The Value of Human Life vs. Animal Life

[CGSteve8718]

Hi

I do value human life over animal or plant life but

the callous disregard for and abuse of other life, tends to mark the individual as someone who may not place much value on any life. Human or animal. It is a definite (but not conclusive) indication of sociopathic behavior.

But I agree with you to the extent that way too many felonies are on the books today... Thanks to way too many people singing the mantra, "There oughta be a law," which our "trusted" legislatures promptly comply. sigh...

I couldn't agree with or said better, on both parts.

 

[gordo_gun_guy]

Don't punch yet, OBTC

Too many people accept at face value that animals are good and anything that hurts them is bad. Tell that to the victims of the resurgence in the coyote pupulation....

I'm apalled that the only conflict shown in many of the shows my kids try to watch is rescueing animals. We've censored so many other forms of conflict and violence that it's all they can broadcast for certain age groups--and we don't think about the consequences that brainwashing kids with this message will have down the road.

If you will treat an animal bad, you will treat a human bad as well. Its a matter of character.

True, but I don't believe in trying to legislate character or morality; forcing the outward form of, in this case, respecting animal life doesn't mean they'll ever learn it in their hearts.

If you don't believe animal cruelty should be a felony, do you also think that destroying inanimate objects should not be a felony?

Like, maybe if someone burned down the Redwood Forest on purpose, just for the hell of it. Do you think that should not be a felony? I mean after all its just a bunch of trees, right?

Animals and objects should be treated alike--they're either singly or collectively owned. So if someone stole and mutilated your horse, it should be a felony just as if they stole your car, but for the theft/destruction of YOUR property rather than the horse's suffering. Likewise, burning a redwood forest or slaughtering a herd of deer are both crimes because you're unlawfully destoying property that doesn't belong to you.

I respect the bond that a loyal dog and owner can form. Yet if that dog turns on the owner or mauls the neighbor's kid (unprovoked) it should be put down without too many tears.

As for Vick, those dogs weren't his pets, or anyone's pets; they were his PROPERTY and they definitely weren't little Lassies growing up loyal to a little Timmy. I think the sport is stupid and wasteful, but if Vick gets his cathartic bloodlust experiences that way instead of hurting people in some Hostel type action, so be it.

I'm disappointed, too that while racial/cultural differences were cited in the media banter about the Vick case, none of it was very articulate. I have very low opinions on such diverse and stupid animal practices as cock fighting, dog fighting, and especially camel jockeying but there are fully civilised cultures that embrace all of those things as normal and good.

And we do things that other cultures frown on; how about taking a Hindu to Outback Steak House?

My personal favorite was my old Japanese boss prior to the opening day of PA deer season, (looking at each of us in turn) "You murder deer? You murder deer? You all not here on Murder Deer Day? I have nobody to work on Murder Deer Day!"

I hate being on the side of the moral relativists almost as much as I would hate being on the side of PETA:barf:, but seriously, if we're digging up Bible verses to support laws on the treatment of animals, it's a warning flag that we're using the tools of the State to force just one set of moral (and I use the old delineation of morals stemming from religious beliefs and ethics from secualr principles) beliefs on a society with diverse moral teachings on this issue. Of course, if the animals become citzens of the State....

 

[C Philip]

Like, maybe if someone burned down the Redwood Forest on purpose, just for the hell of it. Do you think that should not be a felony? I mean after all its just a bunch of trees, right?

I think makes a difference is whether or not it is your property. If you own the redwood, then by all means do whatever you like with it. If you own an animal, then it's the same. Plants and animals are both living things and can both be property of humans, and humans should be able to use or abuse their property how they see fit. I'm not saying it's good or bad to do so, but it isn't up to the government to decide people's morals and what they should or should not do with things that they own.

If you will treat an animal bad, you will treat a human bad as well. Its a matter of character.

I think this assumes that animal life is equal to human life. That would be like saying, "well since you beat up your tricycle you must have a bad character and will thus beat up your Ferrari." Obviously not. The tricycle is cheap and easily replaced, the Ferrari is not. Don't any of you have a "beater" gun or truck that you don't really care about? You don't treat all your guns or trucks that way do you? The value of the thing is very important, so I don't think you can equate treating animals bad to treating humans bad.

As for Vick; he should rot. Something wrong with a human who enables, encourages and profits from dogs fighting to the death.

I'm going to play devils advocate here on this one: If he encouraged and profited from holding robot fighting matches where the loser was destroyed, should he rot? I mean, after all, all that money they spent on those robots could have fed the poor and bought medicine. Dogs just cost money, robots just cost money, both are property of the one who purchases them and can be replaced with more money. The only difference is that one can feel pain and the other can not, but is the pain (an arbitrary feeling) of some animal really that much of a difference that it justifies sending a man to prison? What if they drugged up the dogs beforehand so they didn't feel pain?

 

[The Tourist]

When normal, rational individuals take sides with the Animal Liberation Front on any issue, I think it shows a serious flaw in the poster's logic.

Then don't touch my dog Sasha.

One night my little dog laid peacefully in my lap when a TV news story came on reporting the latest crime of man against humanity. I thought it over a bit, and opined to wife that I really didn't care what criminals did to each other.

But I added, "In that regard, Sasha is quite safe."

I might shoot a home invader. I might even do it dispassionately.

But to those who would seek to hurt my dog, I intend to use a knife. To paraphrase Leonidas' wife, "You're not going to like it, and it will last a very long time."

I await your rebuttal.

 

[oldbillthundercheif]

There we go. That's a pretty good example of the weird emotional gibberish that I was speaking of.

Rebuttal?

How about "you are insane", or "be sure to lay down plastic before cutting up a suspected dog criminal". The second is more witty, but I think the first is more appropriate.

Torture with a blade... damn. That's even more creepy than BikerRN's screed about bashing in skulls with a wrench to save a dog.

Can you round up a few of your buddies, Tourist? I was hoping to draw out a few more responses like that to illustrate what I was talking about.

 

[2rugers]

Sorry Bill, but those sentiments he expresses are akin to the way I would feel if such were done to my dogs.

Are they human? Well of course not.
Are they close members of the family? You bet.

I loathe irresponsible pet owners.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It is my position that the life of a man is infinitely more valuable than the life of any animal. Because of this I have been railed against in a wide variety of discussions...

I contend that treating animals as beings with a value to society equal or close to equal to humans is the start of a dangerous downward spiral that will lead to hunting being banned, misdemeanor animal-related crimes turned into serious felonies (already happening), and our traditional American lifestyle being gutted.

There is the catch, value to society. When judging anything with a bias such as this will produce biased results. Of course animals don't have the same value as humans to society as they are not a part of society in that they do not consciously and intellectually interact with humans as equals within human-defined society.

So your reasoning is circular. Since only humans make up human society and you judge all things non-human to humans and human society, then they cannot be considered equal by definition. It is a form of anthropocentrism. You speak of emotional gibberish, but anthropocentrism is just species-based bigotry.

Given that most animals operate primarily on instinct or behaviors outside of cultural society and given that people operate mostly on learned cultural behavior and have the ability to make conscious decisions about what they do, then there are most definitely some humans (not just men) whose lives I value less than that of most animals.

 

[applesanity]

If killing every manatee, spotted owl, orangutan, humpback whale, and doe-eyed puppy on this planet somehow gave the magical solution of ending world hunger (for humans), I'd do it.

But it's not like I'd be laughing maniacally as I'm flinging whale intestines in air while dancing in a pool of squashed-up puppy eyeballs.

Nietzsche (you know - that guy that's beyond good and evil and stuff) suffered a nervous breakdown after seeing a coachdriver beat his horse. Nietzsche never really recovered.

 

[Mainah]

Dog fighting harms people, and the culture that treats dogs like weapons does too. Think of all the pit bull mauling cases that you've heard about.

 

[Redworm]

If killing every manatee, spotted owl, orangutan, humpback whale, and doe-eyed puppy on this planet somehow gave the magical solution of ending world hunger (for humans), I'd do it.

Even if doing such things would cause irrevocable harm to the environment and probably starve out future generations when the food chain completely collapses?

 

[Trip20]

There we go. That's a pretty good example of the weird emotional gibberish that I was speaking of.

I think your past bears some relevance to this discussion.

This is from a post of yours in the "cop cooked his dog in a car" thread:

When it comes to the Vick scumbag I guess I just think that multiple years in a federal prison for doing the things I did every day as an animal control employee in a somewhat more cruel manner seems harsh. At least the fighting dogs got to live an adventerous life first, the ones I sent to the freezer only sat in cages waiting for the needle.

I killed dozens of dogs on a daily basis. It was part of my job. I hated it, but they were dogs, not people. You can't treat dogs as if their lives are equal to ours or you get into a weird PETA mindset and daily life becomes shocking to the conscience.

I'd caution you to consider the possibility that your time in doggy disposal forced you to detach yourself from the activities you performed in order to cope with the unpleasantness of the process.

As understandable as that may be, in doing so, you may have gone too far towards the other extreme opposite your buddies in ALF. Extremism is not rational.

The attitude that any animal has a social value significant enough to warrant the death or imprisonment on felony charges of any human because of its mistreatment is disgusting to me and shows a lack of appreciation for the things that make us human.

The attitude that an animal is insigificant to an extent that we should allow it's torture and mistreatment is disgusting to me and shows a complete lack of appreciation and understanding for the things that make us human.

Thanks to the very things that make us human, we should expect other humans to treat animals suitably.

 

[2rugers]

"Laughing maniacally as I fling whale intestines in the air while dancing in a pool of squashed up puppy eyeballs"LOL

What have you been reading Applesanity?!!

 

[grymster2007]

Dogs just cost money, robots just cost money, both are property of the one who purchases them and can be replaced with more money. The only difference is that one can feel pain and the other can not.

A dog is not a human, but this reminds me that in many ways, dogs are superior:

• A dog is your friend for life
• A dog will protect you with it’s own life
• A dog will not lie to you
• A dog will not post threads so callous and stupid as to serve as an embarrassment for the entire planet

Is it OK to receive sick pleasure and profit from the killing of chimpanzees? How about mentally retarded people? How about kids? After all, they can be bought and sold and are the property of the person that paid for them; just like robots. Except, of course, that minor issue of pain... but then that's arbitrary... right?

Vick should rot.

 

[C Philip]

I think that those that say they would kill someone who hurt their dog are not saying that the life of an animal is of equal or greater value than a human, just that the life of their dog is worth more to them than the life of a criminal. While they might think animals are in general not equal to humans, that doesn't mean every animal is lesser then every human. It's all a matter of emotional investment and replacement cost. The more emotionally invested you are and the greater the replacement cost the more strongly you will feel about the loss of something. Certainly you are more emotionally invested in your spouse than in your dog. It would also take a great deal more effort to find another loving spouse than to buy another puppy and raise it to be a loyal dog, so the replacement cost is also a big factor.

That said, emotional investment can apply to anything, not just living creatures. You can be emotionally attached to your house, your grandfather's rifle, your wedding ring, etc. Who is to say that an emotional attachment to an inanimate object such as those is worth any less that the attachment to something like a dog? Both animals and inanimate objects are property of the human that owns them. So to those of you who would kill a criminal for killing your dog, would you also kill that criminal for destroying your most valued family heirloom? Assuming you are very emotionally attached to both, why would you want to kill a criminal over one and not the other? A precious family heirloom can be replaced no easier than a dog, both carry strong emotional ties with them, and in the end they are both just property.

Is it OK to receive sick pleasure and profit from the killing of chimpanzees? How about mentally retarded people? How about kids? After all, they can be bought and sold and are the property of the person that paid for them; just like robots.

The proper question would be "Is it OK to receive pleasure and profit from the killing of chimpanzees?" By saying "sick pleasure" you're asking a loaded question and imposing your personal morals. If you own a chimpanzee and want to destroy it, it's your property, go ahead. It might be wrong or wasteful or evil but it's not for the law to decide people's morals when it comes to their possessions, nor does everyone have the same morals. It's called moral relativism. Mentally retarded people and kids? Of course not, they are human. We're talking about animals being used as property to fight, not people.

• A dog is your friend for life
• A dog will protect you with it’s own life
• A dog will not lie to you
• A dog will not post threads so callous and stupid as to serve as an embarrassment for the entire planet

A robot could be your friend for life. A robot could be programmed to protect you at the cost of self. A robot would not lie to you. A robot would not post threads so callous and stupid as to serve as an embarrassment for the entire planet. The whole point I'm trying to make is that everything is relative to the emotional investment you have in it and relative to your individual morals. As long as you are dealing with your personal property I do not think the law should dictate whether your actions are right or wrong.

 

[ZeroJunk]

A dog will not post threads so callous and stupid as to serve as an embarrassment for the entire planet

.

Well said.

 

[Redworm]

wait, are we now onto the value of human life vs the value of cylon life?

 

[C Philip]

Cyclon? If by that you mean robots, then no. I am equating robots to animals, not to people. I am saying that both are property of humans for the purpose of demonstrating my point that emotional investment and replacement cost is the main factor in how you react to the loss of something, not whether or not the object itself is alive. I think you could feel equal emotional stress at the loss of say, a classic car you spent the past 15 years and thousands of dollars restoring, as you would feel for the loss of a dog. Both require a lot of time, money, and can have strong emotional ties. You say you'll never be able to buy the exact same dog again, but neither can you buy the exact same car again. You can get another like it, but not exactly the same and not one that has the same emotional investment that comes with working on it for 15 years. If you read my previous posts I think that much is clear. I am saying that in this respect there is not much difference between living property and inanimate property, and thus there should not be a legal distinction.

 

[Redworm]

It was a joke but I do see what you're saying. However no amount of money spent on a car will ever compare to the life of a sentient creature.

Now as for the robot, what if this robot has highly advanced artificial intelligence? Perhaps AI supplanted by actual human neurons. Then you get into the question of "what does it mean to be alive?" and it confuddles the whole thing. But in staying with the original topic, animals may not have the same rights and consideration of a human being but it takes a pretty sick individual and sorry excuse for a human being to abuse an animal for his own pleasure.

What Vick did was utterly disgusting. Trophy hunting less so but still pretty heinous. A fourteen year old kicking a puppy is disgusting. Animals may be lower on the food chain than the rest of us but they are still living creatures and life always deserves a modicum of respect.

 

[applesanity]

Even if doing such things would cause irrevocable harm to the environment and probably starve out future generations when the food chain completely collapses?

Keyword on "magical solution." It was a hypothetical. I was just picking out animals that environmentalists and hippies and PETA and ALF really really love - to say that if their deaths (the animals, not the PETA members) somehow magically ended world hunger, I'd do it.

I doubt that orangutans and spotted owls have much an impact on the food chain (unrelated). Speaking of, the spotted owl campaign was a ruse by the EPA to stop land development. A whole 'nother can of worms there.

I remember a Penn & Teller episode where the logical extreme was presented: if we're gonna equate animals to humans, then we're gonna equate animals to humans. If a dog kills a cat, that dog is getting a life sentence for murder. Wait, aren't all animals naked? They should be locked up for indecent exposure. Hence or otherwise - the ultimate fallacy of the animal rights movement.

"Laughing maniacally as I fling whale intestines in the air while dancing in a pool of squashed up puppy eyeballs"LOL

What have you been reading Applesanity?!!

An extreme way of saying that taking enjoyment from slaughtering anything - man or beast - is a bit disgusting. I've been reading the TFL.

 

[Redworm]

I understand your point, I'm just saying that killing off an entire species even if it somehow ended world hunger could cause worse changes in the future. The spotted owl may not have an impact on the food chain where you live but in some areas entire crops could die because the owl isn't there to eat the little bug that just happens to have a penchant for wheat/corn/whatever.

I'm no fan of PETA and I feel the ALF is nothing more than a terrorist organization that needs to be shut down and charged as such. And while I do feel that human lives are more important than animals lives I don't feel that human lives are more important than the planet as a whole.