Are we putting too much moral value on animals?

This is taken from my school paper.

The actual point of the article is about donating money not just to animal charities, but Third World children and the such (we all know the commercials) instead of our own nation, but my point is, do you think the gap between the moral value we're placing on animals and humans is too small? Are we considering animals more significant than we should or putting too much money into their charities when we should be putting it other (dare I say, more important) things?

 

First off, before I forget:

LOL, epic, and I agree fully!

Now, on a serious note, I notice that these pet charities are shown a lot more than the ones for starving kids, from what I've seen anyway. And as an observation, they seem to play the one where the woman sings "In The Arms of an Angel" song on Comedy Central, which seems like an oxymoron in my mind (especially when it follows a really funny comeidan). It does seem like that we are focussing a lot on animals. I'm someone who charishes any kind of life, but I do think we need to help out our fellow man much more than any dog or cat.

That may come off as insensitive (the article did at least) but it's true. We have kids, who have the poteintial to become great thinkers, rise from their ashes, and become great movers and shakers in history to come. Missionairies are already doing what they can in numerous countries, such as Haiti and South Africa, but there is still so much they can do. I personally think that we shoudl send our money to people than animals. Yes, there should definately be funds sent to animal shelters as well, but I think there should be more coverage on us helping our fellow man.

 

So the value of a human is greater than that of any other animal?
Why?
Because humans have greater brain capacity? Because they are a better resource? Or they're superior in all ways to animals?

To me that's a selfish argument to believe that we are mire valuable then any other creature on this planet. He'll we are technically one of the most worthless creatures on the planet. We have over 6 billion living all over the earth, that makes losing one person not significant to our species. However, If the wild tigers of earth were to lose just a single tiger, the likelihood of their species surviving is further put into question. We are worthless because we could lose half the population yet still we'd be well over the amount of people needed to sustain our species, whilst if the wild tigers were to lose half of their population they'd be pushed further to the brink. They are more precious.

Your arguments state that children of humanity are more important than others. Why? We've got overpopulation around the globe, and should animals have to pay because humans have pushed them from their homes, bred like wildfire, leading to more animals getting pushed out of their habitats because more and more humans are being born? History shows we don't care what gets in our way, whether it's animals, the environment or even other humans we don't care enough to realise the consequences of our actions. Why shouldn't animals have priority over children?

 

Humans are more valuable than other animals because, put simply, we are superior to animals in that instead of simply adapting to our environment, we force our environment to adapt to us. No other species is able to do that. Yes, we have tool using animals, but none of them ever use tools to make other tools like we do. This mentality (that tools can make tools) is what separates us from animals.

 

Humans tend to value their own species more so than other species because it is our own. It is natural for us to value our own species over others regardless of the fact that, objectively, we are no more important than the common housefly.

I would agree, to an extent. We are not "special"; we are no better than any of the others animals. We are equals. My view differs vastly from yours, however, in that I do not view humans as "worse" than any other species - that statement is entirely subjective.

I should also add that you speak of humans in a manner that suggests that you yourself are not a human; you point out their flaws, ignoring the fact that you yourself are a human. This suggests that you think of yourself as higher than other humans, or free from fault. You are not - we all contribute to humanity.

See above. You are far too cynical; people should be viewed as individuals. Classifying all humans as "bad" is ignorant.

 

Actually, we are less important to the ecosystem. If you wipe out insects, all life other life would die out. If you wipe out humans, all other life would flourish. That is the curse of being the ultimate predator. Of course, whether or not flourishing is a good thing is still subjective, but there is that.

 

That's not the point. The point is that even though humans are about as important as a speck of dust on fire in an active volcano (like Mordor or something), we still value ourselves over other species. It's basically racism taken to its logical extreme. The only reason I condone it is because unlike racism where all statements are utterly false and those who are racist deserve to fall in a pit and die of starvation, Humans>Animals has scientific (not biblical or historical) background. Humans are capable of more, so to humans they are worth more.

 

Hey, you aren't supposed to disagree with me! I am posting in the discussion section so that I can increase my post count and rep you later!

 

"... to humans they are worth more." I am also a human, and I do not see it that way. What most humans think is not the question here. Whether or not it is an accurate system of values is.

Ever the devil's advocate, me. You know that.

 

I agree with Tummer, I think humans should be valued over animals but even so I hope the animals do get their money as well, I just think we should prioritise. The reason I think this is not due to the fact that humans have a greater brain capacity but because we have put ourselves higher than any other animal. It's the same even within the human race, we are ranked due to what we have, the poor are seen as workers and are of low class while the rich have power. It's the same in the animal kingdom as well, we have superior brain power and know how to build tools so we can use them. Yes, there is abuse of power which is wrong but we also have the power to make the choice about which is more important. I used to think animals and people were equal, but due to the difference in abilities I don't think I can say it any more.

I also think we were given dominion over animals meaning we are superior but we also have stewardship, meaning we must care for them too. With power comes responsibility, we are helping to kill the animals so we should also make an effort to save them, but I do think that the other humans out there should be put above the animals but ultimately it comes down to the choice of the individual.

 

That paragraph wasn't saying humanity was worse in a broad sense, but how they are devalued compared to other species. With more of anything, it becomes more common, less rare and as such less valuable. As something decreases in number and becomes more rare it in turn increases in value. As such, with wild tigers in the few thousands, they are more precious and more valuable from their lack of number, whilst humans which number in the billions become less valued. Basically we can replace humans quickly and promptly, but wild tigers aren't as lucky and are under threat of extinction as a species because of it.
This leads into the discussion of whether it is justified to fund animal centered interests than child poverty interests. I stand mainly in animal interest, because they are scarace compared to humans and need to be protected from humanity's actions which cause them to suffer. However, i'm not saying that I don't understand humanity's plight with its child poverty, i'm trying to put across that it is not as impactful as losing an entire species is.

This is why I ask why people should believe humanity to be judged better than any other species when obviously we humans are a dime a dozen. We may have unique personalities and attributes, but at the end of the day that uniqueness doesn't make us valuable.

I'm not trying to deny being human, superior or inferior. I just side rather with the more logical idea in this arguement that animals are more valuable then humans, and therefore should be of a greater concern. I'm not putting my humanity in the way of making a logical conclusion. It helps me to be less biased.
And how can humanity not be viewed as a whole? It is an entire species, it's actions should be viewed as a group since they are the most impactful of all, whereas looking at one person wouldn't be applicable to see humanity's actions.

Btw, the term is not racist it's speciesist when referring to the the different value and rights of other living species apart from humanity.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every species on the planet look out for their own kind above other animals in a given ecosystem? How are we any different, in that sense?

I don't particularly care for this argument, but thought I should bring this point to attention.

 

You gave off a cynical tone in your post, a general mistrust for other humans. It seemed as if you were calling out the entire human race as faulty due to personal feelings on the matter, correct me if I am mistaken.

It sounded subjective.

 

It sounded subjective to you, because you viewed it as so. Regardless, ignore the perceived cynical tone. That's not really the point of the debate.

Either way, do you have any statistics showing some staggering amount of money that's substantially higher than the one that is being sent to charities focused on humans?

If so, please try to put two charities that are similar. Don't put some small-time one v.s. a super large one.

I do think that animals are pretty high up there with children. Specially dogs and cats. Both children and household pets seem pretty lacking in vice and corruption, or at least that's how it seems. It could be attributed to that.

 

Like Chevalier said, if that's how view it then that's how you view it. But I may have a disdain for humanity's actions when they create wars, terror, exploitation, inequality, etc. But I also see the greatness humanity can achieve aswell, how they can create something wonderful. This arguement however, didn't really give me a feeling that humanity was making fair, just and logical actions when they place themselves over others. I'm not saying that all they are is bad, but this arguement doesn't show off human's abilities to do great things.

Becuase other animals don't have the same capacity for thought or reason on the level we have. Nor do they have such a huge impact on the ecosystem itself. We have a responsibilty to use that power correctly, without abusing it for personal gain, because in the end, being the top predator, we rely on everything below us. We rely on plants growing, insects eating the plants, small creatures eating the insects, larger creatures eating the smaller ones, so that we can eat the larger ones. If we put in jeopardy countless amounts of animal species we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, because without the plants, or the insects or animals we have nothing to feed from, and in the end we cause a crisis on our own species.
So if we want to care for our own species then we will need to care for others as well. We all live in a balance. We are not gods. We can survive on our own merit, we rely on too much else for that.

 

Ok, from a religious stand point, God gave us animals to eat and survive.

from a normal stand point, do animals think twice before they eat us?

no. no they do not.

Animals shouldn't be mass produced like McDonald's burgers, but they shouldn't be valued above human survival. I like cows and pigs and all that, they are cute and yes they should be treated with respect...but at the end of the day I am gonna get my anomnom on so it doesn't matter.

If people think we (as a race) can survive off of plants alone, they need to go look at china or a farm and see how hard it is to raise enough food for people period.
I also think that animals need to be kept in check, we have hunting season for a reason, i love animals but we are carnivores too, we need meat and we need animals to survive, they are just doing their job.

 

to answr the thread title yes and no. we usually put a bit too much value on animals humans have personally domesticated (like cats and dogs) but we also usually seem to not care for some at all. for example i personally believe any parasite that poses a danger to humans should be exterminated. well, that is one idea and many parasites do little for the ecosystem so it is actually a good idea but i'm getting off track. also do i believe we should stop giving aid to weak countries? yes. Because of a simple thing we are in a deep as hell hole and we need to dig ourselves out. really i blieve america should just leave all the weak and valueless noncontributing countries alone and focus on some internal repair but no america apparently has "durr hurr i'm rich syndrome hepa derpa" when we really aren't and come on now im 16 (will be 17 soon) and i have a few ideas that could fix america but apparently i'm to young to do anything. /end rant

 

Ah, we do not have enough moral nihilists here...

Nothing is of any value unless sentient beings give them value. So, are animals more valuable than humans? Hard to say. Without humans, there would be no value on anything. It is all in your head. No matter what kind of value we put on ourselves or on other things, it will not be 'too much' or 'too little'. There is no such thing as a true value to things that we can stray from. All values are subjective, and they only exist to a sentient mind. Asking the question of whether we place too much value on anything other than ourselves is absurd. Better would be to ask if we should place value at all.

There is also a good deal of attention that needs to be payed to this option... So, we value chickens, and we value humans. Before we decide on whether we value the chickens too much, do we value them alive, or do we value them dead? Do we place a value on the pain that we cause them? Is that value negative? If so, is it more than the positive value of having them dead? If not to the first and thus the second, then you are sadist. If yes to the first and no to the second, then you believe that ends justify means. If yes to both, then you are likely an activist of some kind, or at least eat a vegan diet to avoid supporting the means. Now we can move on. Replace chickens with humans in this example after answering that. How is it different? What makes one of these subjective values more valid than another, when value is defined only by those who would use it? How do you quantify this? Placing a value on an animal is a good deal more complex than you all make it seem. At the very least, you may value an animal in a dead state where you did not value it in a live one. And then you have a value placed on causing harm. And so on...

That said; in my subjective opinion...

Substitute animals in for people at will.

 

I think you could dive into a discussion of charities in general here and realise how they are trends. (Not the charities themselves, bear with me a moment)

But a cause that needs help becomes a short lived trend that is a flavour of the month in sense. I mean December 2009/January 2010 was all about Haiti but you barely hear of charities asking for help with that now. Is haiti in a good state? Nope, it needs help more than ever in reality.

Then September/October 2010 we had the gay suicides in vogue, are teens still doing it and in pain? Yep, but the ever controlling media got bored of telling you about such a thing.

You can't fix everything at once, thats a sad fact. But I think we should highlight needing causes and help them annually. That would have a better effect.

Not onto animals and the PETA, I give no damn for animal rights. Hate to sound like a cold biatch but that's me. There are over sympathizers and factory animals are treated disgustingly but my family is not that rich. We can only afford factory farm eggs/milk/meat because its a financial necessity. Do I think we should treat animals on equal level?
Not really there are some intelligent ones out there but we're on top solely for our minds intellect. Did the chicken make the TV? Nah, we did.

Personally I would like to go vegetarian if I get into university this September but not for the animal rights. More on the basis I hate the taste and texture of most meat and would love to delve into the realms of deeper flavours from other products in the ignorance of meat.

Well there is my little opinion. I hope it has some contribution.