve done exactly this.

The way humans use animals for their own ends come almost completely from self-interest, the instinctive desire of a species to ‘look after its own’. Whether animals are deserving of ‘animal rights’ or not is simply judged by how close they are in terms of behaviour and appearance to humans. You see animal rights campaigns for all the cuddly animals which are notably mammals…a few campaigns for whales, which are mammals, but resemble humans less…and almost no campaigns for the rights of fish, reptiles or insects. As I’ve tried to say, this isn’t because they’re less intelligent – it’s because they are less like humans and further away on the evolutionary ladder. Octopus for example are extremely intelligent animals, more intelligent than household pets, but people in the Mediterranean are quite happy to kill them, and visiting Americans/ English to eat them.

There are other examples of the way in which animals are defined by their relationship with humans. Snakes and spiders are often portrayed as ‘evil’ (the snake in the Garden of Eden!) because at some stage of the evolutionary process they must have appeared not only as a threat to humans (and their close evolutionary relations) but because they are so radically alien: insects and reptiles as opposed to mammals.

The example you quote is ‘humans vs. dogs’, but dogs have fared pretty well from this in comparison to other animals, partly because they are mammals and fairly close to humans in terms of genes (although obviously not as close as another human!!), and partly because of culture (dogs are seen as household pets and ‘man’s best friend’). I’m sure somewhere in the East dogs get eaten, and I remember a lot of Westerners getting rather hot under the collar at this. Surely this is not because they have objectively decided that dogs have more right to live (or that they taste worse!) than for example cows, but because they subjectively have grown to see dogs as pets, their friends and objects of affection. You say you don't like to see dogs and humans as 'liabilities' - surely that's because they're close genetically to you and you feel some sort of emotional/instinctive affinity? I bet you'd never say the same thing about a fly, but why, objectively, should its life be worth any less?

I suppose the reason people in your seminar started crying was because for them it was a question dominated by instinct and emotion rather than by rational argument. If the baby is as useless as you say, all the objective arguments for the superiority of humans (more ‘moral’, ‘cultured’, ‘civilised’ or generally more intelligent), fall completely out of the water. The alien looking down from his spaceship wouldn’t really have any grounds to choose the human over the dog. The only thing left is the instinct to protect the species that’s most like you, another human. In a similar way I think that most humans would choose a baby dog above a baby crocodile, and a baby crocodile over a baby insect (if you get baby insects, and not just larva or something!).

I’ve waffled on a bit too long now…maybe I should have done philosophy rather than history at uni, it seems more interesting. Anyway, why are you asking this question on the messageboard of an erotica site?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Consciousness or self-awareness is not that hard to comprend biologically, much less evolutionarily. It's complex, that's all.

As for the question it's interesting but I with Budokan -- you can argue and argue and argue and it will all be interesting but you will never know your true answer to the problem until you face it.

 

[Never]

Neither the infant nor the dog are able to think logically, both would lend a great deal of happiness to their respective families, and both have life. What exactly is it that humans have that gives them so much precedence over animals?

Off the top of my head. The baby will give more happiness to her 'respective family.' I have seen people react to babies and dogs. They like babies more.

 

[Whispersecret]

"Would it be fair to say that "conscience" is not something that humans and animals alike are born with? Rather, it's something that is taught and learned?

For example, if I didn't say a word to my children as they were growing up about what's right or wrong, would they automatically know that it's wrong to kill?

Same goes for animals...they appear to have a conscience, as well. But only because it was learned. The dog KNOWS it will be punished if it repeatedly chews on my shoes...but only because that's what it was taught."

There's a difference between having a conscience, and knowing you're doing something is wrong.

You are correct. People must learn right from wrong. I see solid evidence of that in my teaching.

You're also right about the dog knowing it will be punished for chewing the shoe. Just as the child knows he will be punished for drawing with markers on the walls.

However, the difference between humans and animals is that the human will feel badly and has the opportunity to use that awareness of wrongdoing, that guilt, if you will, to shape his future behavior. The dog will not feel badly about the chewing but only about the swat. The human also has the intelligence to, when they're adults, reason out WHY some things are inherently wrong. A dog has no such ability.

That is what I meant by conscience. I hope I made sense.

 

[Never]

Rational argument is an oxymoron.
I'll also add at this point that there is no reason without emotion. You cannot have logic without emotion or at least instinct. It's like mathematics in a world with no values.

 

[Valantonia]

A friend recently took a course where they were asked a similar question.

You're walking by a burning museum. There are two things trapped inside, a 90 y/o woman and a Renoir. Which do you save?

About 80% of the class chose the Renoir as it had more value.

 

[Whispersecret]

Consciousness or self-awareness is not that hard to comprend biologically, much less evolutionarily. It's complex, that's all.

I'm not talking about self-awareness/consciousness. I'm talking about having a conscience. Two very different things.

 

[SeXy ReDHeD]

It is true DCL, that I will probably never really know until I face it, but as an anthropology/criminology fanatic, the "why's" behind people's beliefs fascinate me.

Which is also why I posted this thread, Stitchface. As for why I posted it on this site... well.. I wanted well-thought -out, intelligent opinions. There are lots of intelligent people here whose opinions I respect greatly, and so I asked these people. Loved the explanation of the topic. Oh yeah, and Welcome... Interesting name.

 

[Whispersecret]

HOLY SHIT. I'm appalled that people would choose a painting over a person. That disgusts and enrages me. I would like to hear their answers if they were the person in the museum. I don't have the words to say how much that makes me sick.

 

[Stitchface]

wow, this page really fills up fast!!
I don't think the idea of conscience as something 'learned' really stands up, it just introduces a 'chicken and egg' concept. To 'learn' a conscience, you need someone to teach you, and where did they get it from...it has to come from somewhere!
The point I'd make is one directly in line with what I said in my long waffly post earlier... humans display most 'conscience' towards each other, less towards cuddly animals, and less still towards something as genetically distant as an insect. Who feels a pang of conscience when they swat a fly?

 

[SeXy ReDHeD]

i hate missing posts.

Never... very true statement about there being no reason without emotion... but what about computers? They are able to reason to no end, and have no emotion whatsoever. They would choose the dog over the baby, the painting over the old lady every time. And the computer "thinks" its doing the right thing... humans taught them that... I digress. Anyway-
My question to you, is WHY is it right to pick the baby? Because, as some say, you were taught that? Without teaching would you have picked the baby?

[Edited by SeXy ReDHeD on 07-24-2000 at 11:59 PM]

 

[Stitchface]

Oh...one more thing before I switch off...interestingly, we've chosen babies and old ladies, and the old lady seems to have less worth than the baby. People would NEVER choose a painting over a baby, and most Westerners would choose baby over old lady. This is actually a very cultural thing. In China and Japan for example, they revere their old more than their young. If a plane crashed in America, the TV broadcast would say 'how terrible, X number of children died, with their whole lives ahead of them'. If a plane crashed in Japan, the broadcast would say 'X number of old people died, what a terrible thing, all that age and wisdom gone down in rubble...'

 

[Laurel]

You are correct. People must learn right from wrong. I see solid evidence of that in my teaching.

Not all people. A not-small percentage of our population are criminals, many repeat offenders, many violent. And animals have exhibited caring and concern for each other's feelings and well-being - elephants will rally around a comrade stuck in a hole and help her out. I saw a special where a mother gorilla lost her baby, and the other mothers in her group came over and gave her hugs - just like human hugs - to comfort her. My cat knows when I'm upset, and will come sit next to me and pat me on the arm to comfort me. Animals sense emotion, animals have feelings.

The only difference between us and animals is that damn religion thing that allows us to do terrible things to each other and to the world without feeling guilty. Last night I watched a special on Easter Island that touched on missionaries who went to Tahiti to "civilize" (read: rob, kill, enslave, then read them the Bible) the people there. Their attitude reminded me of that of people who think we have a "duty" to "watch over" the animals with which we share the planet. Amazing how the church can find a way to steal land from indigent tribes and abuse other beings, all in the name of God. If it has darker skin or four legs, it's inferior. Makes the world a much simpler place, being so morally superior.

Like Dixon and Budokan said, it depends on the situation - whether the dog was mine, or the baby was mine. Off the top of my head, I'd have to say the dog would die, but not because of any moral superiority on the part of my species. As a human - like any other animal - I'm inclined to protect those similar to myself. But I'm aware of my bias, and don't believe me or my species to be the center of the universe. That's the difference.

 

[Never]

I have. Yes, it sounds so much like the 'I hug trees and don't eat meat' mentality but it's not. The first true philosophical revelation I had as a child came from the death of wasp and I'm rather fond of spiders myself so I have a great deal of consciousness when it comes to the creepy crawly things of the earth. I'll admit it, I'm the idiot who walks around after rain storms scooping worms out of puddles. I'm the one that, upon finding a large 'thingy' crawling across my bed sheets, put it in a paper cup and took it outside, though for three nights I had anxiety attacks about it slipping in, borrowing into my ear, and eating my brain. Once, to save a honeybee from a group of boys I covered it with my hand, which was promptly stomped on. Not the best of ideas on their part as I'm actually a vicious human being. I grabbed the fool's ankle and tore out a piece of flesh with my teeth.
I guess that's selective morality.